On 7/10/2017 2:25 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
WOW!
Thanks!
(Panny, FM, NI and Adobe thank you, as well.)
Am I right to assume that filenames ending ...fm have had Focus Magic
applied, Moose? But without that suffix, are out-of-camera?
Unless I was fallible at that moment, yes. These suffixes apply only to post downsampling 'sharpening', to correct for
detail loss in that sampling process. My naming conventions are pretty consistent:
'oof' means FocusMagic Out of Focus correction (It also does movement
correction, which I use MUCH less often.)
The number means the amount applied. 'oof70' means one pixel radius and 70% opacity of the FM layer. 'oof120' would mean
two pixel radius and 60% opacity.
(FM allows only whole pixel settings. Layer opacity and mask painting allow subtle in between adjustments. Topaz
InFocus, the other generic deconvolution app, allows in between settings. When I have compared it to FM with care, I've
found little to choose between them in results. I find FM easier to use.)
'oofm' means the deconvolution layer(s) are masked, applying different amounts of correction, in differing amounts, to
different parts of the image.
I am dumbfounded!
That a 10x 'consumer' grade zoom is that good at the long end?
There's a lot of knowledge about lenses left over from MF film lenses in my head-space, and even more in many other
people's heads - that just isn't true anymore. I just read this on a web page about using MF lenses on A7xx bodies
"There are 30-year-old primes with better image quality than many modern lenses. Of course progress has happened in
recent years but still even cheap primes are often sharper than very expensive modern zooms."
Yes, one may prefer some aspects of the IQ, but no, generally not sharper, has
been my experience.
------------------------------
That FM is so effective? That Moose is so good at applying it? ;-)
I should probably say what the process is.
1. I applied NeatImage to these images, as a first step. At base ISO, as here, and as I have my NI profiles set, NR is
balanced by re-sharpening in NI, and the result has subtle, but definite, increases in fine detail visibility. I assume
the resharpening is USM (?), but crafted to match the way their NR affects the image. In any case, it does a good job of
bringing up detail a little without artifacts. I use it more for detail than NR, at this ISO.
2. I applied FM to the full size images, radius one for the people, two for the bicycle - by eye, to taste. This is
'capture sharpening', to compensate partially for sampling loss in initial capture.
In the 100% samples, that's what you are seeing, along with a combination of some or all of LCE, Shadow/Highlights,
Curves, Levels, and occasional other tools. LCE, in particular, may also contribute to the visibility of fine detail.
3. In the downsampled versions of whole or partially cropped frames, I've
applies various amounts of FM, as above.
If all this sounds complicated, or like a lot of work, it's generally not.* I have PS actions to create new layers and
apply the various adjustments, so the busywork details are automated. Applying my default NI settings, for example, can
be one click. When I need to do detailed masking, it can be time consuming. On these images, I only used that once, on
the face of the man, and it took a second to mask.
Well Processed Moose
* Well, compared to out of camera JPEG, yes, but those don't get "WOW!" or
"dumbfounded" responses. :-)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|