RustyBug Online Upload & Sell: On
|
pixarezzo wrote:
Thank you! I was a little surprised the raw image wasn't sharper overall. I'm happy to end up with the final results.
Which lens, what aperture, what shutter speed, what time of day, what direction?
A little soft + a little soft + a little soft + a little soft + a little soft, can = a little more than a little soft.
The lighting is sidelighting at best (note rim lighting and direction of shadows), but looks to be a bit more oblique backlighting, rather than front lighting (at least the higher contrast key light). The significance to that, means that the balance of the flower (other than the key lit rim areas) are being illuminated by low contrast fill, i.e. soft light.
So, while the illuminance contrast ratio between key / fill lighting is rather close in terms of quantity of illumination, the quality of contrast (hard/key/specular vs. soft/fill/diffuse) can still remain different ... i.e. the bulk of the subject was illuminated via (uber ) soft light, and possibly captured via additionally softer characteristics of the lens attributes. Shooting WO can be a softer rendering for a given lens.
Also, shooting from mfd (or nearly so) renders the shallow dof also that softens your subject except in the most proximity to the focus plane ... which looks to be more toward the rearward/mid petals (aligned to the left rim lit one) rather than the front or some field curvature is working backward (from center) rather than forward.
Then there is another matter that is not well spoken to (I'm not as well versed as I'd like to be yet), and that is the color light on the color of subject @ warm on warm and its impact on things, particularly @ RGGB/RGBG where we are then recording to (largely) a single pixel of the four. I don't have a good explanation to the impact of this (exposure / noise / smearing / bloom / etc.), but I have noticed it can present some impact to the IQ that comes out a bit diff than expected at times.
So, there can be several "little" pieces to the puzzle that can add up to be a little more than a little.
Still, it has a nice rich, lovely look to it (first glance on cell phone). On the larger display, the lack of detail shows through a bit more noticeably, but it still has a nice conveyance. Probably not something I'd look to print very large, but keep it the right size and the loveliness of the light and subject render nicely ... just not detail junkie material.
|