Yes, they look over-sharpened to me, too. I like the second image best. The colors, texture, and character of the building and rock wall appeal to me. I like the vines, the rust, the wagon wheel, all of it.
Very nice scene with lots of interests. Did you have have sun hitting your polarizer to create this effect. Your right, it looks like too much sharpening.
1 for me would be better with some more negative space on right so it does not look centred.
If you didn't sharpen them, I assume you are shooting jpg and your in-camera sharpening is set too high In any event, I'm OK with the compositions and like the subdued colors. I would, however, suggest you note the Posting Recommendations and limit your image sizes to 800 or so pixels on the longest side so the images can be viewed without scrolling.
Cloudbow wrote:
Yes, they look over-sharpened to me, too. I like the second image best. The colors, texture, and character of the building and rock wall appeal to me. I like the vines, the rust, the wagon wheel, all of it.
Bev
Thanks Bev! Much appreciated!
Scott Stoness wrote:
Very nice scene with lots of interests. Did you have have sun hitting your polarizer to create this effect. Your right, it looks like too much sharpening.
1 for me would be better with some more negative space on right so it does not look centred.
2 simiarly 2 seems too centred too.
Scott
Good points on the framing! Thanks Scott!
I don't remember but I almost never shoot with a polarizer because the camera is older and kinda crappy compared to a new DSLR or something - so i keep it permanently at ISO 64. This makes polarizers difficult to use. So I'm going to assume I had none attached for these. I probably should have tho now looking at the very granular texture of the trees and such.
hugh wrote:
If you didn't sharpen them, I assume you are shooting jpg and your in-camera sharpening is set too high In any event, I'm OK with the compositions and like the subdued colors. I would, however, suggest you note the Posting Recommendations and limit your image sizes to 800 or so pixels on the longest side so the images can be viewed without scrolling.
hugh
I actually want Image #1 to be scrolled if the viewer is on a tiny monitor. But I think those recommendations are now history. Safari's Command + and Command - key combinations now scale the images along with the text, tables, and etc. For photography I don't think there's a better on-line browser than Safari - and it's "better" by a very large margin. Every color space just works for one.
On the sharpening thing I dunno what's going on exactly. These are RAW images brought into PS via ACR with sharpness and noise removal set to 0. Then touched slightly with Topaz Adjust 3, cropped, scaled, color space applied, reduced to 8-bit, and saved as JPG. For #2 I removed a white car and replaced it with a 3D rendering of a bush tho (bottom left). I think it's a combination of the PS scaling and the JPG compression myself. Here's a clipping from the RAW with no processing other than color space applied, reduced to 8-bit, and saved as JPG:
Even that looks sharpened to me somehow... and that's RAW for crying out loud. I suppose it doesn't help that my sensor is a tiny little thing either tho.
First as to the size recommendations by Hugh, they are still current. So please try to not post shots that are too large.
As to not using a polarizer because you are using ISO 64? I shot for years with Kodachrome 64 and still used a polarizer.... many of us shoot at ISO 100 now with polarizers. I would really encourage the use of a polarizer, especially when shooting tree's and leaves. It will make all the difference in the world.
In your first shot, I don't like that the sky is blown. Those are some really cool buildings, and it looks like a really sweet place to shoot.
Looking over all the shots and your comments about sharpening. It's strange to figure out what is going on, but it definately looks over sharpened. And downsizing a shot for the web in jpg, I have never seen that make a shot look sharper... so I don't see where the jpg compression would be doing it. That always makes a shot look softer. Infact, after I resize my down to web size, I always add a slight sharpening to them to bring back the sharpness that is lost by resizing...
Yeah, I know you're right about polarizers. But sometimes the 2 or 3 stops is enough to demand the use of a tripod. Anyway after finding Topaz DeNoise I commented about in another thread, I'm going to start using higher ISOs anyway so I'll probably be leaving the polarizer on more often as well.
JPEGs, yeah, I use the preview checkbox in the save dialogue a lot (every image - multiple settings) and occasionally the compression can make things look sharper. Sometimes softer too and sometimes it can add all kinds of weird colors even. But I saved these images at 8 for the top and 7 for the bottom so you're probably right about that too and the compression likely isn't severe enough to do anything at all to the images.
Resizing effects depend a lot on the algorithm type being used and of course the image content it's acting on. Anyway, I couldn't think of anything else so i just said the first things that came to mind.
I'm new to the Topaz Adjuster (I got it after seeing how great the topaz denoise was) and it has detail boosting, sharpening, and optionally uses the Topaz DeNoise if installed which also has sharpening. Although I had the boost, detail, and sharpening turned off I did tell it to use the DeNoise plug-in. So maybe that applied sharpening? I processed them when I was really tired and my eyes were having trouble focusing. As someone famous once said: "What a drag it is getting old!"
I think I'm going to remove the top one. It's too big you say, and not a very good shot anyway.
Well, you are correct... using a polarizer and losing that extra few stops of light does mean you should be using a tripod.... but then again, aren't you already supposed to be using a tripod....
Ha Ha... yeah, I like your use of the algorithm... But I am thinking the Topaz Adjuster is your culprit here... In using the DeNoise, that is where that extra sharpening could be coming in. I don't use that, but on Noiseware which I do use, I can adjust how much or how little I want it to sharpen.
Hey now! Your first shot wasn't that bad. I mean it only had a blown out sky, was fractilizing from being over sharpened, and the color was a bit wierd.... but other then that I really liked it!
Seriously, I hope you figure out where the extra sharpening is coming from. You have some really cool area's to shoot over there, and since I am not visiting Japan anytime soon, it will be great to have you as our long distance tour guide...
JimFox wrote:
Well, you are correct... using a polarizer and losing that extra few stops of light does mean you should be using a tripod.... but then again, aren't you already supposed to be using a tripod....
Hehehe, But at 1/100's of a second I have confidence in my abilities.
Ha Ha... yeah, I like your use of the algorithm... But I am thinking the Topaz Adjuster is your culprit here... In using the DeNoise, that is where that extra sharpening could be coming in. I don't use that, but on Noiseware which I do use, I can adjust how much or how little I want it to sharpen.
Yeah, same with the Topaz tools. I can't remember now if calling the sharpener from the de-noiser allows for user adjustment or if it just uses the "last used settings".
Hey now! Your first shot wasn't that bad. I mean it only had a blown out sky, was fractilizing from being over sharpened, and the color was a bit wierd.... but other then that I really liked it!
I left a link to it tho.
Seriously, I hope you figure out where the extra sharpening is coming from. You have some really cool area's to shoot over there, and since I am not visiting Japan anytime soon, it will be great to have you as our long distance tour guide...
I'm beginning to think that it's just me wishing that my bridge camera had the micro-contrast and tonality of a $2,000 lens and $4,000 FF sensor (body). Thus I'm just manually over-sharpening it all on my own.
BTW, Bev, if you're still reading on, those walls (unless you meant the stone wall below the building) are traditional Japanese mud walls where the external covering (wood planking, lime, aluminum siding, stucco maybe, etc.) has come off or was taken off. You can see examples if you're interested just by scrolling though these - these are all Japanese mud-wall constructions, though these with proper coverings. You can see the most common type in this example of a badly damaged one:
Anyway enjoy and let us know what you think. 
In any event, I'm OK with the compositions and like the subdued colors. I would, however, suggest you note the Posting Recommendations and limit your image sizes to 800 or so pixels on the longest side so the images can be viewed without scrolling.
This makes polarizers difficult to use. So I'm going to assume I had none attached for these. I probably should have tho now looking at the very granular texture of the trees and such.
Thus I'm just manually over-sharpening it all on my own. 