p.2 #1 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
OregonSun wrote:
Nice set Scott, I think that's the one I went to the one time I was in Banff a few years ago. 1 and 4 for me too. 1 might benefit from either more ice in the frame or none at all.
Heron
Thank you. I will go back and see whether I have more ice on the right. Glad you like 1,4. Much appreciated. Scott
p.2 #6 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
Scott,
great set, I agree on the consensus of #1 being very special. The whole set is amazing, I would also single out #2 myself. How is the R5 doing in the cold? Any issues so far?
p.2 #7 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
Very nice. Thank you for sharing.
Feb 03, 2021 at 12:42 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
Absolutely beautiful images all around here!! Breathtaking in fact! As always...
Monitor, techie question (please forgive me if this is too inquisitive and detailed). I'm curious if you working on a 4K or 5K display?
I think your first image would benefit tremendously from some careful luminance noise reduction. But, because of the pixels per inch issues associated with various displays (especially 4k and above) most photographers using a 4k or 5k displays (or laptops and some other sizes) are unaware of the true noise profile (how much noise is really in the image) or sharpening artifacts.
For very accurate sharpening and noise acutance (being able to see it as is) a 0.22mm to 0.25mm Pixel Pitch (pixel size) is absolutely the best range for being able to see it on a display at the critical/proper processing viewing distances necessary to most effectively deal with.
This ideal pixel size translates to 100ppi (ideally) to 115ppi (quite good but not the best) as the highest resolution that can still be critically effective. 0.25mm being certainly the best (as an example, a Dell UP3017 or U 3014 - 30" QHD monitor - 2560x1600 is 100ppi - hitting the sweet spot ideally).
Even a 0.23mm pixel size (like an older Mac Thunderbolt, 27 inch QHD display at 2560 x 1440) is only 109 pixels per inch, and noticeably starts to hinder visual acuity for noise and sharpening. ***Only 9 pixels per inch more than the Dell!!! The threshold is really that small!
So with 100ppi (0.25mm) being the best/perfect size to view noise and sharpening issues (at their correct viewing distances) and 109ppi (0.23) starting to handicap the process a bit, at the critical/necessary viewing distances, one might be able to imagine how much we are shooting in the dark with 4K - 5K displays! A typical 4K - 27" display = 163ppi! And a 5K - 27" = 217ppi). This is more than double the resolution in a inch!
Robert Park (Nevada Art Printers - Lumachrome HD) and I teach this all the time, and it always amazes me when clients go out of their way to acquire the ideal display, and then are horrified at what they did not see before (many say they have to go back and RE-DO all their previous work - which makes sense if they are going to make a serious enlargement). A client emailed this to me the other day:
"My new/old Dell 3014 [I just purchased] got here and W O W - look at all that noise!!! In my pictures!!! So THAT'S what you were talking about [taught at the workshop]! 😭
We see issues in images on the web too.
Anyone that might be interested in WHAT monitor(s) are recommended, feel free to PM me (so far we cant beat a QHD 30").
BUT if anyone wants to figure it out on their own, they can look into the SPECS of ANY monitor (you have to find both the resolution in pixels as well as the TRUE size not the advertised size (this is measured from corner to corner, not width - and also will be be listed in full specs) and then look up a "Pixel Pitch Calculator" online (free websites) you can find out exactly how close your desired (or acquired) display is to the awesome 0.25mm.
Sorry if this is too nerdy, but I thought it might help some folks.
p.2 #9 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
sathsy2017: Vermillion is one of the easiest places to get a great picture. The colours are always great unless its overcast. Glad you like the images. Much appreciated. Scott
gordon l: Glad you like the first. Its is not a usual composition for me, but I like the colours and the loops. Much appreciated. Scott
t45119: Glad you like 4. The reflections were nice that morning and they came around twice. I had to run for this shot to the spot I had scoped out. Thank you for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott
harland: Nice to hear from you. I have not seen many posts from you lately. Retirement must be too busy. Glad you like the first. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott
p.2 #10 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
another_mikey: So far the R5 has not given me any grief in the cold. But the coldest I have had it out was at -27c for 1.5 hours which is not an overly tough test. No issues yet in the cold. Even the battery performance was okay at this temperature and the LCD did well as well. I am waiting for -35 in the wind to declare that its okay in the cold.
Glad you like 1 and 2. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott
hm2008: Glad you like the pictures. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott
p.2 #11 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
Mark Metternich wrote:
Absolutely beautiful images all around here!! Breathtaking in fact! As always...
Monitor, techie question (please forgive me if this is too inquisitive and detailed). I'm curious if you working on a 4K or 5K display?
I think your first image would benefit tremendously from some careful luminance noise reduction. But, because of the pixels per inch issues associated with various displays (especially 4k and above) most photographers using a 4k or 5k displays (or laptops and some other sizes) are unaware of the true noise profile (how much noise is really in the image) or sharpening artifacts.
For very accurate sharpening and noise acutance (being able to see it as is) a 0.22mm to 0.25mm Pixel Pitch (pixel size) is absolutely the best range for being able to see it on a display at the critical/proper processing viewing distances necessary to most effectively deal with.
This ideal pixel size translates to 100ppi (ideally) to 115ppi (quite good but not the best) as the highest resolution that can still be critically effective. 0.25mm being certainly the best (as an example, a Dell UP3017 or U 3014 - 30" QHD monitor - 2560x1600 is 100ppi - hitting the sweet spot ideally).
Even a 0.23mm pixel size (like an older Mac Thunderbolt, 27 inch QHD display at 2560 x 1440) is only 109 pixels per inch, and noticeably starts to hinder visual acuity for noise and sharpening. ***Only 9 pixels per inch more than the Dell!!! The threshold is really that small!
So with 100ppi (0.25mm) being the best/perfect size to view noise and sharpening issues (at their correct viewing distances) and 109ppi (0.23) starting to handicap the process a bit, at the critical/necessary viewing distances, one might be able to imagine how much we are shooting in the dark with 4K - 5K displays! A typical 4K - 27" display = 163ppi! And a 5K - 27" = 217ppi). This is more than double the resolution in a inch!
Robert Park (Nevada Art Printers - Lumachrome HD) and I teach this all the time, and it always amazes me when clients go out of their way to acquire the ideal display, and then are horrified at what they did not see before (many say they have to go back and RE-DO all their previous work - which makes sense if they are going to make a serious enlargement). A client emailed this to me the other day:
"My new/old Dell 3014 [I just purchased] got here and W O W - look at all that noise!!! In my pictures!!! So THAT'S what you were talking about [taught at the workshop]! 😭
We see issues in images on the web too.
Anyone that might be interested in WHAT monitor(s) are recommended, feel free to PM me (so far we cant beat a QHD 30").
BUT if anyone wants to figure it out on their own, they can look into the SPECS of ANY monitor (you have to find both the resolution in pixels as well as the TRUE size not the advertised size (this is measured from corner to corner, not width - and also will be be listed in full specs) and then look up a "Pixel Pitch Calculator" online (free websites) you can find out exactly how close your desired (or acquired) display is to the awesome 0.25mm.
Sorry if this is too nerdy, but I thought it might help some folks.
Thanks Mark. I have two monitors apple 2k and iMac 5k. I have read that I should edit on a lower resolution monitor but sometimes I forget and work on the 5k. I am glad you asked and make me more aware of it and confirm I should be using the 2k monitor. And reading above you are saying that even my apple 2k display might be too much.
And now you are telling me I need a Dell monitor because I am 108 vs 100. My wife will be so happy that your provided this advice. She already looks suspiciously at my two idle towers that have become obsolete and my old apple monitor from my cube. I have to start noticing her purses when she comes to my room.
I also looked up my little 12" 2304 x 1440 and I am way off there.
I will have to look for the opportunity to take your processing course.
Glad you like the images and glad you reminded me that what monitor I use matters. I will do some more reading on it.
p.2 #14 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
wen84108: Glad you like the pictures. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott
jhaji: Glad you like each of them. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott
Feb 05, 2021 at 09:54 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · Vermillion Lake (3rd) - Banff National Park
Scott Stoness wrote:
Thanks Mark. I have two monitors apple 2k and iMac 5k. I have read that I should edit on a lower resolution monitor but sometimes I forget and work on the 5k. I am glad you asked and make me more aware of it and confirm I should be using the 2k monitor. And reading above you are saying that even my apple 2k display might be too much.
And now you are telling me I need a Dell monitor because I am 108 vs 100. My wife will be so happy that your provided this advice. She already looks suspiciously at my two idle towers that have become obsolete and my old apple monitor from my cube. I have to start noticing her purses when she comes to my room.
I also looked up my little 12" 2304 x 1440 and I am way off there.
I will have to look for the opportunity to take your processing course.
Glad you like the images and glad you reminded me that what monitor I use matters. I will do some more reading on it.
I can say one good thing, I go my second Dell U3014 (I wore out the first) certified factory refurbished and in great shape. My wife purchased it online from a place that I believe had a return policy, and I think she paid like $375 -400. It is nearly mint condition.
As far as online reading, there really is not much accurate information out there on this subject. At least I have a very hard time finding it.
