The image looks great! I think that RAW layer blending is a little bit convoluted but certainly if you have the time, HD space and desire to do it then who am I to stop you.
jaggedhorizon wrote:
This is absolutely superb! Thank you for always sharing fantastic images.
I'm flabbergasted by the aperture...f/64? Is that correct?
Huge thank you! Great conditions! Yes, I was using a 2X converter for my 70-200. This was stopped down to f/64 as I was only taking it quickly to show my clients the technique described above... I did take the same image in a variety of settings, so when I re-do the image for critical enlargement, I'll choose the sharpest file... But, this file does not lack in sharpness. The 32-bit Raw layer workflow is helping a ton here.
dbehrens wrote:
Gorgeous comp, colors and light. Love how the side light gives the illusion that the horizon is tipping to the right. Glad to see the A7r2 is still performing well for you (its still my choice for landscapes).
Another winning wall hanger for sure! Dave
Thank you so much Dave! . I hope you and your wife are doing great. BTW, the Sony A7R3 kicks the 2's tail!
But the 4? I would not even take one for free.
mdude85 wrote:
The image looks great! I think that RAW layer blending is a little bit convoluted but certainly if you have the time, HD space and desire to do it then who am I to stop you.
Huge thank you!
For me the 32-bit RAW layer workflow is not convoluted and as I have been developing it for the last 4-5 years, is really easy. Also, the tremendous benefits to image quality (for both enlargements, and just overall total perfection of cleanliness and lack of any artifacting) outweighs any time it takes to learn. And hard drive/cloud space is huge and cheap today... But I definitely would agree that it is much more for fine art photographers very interested in taking file quality to its absolute maximum. Particularly people pushing print enlargement quality.
For me the 32-bit RAW layer workflow is not convoluted and as I have been developing it for the last 4-5 years, is really easy. Also, the tremendous benefits to image quality (for both enlargements, and just overall total perfection of cleanliness and lack of any artifacting) outweighs any time it takes to learn. And hard drive/cloud space is huge and cheap today... But I definitely would agree that it is much more for fine art photographers very interested in taking file quality to its absolute maximum. Particularly people pushing print enlargement quality.
That light is amazing! I always appreciate your comments about workflow. Are you working in 32bit mode in PS after opening the raw (smart objects) in PS? I'm definitely looking forward to a video about this workflow.
Mark Metternich wrote:
For me the 32-bit RAW layer workflow is not convoluted and as I have been developing it for the last 4-5 years, is really easy. Also, the tremendous benefits to image quality (for both enlargements, and just overall total perfection of cleanliness and lack of any artifacting) outweighs any time it takes to learn. And hard drive/cloud space is huge and cheap today... But I definitely would agree that it is much more for fine art photographers very interested in taking file quality to its absolute maximum. Particularly people pushing print enlargement quality.
That you've been developing this workflow for 4-5 years, and that your own bio says you're one of the few people in the world who specialize in this specific type of processing, seems evidence to me that most people would find it pretty complicated.
But I agree if clients want (or are sold) the perception of maximum quality for large prints then this is the cutting edge. Whether people can actually perceive a difference in the end product I don't know. I assume you will say they can, as otherwise it would undermine the time and resources you've spent developing your technique. It's always been an interesting discussion, to me it is reminiscent of the ancient "film vs. digital" argument as it relates to resolution ... those days are long gone and now the discussion has shifted to how many trillions of colors you can fit in an image in order to improve dynamic range.
mdude85 wrote:
That you've been developing this workflow for 4-5 years, and that your own bio says you're one of the few people in the world who specialize in this specific type of processing, seems evidence to me that most people would find it pretty complicated.
But I agree if clients want (or are sold) the perception of maximum quality for large prints then this is the cutting edge. Whether people can actually perceive a difference in the end product I don't know. I assume you will say they can, as otherwise it would undermine the time and resources you've spent developing your technique. It's always been an interesting discussion, to me it is reminiscent of the ancient "film vs. digital" argument as it relates to resolution ... those days are long gone and now the discussion has shifted to how many trillions of colors you can fit in an image in order to improve dynamic range....Show more →
I very much appreciate the feedback here, but like on one of my other posts, I'm not going to get into debating online about this here.
If you (or anyone) would like to chat, or message me directly (PM or email) about how to make the workflow easy, or about the incontrovertible and obviously noticeable quality benefits we see daily, please feel free. 👍🏼
Mark, sometimes people don’t understand how telephotos are a staple of landscape shooting, and I love that you shot this at 320mm, a perfect demonstration of what very selective field of view can help accomplish. My 70-200 has been my most used landscape lens for years even for autumn/spring forests, and not infrequently I will need the 1.4x or 2x to get what I’m envisioning (or switch to the bulky 200-500).
I also love that you shot at effective f/64. Diffraction does not hold back artistry. It can be dealt with just fine with proper sharpening (especially deconvolution).
Well, that is really something, that one. Bravo to you! It's really stunning and ethereal. Might be a dumb question, but were you on land or in a boat when you made this image? Had to have been land, right?
. I hope you and your wife are doing great. BTW, the Sony A7R3 kicks the 2's tail!