@Diploneis:
Hi, your Makros are wonderful. I just got this (100/2) lens, and wonder, whether those are full frames or crops... the one s with the bee don't seem like 1:2... Or did you use extension tubes?
This is another general question for ZF on Canon users: I use a happypagehk confirm adapter with the V5 chip, and I notice that on my 5dII metering is very unreliable. Most of the time it underexposes grossly, up to 1,3 stops. Is there a "best" method to get reliable metering?
Thank you Luka, Luka "The Shark", Charles and Bernie! Those are just test images - hopefully soon I will have time and opportunity to shoot something more serious!
Luka "The Shark" - a great series with 21 - bold colors and interesting perspective in all! Well done!
Peter - I particularly like the B&W - you cached the moment!
Bernie - No extension tubes. I shot those macros with 30D so is cropped - right? I did crop butterfly a bit and the last one - but rest are as they are.
Hi there, I wanted to congratulate everyone here for their amazing pictures.
I learned a lot here about Zeiss lenses, but about photography as well.
As akul stated earlier I noticed a very interesting discussion about step sharpening, coming from samuli I think. The problem is I don't think I got it right.
I tried several methods for the following picture (just an example), and in the end :
- first it seems oversharpened to me,
- second, I can't notice any gain in details compared to the same picture sized in one time and "smart sharpened" before saving.
What I did is : resize 2500px length, sharpen, resize 1500px length, sharpen, resize 1024px length, very gentle smart sharpen (0,3 radius - 20% strength).
Zeiss ZE 2/28 @ f4
Other than this, I'm so happy with my Zeiss 28mm that I have rapidly found a used ZE 1.4/50 to get along
Beaud: Samuli's step sharpening is good, but like with everything you need to adjust things for particular image. And I do agree - your image looks over sharpened...maybe just skip a step or blend it with underlying "original" layer until you are happy with the result.
Many of the examples in this thread are way oversharpened, as I see it. So just doing what others do might not be the best choice. I prefer sharpening in two steps, and I usually do it different for every singe picture. I also only sharpen the L channel in LAB mode, which doesn't enhance CA and other color aberrations.
Diploneis, you were right, indeed.
I faded the second sharpen, and the result looks far better. Thanks a lot.
I struggled to see the difference between this technique and "usual" sharpening, and it is very subtle, I had to look carrefully at the images, but in the end it does make a difference.
Again, thank you all for sharing your knowledge and your pictures.
Thanks for the comment, makten.
I like the subtle sharpening of your images and samuli's ones, with very fine details yet no trace of aliasing as can often be seen.
I know that I am going to make a total fool of myself, but I have a confession to make. Just as I believe sharpness to be often overrated as a measure of lens performance, my sharpening method is so simplistic as to be totally ridiculous. I open my pics in DPP, where sharpening is set at a certain level, and push to a constant level, which I found to be the one I prefer, basically, the one before any artefacts begin to show up on magnified crops.
That takes me about 2,5 secs per picture, and none of you have ever complained or even commented about any lack in the sharpness department, except Makten, who recently made a positive comment. BTW, I also can't use a tripod more than 1% of the time either, which also doesn't help sharpness. So I guess that makes me a champion of bluntness...
Stanicmi wrote:
ajkula is shark in serbian and croatian
Speaking of which, I'm going to Serbia for a few days near the end of Sept., I'm either transiting through Istanbul, Munich or Paris for roughly 7 hours. Haven't booked yet.
What would you guys say is the best airport for photography? I probably don't really have much time to leave the airport, maybe 3 hours tops. So stuff has to be relatively close, and easy to get to with minimal traffic
Anyway, sorry I haven't been posting photos, I've been working like crazy. Seems my fiance's business has become my second job
But everyones shots look amazing, I'm still lurking around
philber - Ah, 'shark', wIth your note I google'd akul and Iearned it was a Hindi name, but did not realize it had Russian / Croatian / Serbian meaning. Very interesting a reverse of 'luka' could mean.
Luka 'Denoir' - I will try 1024 next time.
Beud - beautiful trees. I see what you mean by challenges in sharpening. It is quite a bit mysterious to me too.
Philber, I'd said it shows a little on some of your pictures, but we're here to look at your pictures (which are beautiful), not to discuss the details of your PP
By far, I'd prefer to shoot great pictures like yours and do no sharpening at all, rather than trying to sharpen perfectly some boring pictures I have in my catalog
Makten wrote:
Many of the examples in this thread are way oversharpened, as I see it. So just doing what others do might not be the best choice. I prefer sharpening in two steps, and I usually do it different for every singe picture. I also only sharpen the L channel in LAB mode, which doesn't enhance CA and other color aberrations.
Very nice shot by the way!
+1 Very nice shot, and yes slightly oversharpened.
I definitely disagree though that oversharpening is a common problem - on the contrary. I think one of the common problems with PP is treating Zeiss images the same way they would Canon or Nikon without taking into consideration the added micro contrast. In short one misses out on extracting the texture that the Zeiss can provide.
Then there are differences in cameras and monitors. For the latter the dotpitch is essential - on screens with large pixels things will tend to look more oversharpened. As for cameras, a 12 megapixel image can't be compared to a 21 megapixel. If you are used to the former it is very likely you will interpret the added detail as sharpening artifacts while they are in fact details in the image.
Finally there is of course the question of taste and of sensitivity. People can be more or less sensitive to sharpening and they like varying degrees of it.
Anyway, to continue the LAB discussion from the Leica thread. I've chosen a couple of images that present sharpening difficulties and I've used a standard method - one in full RGB space one in LAB space with only the L channel. I have chosen a more aggressive sharpening than usual so that the differences can be highlighted.
The images have been linked - open them in separate tabs and flip between them.
Finally,
Set F: I have never managed to sharpen this image properly. Every method I tried and the rock on the left side was just crap - no detail or oversharpened..
If anybody feels like they know how to handle that type of rock texture, here is the RAW file.
The bottom line for me is that I really can't tell the RGB/L apart. To me the differences seem extremely slight but perhaps I'm just blind to that type of subtlety..
Luka, excellent examples. I agree, I cannot really tell the difference.
This as you have alluded to, maybe to do with the 5DII combination of ZE lenses. In my experience, with the older 5DI and 17-40L zoom for landscapes, the grass and leaves were always problematic with even mild sharpening. This may have to do with the quality of the original file that is being processed. I have been noticing, that the level of sharpening for different RAW camera files do vary dramatically.
Excellent stuff!
I tried your sample file, same problem. May have to do with the highlights, and the fact they don't sharpen as well.
Yes - when I do it with the 12 Mpixel images from the Leica, I do see a difference - especially in images where there are details like grass and leaves. There the L method produces somewhat better results. Here, with the 5DII images I can see some very small variation between the images but not enough to be able to say that one of the methods is better.
To be fair, I suppose the Zeiss glass used above (21 & 100 MP) is not the best choice for this type of test as it has too few optical flaws that could be amplified in the sharpening process.
Luka...those shots are amazing. Kind of makes me hesitant to load....but here we go anyways. My first shots with the M8 and ZM 35 & ZM 25 today. This will definitely take some getting used to and am more on the disappointed side with the shots. I will give it a few more tries, but this may not be my cup of tea. I will say that when you hit focus, the sharpness is out of this world. Really WOW when you look at the shots 100%. I am shocked though at the amount of noise that I see at 100% at shots at ISO 160 that is not there with the D700 at ISO 640. I may abandon this idea and stick with the ZF 21/35/50/100. Oh well, like I said, here we go....
adamdewilde wrote:
Speaking of which, I'm going to Serbia for a few days near the end of Sept., I'm either transiting through Istanbul, Munich or Paris for roughly 7 hours. Haven't booked yet.
What would you guys say is the best airport for photography? I probably don't really have much time to leave the airport, maybe 3 hours tops. So stuff has to be relatively close, and easy to get to with minimal traffic
Anyway, sorry I haven't been posting photos, I've been working like crazy. Seems my fiance's business has become my second job
But everyones shots look amazing, I'm still lurking around ...Show more →
I only have recent experience with Munich. The airport is fairly far outside the city center, but is easily reached by S-Bahn (train) from a station below Terminal 1. It takes about 45 minutes each way. A day pass for all zones, which you will need, is 10,40 €. I believe there is a short term luggage storage option at the airport, though you should confirm this.
Munich's central area offers a number of fairly popular sights, such as Marienplatz - the city's center - and nearby areas such as the Viktualienmarkt market, Odeonsplatz, the Residenz park, Englischer Garten park. You can climb the steps of St. Peter's church tower to get a nice overview of central Munich. Here's a panorama: http://www.panorama-cities.net/munich/frauenkirche_5c.html
Other Munich panoramas: http://www.panorama-cities.net/munich/munich_germany.html
Otherwise, the airport is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. The first stop outside the terminal is called Besucherpark - visitor's park - which might be something to check out, though I have never had the inclination to do so. In Terminal 2, outside the secure zone, there is a viewing platform accessed from the second floor for watching airplanes. Terminal 2 also offers a somewhat interesting setting itself for photos, though nothing extremely extraordinary. There are some examples here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/photowalkingmunich/pool/page21/
Another option would be to take the S1 S-Bahn to Oberschleißheim, which is about 15-20 minutes from the airport. There is a nice palace with extensive parklands about a 10 or so minute walk from the train station: http://www.schloesser-schleissheim.de/englisch/schleissheim/index.htm
denoir wrote:
+1 Very nice shot, and yes slightly oversharpened.
I definitely disagree though that oversharpening is a common problem - on the contrary. I think one of the common problems with PP is treating Zeiss images the same way they would Canon or Nikon without taking into consideration the added micro contrast. In short one misses out on extracting the texture that the Zeiss can provide.
Then there are differences in cameras and monitors. For the latter the dotpitch is essential - on screens with large pixels things will tend to look more oversharpened. As for cameras, a 12 megapixel image can't be compared to a 21 megapixel. If you are used to the former it is very likely you will interpret the added detail as sharpening artifacts while they are in fact details in the image.
Finally there is of course the question of taste and of sensitivity. People can be more or less sensitive to sharpening and they like varying degrees of it.
Anyway, to continue the LAB discussion from the Leica thread. I've chosen a couple of images that present sharpening difficulties and I've used a standard method - one in full RGB space one in LAB space with only the L channel. I have chosen a more aggressive sharpening than usual so that the differences can be highlighted.
The bottom line for me is that I really can't tell the RGB/L apart. To me the differences seem extremely slight but perhaps I'm just blind to that type of subtlety.. ...Show more →
I see a difference between the RGB and LAB images, though not necessarily in sharpness. The LAB examples all have slightly higher contrast, especially in the near black tones, and higher saturation/vibrancy. I pulled each image into Photo Mechanic and noticed that the LAB sample has no colour profile tag whereas the RGB version is tagged as sRGB. That might result in the colour difference I'm seeing.
Just wondering if anyone has tried sharpening in RGB then doing a Fade>Luminosity and comparing that to sharpening just the L channel in LAB? From my understanding, fade luminosity should do the same thing.
adamdewilde wrote:
[
What would you guys say is the best airport for photography? I probably don't really have much time to leave the airport, maybe 3 hours tops. So stuff has to be relatively close, and easy to get to with minimal traffic
Much as I love to promote Paris, Adam, it is not a good choice. First, because its airport is one of the worst rated in the developped world. Coming from Singapore with the A380, you would be in for a rude shock.
Second because, in 3 hours back to back, there is not much you could do, with traffic and all.
Sorry.
I prefer sharpening in two steps, and I usually do it different for every singe picture. I also only sharpen the L channel in LAB mode, which doesn't enhance CA and other color aberrations.
