Thanks guys - - up til recently I just shot Jpegs - lately I have started shooting raw and only convert in Canon supplied software. I use Corel for resizing - it never occurred to me to sharpen after that. I do very little if any post processing due to a distaste for exagerated colors/contrast etc found much of todays "modern photography". However, I will look into it.
denoir wrote:
I think you'll find that everyone here just runs a standard resize/sharpen script in 99% of the cases.
I actually don't. I process each picture in the way that suits it best. But I'm not as good at sharpening as Samuli of course. I try to take as few pictures as possible when out shooting, so typically I only have like 20-30 files to process at the end of the day, which might take about an hour totally.
RickPerry wrote:
Thanks guys - - up til recently I just shot Jpegs - lately I have started shooting raw and only convert in Canon supplied software. I use Corel for resizing - it never occurred to me to sharpen after that. I do very little if any post processing due to a distaste for exagerated colors/contrast etc found much of todays "modern photography". However, I will look into it.
I think you should distinguish "heavy post processing" from "exaggerated colors/contrast". You can process an image heavily, with a very smooth and natural looking result. There's no reason for letting your camera settings steer the final results. I find myself lowering contrast and colors quite often, especially now with the Zeiss lenses. Pulling back semi-blown hilights and lifting shadows will never ever give as nice results with a JPG as with a RAW file.
Edit: And perhaps you would enjoy publishing images on the web better if they looked better? Me, I don't do prints at all. So I really want my web images to look good.
Makten wrote:
I actually don't. I process each picture in the way that suits it best. But I'm not as good at sharpening as Samuli of course. I try to take as few pictures as possible when out shooting, so typically I only have like 20-30 files to process at the end of the day, which might take about an hour totally.
Hehe, that's a very different approach from mine. I think I average about 50-100 shots per hour. For each shot I try variations in composition as well as landscape/portrait versions. If there is narrow DOF I also typically try various combinations. If I'm shooting handheld I also often do double shots to reduce the risk of getting a shot with motion blur due to camera shake.
I recently set my personal record with about 10,000 shots in three days. It was when photographing animals at a wildlife reserve in South Africa. That was with Canon zooms though and with an 8 fps camera so a lot of those images were just slight variations of various action shots.
Once I get the RAW files to my computer and Lightroom, I do a rejection pass deleting all the technically bad photos or those that are of zero interest. Then I do four passes of rating (2-5). I tag all images regardless of rating with names of people & location. All images with rating > 3 are tagged in more detail. The 5 rating is reserved for very few images (< 0.1%). Then in the end, I typically make a gallery of 20-30 chosen shots.
So just going through the images takes a lot of time. On the plus side, I have no problem posting one or more different images each time I add a comment
Samuli, Wayne and others.. Thank you for some very enlightening discussions !
Another engineer here and even worse, for a day job, I work on designing CMOS sensors - pixels, CDS, ADC's and the whole enchilada. I don't contribute as much as I would like, but I lurk around these parts (especially this thread) quite a bit. I understand the process of sensing and light conversion rather intimately from a scientific perspective, but my knowledge of optics is limited. So, once again thanks for the knowledge, I'll make sure to pass it on.
RickPerry wrote:
Probably the biggest drawback is I use a 14" laptop for all of this - so I more than likely don't see any of what you guys are talking about.
While in Thailand, I had a 15" laptop for business, and edited the photos quickly is so different coming back to a 24" screen and realizing the subtlies that I had missed.
I must thank everyone, for their experiences with web presentation, particularly Samuli, as this was a new area for me.
I must admit, that I did not place too much emphasis intially, but do now realise it is as important part of presentation as is printing process. In some cases now, it is more important.
Samuli, thank you - I do love the colors the Zeiss gives. Great new shots of the Murder ditch, especially #5!
Rick:
I have to agree with Makten. That second shot of yours just begs to be sharpened. The detail in the rust would really pop. It's really a waste to have such a great image ruined with resizing.. To really get the benefit of the Zeiss glass when displaying web sized images, you have to sharpen it. And it doesn't have to take any extra time. I think you'll find that everyone here just runs a standard resize/sharpen script in 99% of the cases.
Just to demonstrate, here are the same image, sized down to 800px vertical (already too small), one with just photoshop's default bicubic resize function and the other by running my standard 800px resize & sharpen. Open the images in the tab and flip between them.
Great shots Ajay, love the colors. Ulff, I like the first shot - nice bokeh.
I got my 50 MP today and I can honestly say that I've never bonded with a lens this quickly. I have just taken photos at the office and during my walk home but I love it already.
I have a bunch of shots to post - including some portraits of people at the office but, for the sake of formality I feel I must start with.. some ducks.
Ajay C, I liked the first image better due to in second one having the horizont broken by black bar. If we could combine the light of on the boat dock from 2nd to first image...
denoir, 2nd duck shot has nice color composition. Two first images suffer from bokeh highlights having light concentrated to edge and having green edge for the bokeh highlight. Damn this recent 50mm discussion, can't just joy from images without going to "analyze mode"...
Few tourist photos from Paris, 21ZE improper usage for architecture and mustache distortion highlighted on bottom of image, view at your own risk... Palais de Chaillot:
Even I hate shooting this kind of standard tourist stuff I just could not resist, 21ZE
Samuli, I like your first image. There is a nice depth to it. Possibly a little too harsh light. The Eiffel tower is nice, but somehow the view looks too familiar
Yes, you are right, the 50 MP produces some so-so bokeh at certain distances.
Alright, the next round of images. First up are two shots of a colleague of mine and the rest are from the terrace at the office.
(I did a similar shot with the 100MP and the bokeh was slightly better)
Ulff wrote:
Here's another flower-picture with the 35 ZE at f11. I used a close-up filter that I haven't used for years and it works well!
Nice! Huge DOF, is that common when shooting with close-up filter? I never had one, but I have considered purchasing and trying one.
denoir wrote:
Yes, you are right, the 50 MP produces some so-so bokeh at certain distances.
Also if it's just few highlights, like in your duck images, it would be easy to remove/soften for final image (since this is equipment forum I would assume we should not do this kind of enhancements for the forum, but I would see no problem doing it for print).
For the 2nd round of images, finally 3D in sample images from 50MP. The face of the guy in first photo is almost what I would expect from Zeiss lens, and I'm sure effect works better on larger size (the forehead texture is just tiny bit too small for the effect to really show up). I liked also 4th photo, works for me even f/2 generates quite shallow DOF at so close distance. Last image would work 3D point of view otherwise but the distracting background draws eye away from the table, might work better f/4-5.6 to improve bokeh quality and shoot closer to increase bokeh quantity lost by closing down.
Heh, funny - I was more happy with the rendering of the second one in terms of 3D. Here is a larger version of the first one.
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss50-1_big.jpg
It's really the colors that make that type of image for me. I do however also like the transition from ultra sharp to smooth blur. It gives a sort of hyper-realistic feeling to me. I've noticed that quality with the 100 MP as well.
Here is another version with larger DOF (increased distance to the focus point). I don't know, I think the first version gives me more of a 3D impression - possibly because of the different DOF falloff....Show more →
I suspect it's a question of composition as well. In this shot you have blur dead center and no guidance from the composition.
denoir wrote:
Heh, funny - I was more happy with the rendering of the second one in terms of 3D. Here is a larger version of the first one.
Damn, no it was not there, at least not so strong I hoped for. The small version looked just like some portraits (and definitely will not get model release form...my ex...) I have taken with 35ZE, where the roundness of head etc. shows from the texture of the skin, when shown slightly too small size just similar as your smaller shot. I think you were thinking #2 since we were looking different things, you were looking the 3D which relies to shallow DOF (depth), I was searching the shape&volume drawing capabilities. I agree on 2nd there was better depth, since the background was having something, not just blurred colors.
denoir wrote:
Here is another version with larger DOF (increased distance to the focus point). I don't know, I think the first version gives me more of a 3D impression - possibly because of the different DOF falloff.
I suspect it's a question of composition as well. In this shot you have blur dead center and no guidance from the composition.
Hmmm, this won't work for me either.
How you find the focusing? I like it much more than my 100MP, which is hard to get moving and move short distance when in normal using range from 2m to infinity. I find 50MP easier to do accurate small adjustments, even it needs noticeable more force to turn. Due to this it's so accurate and fast to focus with live view 10x mode with 50MP, when I have to go forward and backward many times with 100MP. Maybe some differences between ratio of static and kinetic friction?
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Nice! Huge DOF, is that common when shooting with close-up filter? I never had one, but I have considered purchasing and trying one.
The huge DOF is probably due to f11 and the wide-angle characteristics of the 35mm. Actually I find this perspective very similar to the macro-feature of the 35-70 3.4.
I try to take as few pictures as possible when out shooting, so typically I only have like 20-30 files to process at the end of the day, which might take about an hour totally.
boat dock on the Snake River, ID (2/35, 5D2)
