My name's Rasmus Zetter. Yes, it may sound odd to English/Canadian ears. The Finns over here have a hard time pronouncing it too. (Your name's Paul, right?)
Well, I was doing some processing while I browsed the forum, and somehow the general look of your images reminded me of my own processing. What film setting do you use in Andrea?
Not at all sebboh - I really like that last one. Great alignment of the flowers with the highlights in the background
thanks, it looks ok at only 1024px but loses a lot of detail at larger sizes. i really like the background light but keeping the grain kills it. i'm tempted to go back with a tripod, but doubt i'll have time.
helimat wrote:
Without starting a whole '3D' debate again, I must say it seems as though I could reach out a pluck a leaf off of that tree.
i've noticed luka's shots seem to have this quality much more often than most shots i see with the same lens from other people. my suspicion is that his sharpening method helps bring this out, but i'm sure composition plays a big role as well. in any event, luka, i'd be curious to hear how you sharpen your narrow dof shots. i'm assuming you use a different work flow than the one you talked about for landscape.
Yes, I treat my Rokkor shots a bit differently. I still use the same base script but then I add a bunch of smart sharpens with 0.2 radius and 100% strength. In effect I add a lot more sharpening with Rokkor glass than with Zeiss glass.
Narrow DOF shots can present some problems with strong highlight edges (as in your first shot). Usually I sharpen it less aggressively or use selective sharpening (select and sharpen just the foreground object). I try to avoid selective sharpening though as it's more work and it is not resolution independent. So I have to do the work all over for each new output resolution.
RZetter wrote:
My name's Rasmus Zetter. Yes, it may sound odd to English/Canadian ears. The Finns over here have a hard time pronouncing it too. (Your name's Paul, right?)
Well, I was doing some processing while I browsed the forum, and somehow the general look of your images reminded me of my own processing. What film setting do you use in Andrea?
Rasmus, your name does not sound all that odd to this Canadian's ears. Some of my co-workers/associates/friends are named Jari, Henning, Henrich, Ovidiu, Marek, and last but not least Osama. (Yes, I am plain old Paul).
In Andrea, I usually just use the Adox KB 100 setting with the colour turned on (of course). Depending on the scene, I'll also choose a specific Bibble "look profile", and then maybe use "Blacky" and/or play with the tone curve manually to get what I want.
denoir wrote:
sebboh, nice shots. #3 is my favorite
Yes, I treat my Rokkor shots a bit differently. I still use the same base script but then I add a bunch of smart sharpens with 0.2 radius and 100% strength. In effect I add a lot more sharpening with Rokkor glass than with Zeiss glass.
Narrow DOF shots can present some problems with strong highlight edges (as in your first shot). Usually I sharpen it less aggressively or use selective sharpening (select and sharpen just the foreground object). I try to avoid selective sharpening though as it's more work and it is not resolution independent. So I have to do the work all over for each new output resolution. ...Show more →
thanks that's very helpful. i was considering doing more selective sharpening in the first one but was too lazy. i did use a graduated filter for the first sharpening in lightroom, but then just ran through my usual sharpening/downsizing algorithm in ps. do you ever make clarity (local contrast) adjustments on the narrow dof rokkor shots?
Hmm.. having looked through the images I've posted here I see that I've only used selected sharpening three times and it was to avoid sharp highlight edges:
I've posted 95 images so far and the statistics look like this:
Standard script: 77 images
Standard + PS + masking (i.e selective sharpening): 3 images
Extra sharpening: 15 images (i.e smart sharpen with radius 0.2, 100% 3X)
As for clarity, no I don't touch the clarity slider. I don't like what it does to the Rokkor look. Works well with Canon glass and destroys Zeiss rendering. Doing it to a Rokkor shot isn't as bad as with a Zeiss shot but still not good.
Anyway, there is a very simple explanation for the difference in 'pop'. I'm using a 21 megapixel full frame sensor and you are using a 14 megapixel crop sensor. Others here are using either crop Canons, NEX:es or m4/3 cameras. Of course it is impossible to get the same results. You'll have to compare my shots with others from a high resolution full frame camera to make it fair. Believe it or not but (sensor) size does matter!
denoir wrote:
Anyway, there is a very simple explanation for the difference in 'pop'. I'm using a 21 megapixel full frame sensor and you are using a 14 megapixel crop sensor. Others here are using either crop Canons, NEX:es or m4/3 cameras. Of course it is impossible to get the same results. You'll have to compare my shots with others from a high resolution full frame camera to make it fair. Believe it or not but (sensor) size does matter!
i meant yours have the 3d look more often then others using a 5DII or 5D and the same lenses as you, not in comparison to my shots (i don't think i have any of the same lenses you do).
There are however relatively few FF cameras in this thread, and what I was specifically thinking of was my 7D/5DII comparison which showed a more distinct 'pop' or higher micro contrast on the 5DII shot.
As they have been resized the same way and different treatment by the RAW developer can only account for the global features it seems to me that the sensor matters when it comes to micro contrast. I suppose it's because of a clearer color separation - tightly packed pixels tend to bleed over to neighboring pixels reducing color separation..
denoir wrote:
There are however relatively few FF cameras in this thread, and what I was specifically thinking of was my 7D/5DII comparison which showed a more distinct 'pop' or higher micro contrast on the 5DII shot.
there have been at least 2 probably 3 rokkor 58/1.2 specific image threads along with the "alternate image" thread, "admirable blur thread" and a "normal f/1.2" thread which showed many examples on FF (in addition to the wider web). i don't see much 3d (please lets not start that debate though) in either of those 2 shots of the X1 and i certainly don't see it in all your shots so i don't think it's just a property of FF (i do see it occasionally in crop images as well). i just see it more often in your shots (for any lens not just the rokkor) than i do in most other peoples shots with the same lenses.
The second shot is a full 7D image. Both have been processed with identical settings with Canon's Digital Photo Professional RAW developer (Camera standard profile). I've posted shots processed with ACR as well earlier in the thread.
The difference is pretty big in terms of color rendering and micro contrast. I very much doubt you could make them look similar with PP. At least I could not.
Is it not possible to do the sharpening routine with the 7D that you do with the 5D2, perhaps with an extra iteration or two, to make that Leica dot really pop? The 7D shot just looks a little soft, even after your normal script...
luka, i just wanted to note that by cropping the 5D shot you are just showing what would be possible with a big pixeled crop camera (something that could be made quite cheaply if canon thought it was a good idea). if you believe big pixels make the difference i'm surprised you preferred the 5D to the D700. i'm inclined to believe that most of the differences between those shots are related to canons choices in image processing pipeline for each camera with regard to getting the right balance of resolution, color fidelity, and high iso performance.
Is it not possible to do the sharpening routine with the 7D that you do with the 5D2, perhaps with an extra iteration or two, to make that Leica dot really pop? The 7D shot just looks a little soft, even after your normal script...
Carsten, it's not just the sharpness - that could be fixed. The tonality of the 7D is much weaker. Open the images in separate tabs and flip between them and you'll see what I mean. Look at the colors of the blurred area.
sebboh wrote:
luka, i just wanted to note that by cropping the 5D shot you are just showing what would be possible with a big pixeled crop camera (something that could be made quite cheaply if canon thought it was a good idea). if you believe big pixels make the difference i'm surprised you preferred the 5D to the D700. i'm inclined to believe that most of the differences between those shots are related to canons choices in image processing pipeline for each camera with regard to getting the right balance of resolution, color fidelity, and high iso performance.
Sebboh, it's not just about big pixels but you have to have plenty of them to be worth the trouble. When sensor quality is held constant then more pixels are always better. You can always reduce image size and typically if done well, you'll get better IQ than if it was a low density sensor in the first place. Just look at the 24 megapixel D3X. It positively humiliates the D700/D3S (and 5DII/1Ds3 for that matter).
Anyway as for the difference, does it matter if it's software or hardware? With ACR the difference was even larger. In practice for me it means that if I take a shot with my 5DII I get higher IQ than when I do the same with my 7D (which incidentally is overall a much better camera in all respects except IQ). I don't know how to make the 7D image look as good as the 5DII image. So does it matter at which point in the pipeline the difference occurs?
Incidentally, I'm not saying anything radical here. There have been tons of 7D vs 5DII tests and the results are pretty much conclusive - the 5DII has a higher dynamic range, better high ISO and better colors.
