DxO PhotoLab 4 and Candid Photos

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

As you can see from here https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/singlefocal/wide/af_24mmf_28d/index.htm or here https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-f28-afd.htm
your 24mm lens can be focused as close as 0,30 cm (~12").
– The report from ExifTool < Focus Distance 0,03m > is simply misleading, to say the least.

Checking your original photo _MJM2169 2020-12-25-Biscayne Jet Ski and Miami.nef you see,
that your lens is prone to some degree of Chromatic Aberation (see comment from @George).

I solved this problem (and more) in _MJM2169 2020-12-25-Biscayne Jet Ski and Miami.nef.dop
(20,9 KB)

– Your photo is sharp, otherwise all antennas, sailing boats and cranes wouldn’t be crisp enough
[depth of field at 0,30 cm / f8 never reach infinity].

Sunset pics are often counter light scenes. When important parts are not (cannot be) illuminated, present them as clear silhouettes as you did (compare to the difficult trial to bring back colour to your fisherman).

have fun, Wolfgang

I am thoroughly confused. I downloaded your “.dop” file, put it into my folder for PL4 and the image didn’t change - it was still my last view, with my watermark.

I deleted every file in that folder other than the “.nef” and again copied your “.dop” into the folder. Nothing changed.

I thought all I needed to do was replace my .dop file with yours. What am I missing? Your image is “lower” than mine, so it should be instantly obvious.

Once I replace my old “.dop” file with yours, do I need to do something else to get PL4 to recognize your “.dop” file?

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I will mount the 24mm Nikon lens on my D750, and take a couple of photos at ISO 500, f/8, 5600K, exposure meter set to “averaging”.

Here are the two images:

Well, they look like reasonably well exposed ordinary photos.

@mikemyers

The indicators on the Nikon told me that some areas of the first image were slightly over-exposed. That everything looks “dull”, is because that’s what I see looking out my window

No overt signs of over or under-exposure.

@mikemyers

Hopefully the tools you use will find that both images “make sense”

Did you mean to post the originals?

@mikemyers

I deleted every file in that folder other than the “.nef” and again copied your “.dop” into the folder. Nothing changed.

I thought all I needed to do was replace my .dop file with yours. What am I missing? Your image is “lower” than mine, so it should be instantly obvious.

Once I replace my old “.dop” file with yours, do I need to do something else to get PL4 to recognize your “.dop” file?

You may need to delete the database and cache. See my message here

[George]

Or this.

George

[OXiDant (Peter)]

@Wolfgang

Checking your original photo _MJM2169 2020-12-25-Biscayne Jet Ski and Miami.nef you see,
that your lens is prone to some degree of Chromatic Aberation (see comment from @George).

i don’t know enough of this but is CA not a more object aura kind of thing?
a mis a linement of light? not a glow spread like this?

@Wolfgang

I solved this problem (and more)

with a CA tool or manual?
i see that you leave the greenisch low left to mid left be present, (green bridgelight i think)

@Wolfgang

Sunset pics are often counter light scenes. When important parts are not (cannot be) illuminated, present them as clear silhouettes as you did

true as in it hide’s more trouble when raising.
Are you more like expose so it’s a silhouette in dark blackisch way or expose as much as possible to the right in order to have as much detail as you can get in the shadows?
(i gues that looking at it just with your eye’s they adjust and there was more to see then this.)

i use EV compensation in my camera to dail up the shadows as much as possible or use different exposures by hand or bracketting so i can choose at home.

what i find strange in this particular image is the colors in the water surface.
is this reflection or CA?

[George]

One can play with silhouettes.

Rock and roll with sunset.
George

George

[OXiDant (Peter)]

@mikemyers

I enjoyed watching the video, looking for things that might make a nice photo

i made some, but the haze and dim diffused light makes it difficult to create enough contrast and thus detail. i have my first selection. (watch it in full on tv to see the flaws.)

@mikemyers

Need to keep camera warm enough so it works

my G80/pl12-60mm should handle this cold and snow. i used a plastic Zipback to switch lenses.
One thing i forgot was letting the system slowy warmup in the halway so there was some condens( like your glasses do when you walk inside) when i looked in the lens.
(there isn’t a vacuüm in there so it’s best to leave it in the transportbag for a wile so it can slower warming up.)
No harm done this time, no drops so no residu left.

@mikemyers

I wonder how this looks on a sunny, not-so-windy, day?

wel i think i go back in the spring.(for reference )
some i like

@mikemyers

On a day like that, I think my enthusiasm for photography would be overwhelmed by my desire to remain warm and comfortable.

i wasn’t cold good clothing and shoes. only walking through snow is heavy for the leggs and sitting down for months (covid rules) wasn’t a good preperation so to speak.
bad knees so i they reacted same as my muscles on the spot… auch. But no pain no gain…

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

@George

One can play with silhouettes.

Yes!

… and when he took the photo with the fisherman, he better had taken care of the horizon line to avoid to ‘cut’ his neck. Instead, lower the camera to bring him up against the sky or raise the camera a bit to position the silhouette against the water while reducing the (empty) sky … for better composition.

[mikemyers]

@George

Or this.

George

Before I do anything else, where do I find those two settings? I assume they should both be checked, as you have in your capture.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

where do I find those two settings?

Hi Mike. They’re in the Preferences dialog but, if they weren’t already set, you wouldn’t have been able to post dop files as you have been doing

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

You may need to delete the database and cache. See my message here

Before I do that, I will:

• Upload a single image from my SD card into a new folder, and go to it in PL4.
• Once the image loads, I will check the “.dop” file.
• I will then make a single huge change to the image.
• Then I will see if the “.dop” file has been updated.
• I will then delete the “.dop” file, and close PL4.
• Finally, I’ll re-open PL4 and check if the image has returned to the original image, before the change.

I’m guessing that the image will still show the way I modified it. Hopefully, with no more “.dop” file, it will display the original image, un-changed.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

• Once the image loads, I will check the “.dop” file.

Just loading the image will not create a dop file.

@mikemyers

• I will then make a single huge change to the image.
• Then I will see if the “.dop” file has been updated.

You still won’t see a dop file yet

You need to, at least, either select another image or deflect the current one in order to generate a dop.

@mikemyers

Finally, I’ll re-open PL4 and check if the image has returned to the original image, before the change

You will still see the change because PL will have also written it to the database.

Other than that, once you have made a first change, PL will write the dop when you close it.

[George]

@Joanna

Hi Mike. They’re in the Preferences dialog but, if they weren’t already set, you wouldn’t have been able to post dop files as you have been doing

Unless the ‘import’ choice hasn’t been selected.

George

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

You will still see the change because PL will have also written it to the database.

Other than that, once you have made a first change, PL will write the dop when you close it.

I think I have found a solution.
First, these are my preferences:

If I delete my old “.dop” file, and place a new “.dop” file in the folder, perhaps from one of you, I can then click here:

…and finally click here:

I think this is why I was struggling to use the “.dop” files I have been downloading from this forum. They download into my “downloads” folder on my iMac, and I then manually move them to the appropriate folder, but I didn’t know that I needed to manually IMPORT them to see what you had done. I struggled with Wolfgang’s recent “.dop” and apparently I then needed to manually import it into PL4.

Wow.

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

I solved this problem (and more) in _MJM2169 2020-12-25-Biscayne Jet Ski and Miami.nef.dop
(20,9 KB)

Wolfgang, thanks to your making such an obvious change to the image, I finally caught on to what my computer was (not) doing.

Knowing what I do now, I should be able to do what you suggested - but after breakfast!

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

@oxidant – ref to post #224

I don’t know enough of this but is CA not a more object aura kind of thing?
a mis a linement of light? not a glow spread like this?

[ W: I solved this problem (and more) ] with a CA tool or manual?

I see that you leave the greenisch low left to mid left be present, (green bridgelight i think)

what i find strange in this particular image is the colors in the water surface.
is this reflection or CA?

Just open the pic with “my” dop-file (maybe better to copy everything in a separate folder).
[ and I always had to delete these watermarks to be able to see the pics in PL4 ]

– You will find out, how I set CA corrections (no manual). When toggling on/off you see the enhancement on the outsides. The building’s silhouettes appear clearer, while the glow spread / aura in the skyline’s center is diminshed without vanishing. To me, the nice glow suits the ‘burning sky’ very well.
– Well, and I didn’t bother at all with different light speckles in the water. Instead I tried to find out about the scenery’s appearance and what has impact.
So, I cropped off the empty sky and added local adjustments (2x graduated filters). One is controlling light and vibrancy and the second one colour temperature (lowered by 200° Kelvin). Finally, I got this nice balanced colour contrast, which in conjunction with a smooth vignette directs the viewers eye to the center and its contrasting little boats, the brighter reddish reflection as result of the ‘burning sky’.

---

When analyzing a photo first place, I try to figure out the ‘inherent message’, what the pic is telling
(what is there), what the photographer’s intention (most probably) has been and IF that fits together (my interpretation). Being highly subjective, this can lead to misunderstandings but then also and more importantly to healthy conversations. Similar to discussions, I try to imagine what the photographer wanted to convey (and if he/she succeeded).
With that, my focus is not to critize or to look for technical imperfections, which I had long enough in a photoclub (also run the homepage for at least 10 years), but to show a ‘better’ example.
– BTW, ever so often I found myself focusing on perfection, but ignored that the pic had little to none potential (guess, I wanted to ‘save’ it). That is not to say to throw out everything, what’s not ‘right out of the box’, but to recognize if it’s worth the effort [like commonly said: garbage in, garbage out].

Oh well, that turned out much longer than intended.
have fun, Wolfgang

[OXiDant (Peter)]

@Wolfgang

With that, my focus is not to critize or to look for technical imperfections, which I had long enough in a photoclub (also run the homepage for at least 10 years), but to show a ‘better’ example.

understood, and i am often starting to look for imperfections so i can decide if i can work around it.
Then what i think i would like to bring out. and fix the things which stick out as not what i want.
i think non of the image’s i make are technically right/perfect. (maybe by accident )
So i assume most of us has the same “problem” and i try to shoot around the difficulties so i can select in post the one who has the least visual imperfections.

i loaded yours and i think the only thing i would add is +11 selective tone shadow.

@Wolfgang

garbage in, garbage out

i am lucky i am in the digital era so any garbage delete is costing me no money…

Peter

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

Just open the pic with “my” dop-file (maybe better to copy everything in a separate folder).

– You will find out, how I set CA corrections (no manual). When toggling on/off you see the enhancement on the outsides. The building’s silhouettes appear clearer, while the glow spread / aura in the skyline’s center is diminshed without vanishing. To me, the nice glow suits the ‘burning sky’ very well.
– Well, and I didn’t bother at all with different light speckles in the water. Instead I tried to find out about the scenery’s appearance and what has impact.
So, I cropped off the empty sky and added local adjustments (2x graduated filters). One is controlling light and vibrancy and the second one colour temperature (lowered by 200° Kelvin). Finally, I got this nice balanced colour contrast, which in conjunction with a smooth vignette directs the viewers eye to the center and its contrasting little boats, the brighter reddish reflection as result of the ‘burning sky’.

My plan - create a test folder, copy the image file there, upload your “.dop” file there, and study everything you did. If necessary, I will re-load your ‘.dop’ file the way I learned this morning.

I don’t like this photo very much. I’m only working on it to learn what you did, and more importantly, how. If I captured a similar image again tomorrow, I doubt I would keep it. But it obviously makes for a good learning tool.

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

@mikemyers
When you don’t like this photo, why do you post it in this forum?

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

When you don’t like this photo, why do you post it in this forum?

If my purpose in using this forum was to get the very most out of a photo I took, that wouldn’t be a realistic goal.

The photos I post here are those that I feel are a challenge - I do my best to make them better, only to find out a few days later I barely scratched the surface, along with over-doing the tools.

To me, all of you are “teachers”, and I’m learning infinitely more from your replies, than I ever learned on my own.

With regard to this specific photo, in hindsight I don’t think I’ll ever “display it”, but from the replies here I learn how to improve.

There are also photos that I post here that I put an exceptionally large effort into, taking multiple shots until I thought I got it right, but when I get it onto my computer, it doesn’t remind me of what I felt. By the time you all get done improving it, while I love having a better photo, I especially love being able to replicate what you did. It’s like “the more I learn, the more I’m able to learn”, and this goes back to taking the photo - I’m paying much more to things such as the histogram now than I used to, along with ETTR, which I sort of “knew”, but didn’t really “do”.

It will probably sound silly to say this, but my Leica give me a much better “feel” for the image than the Nikon DSLR. The Leica allows me to photograph what I want to see, but the huge display in the viewfinder of the DSLR minimizes my “imagination”. I “see” what it’s going to do. With the Leica, I just get a hint of the final image. I’m sure this sounds very silly, and it goes against everything I believed before.

I’ve also learned to “finish” editing late at night, post the image, then review it early the next morning, and I “see” things I had missed the night before. It’s like a fresh start, seeing things I didn’t do well enough, and allowing me to correct them.

There has been another change - I used to get “yelled at” for fixing my image with lots of “ClearView”, and thinking how nice it looked - only to realize the next day that it was a mistake. I’ve now learned how to use the other tools better… but… I just watched a one hour webinar with PhotoJoseph, and he finds ClearView to be useful. I haven’t touched ClearView in over a month.

Enough - I hope I’m making it clear how much I appreciate all the feedback. I may never make into “college level editing”, but I’ve at least gotten to “high school level”. It makes photography all that much more enjoyable!

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik6 (+3) ])]

@OXiDant

i loaded yours and i think the only thing i would add is +11 selective tone shadow.

I tried so with a new virtual copy and to make sure, that my usual screen setting (5900° Kelvin/ARGB) is not misleading, I also changed it to sRGB plus again to 6500° Kelvin/sRGB.
_MJM2169 2020-12-25-Biscayne Jet Ski and Miami.nef.dop (68,1 KB)

No, I wouldn’t rise the overall shadow. The photo loses its ‘magic’, both lower dark corners (the water) don’t ‘hold’ the scenery anymore and worst, the buiding on the right graciously covered by the dark appears in horrible grey. – Instead, I brightened both illuminated roads / paths very carefully (see LA / automask).
And yes, everybody’s interpretation is different.

i am lucky i am in the digital era so any garbage delete is costing me no money…

… sure and then we have to decide what to keep. – More seriously, I often shoot like in analogue days. That is, after taking a photo I know I got it (even if not true), but I’m very happy for the digital darkroom.

have fun, Wolfgang