IMG_0723 2021-01-23-G7X boats.cr2.dop (10,8 KB)
Clearview is microcontrast to emphasize edges en saturate colors.
adding small dots of “black” When i use it, i always use it in small amount.
Because it oversharpens fast.
there are hopefully in the future better ways to control this kind of “clearing up” tone’s.
DeHaze is also a “blacklevel” adding feature. but much less micro contrast, which create a look of sharpening. (sharpening is nothing more then emphasize edges of objects and saturating colorplanes.)
To avoid oversharpening use other things like tonecurve, blacks (not the same as blacklevel)
Water don’t need sharpening as in detailing only “deHaze” saturation of the colors, a post processed “polarisation” function to vibrance the looks.
this video shows what i ment about the difference between clearviewplus and plane blacklevel adding.
Edit clarity is equal to clearview. What i try to show is that clearview and clarity is creating “pixels” kind of noise. Blacks is too wide in effect’s of darkshadows and not like blacklevel which only effecs the deepest near black colors. There that tonecurve come’s in handy. Blacklevelcontrole. And it drags the colors to more saturation in dxo.
So for now, use clearview to make detailing better 10%-25% maybe higher if it’s not over shooting sharpening effecs, and use the other color rendering tools as selective tone, colorsaturation/vibrance, tonecurve to finetune the looks you like.
Human eye’s are somehow sensitive to things who are drifting in the water.
You get distracted at least i do, same as garbage/plastic waste in street photography.
Unles it’s part of the composition i alway’s clean it out.
It’s a good crop, any closer and you lose the sense of where it is and the bowwave starts to be unnatural. (the back V-formed sternwave shows the speed/motion of the boat which give the bowwave it’s birth.
You could try a circulair polarisation filter on the lens to get instant colorsaturation near watersurface.
Wolfgang:
unblock the shadows and you are good to go for web
Joanna:
To my taste, on my screen, calibrated to 80cd/m2, your version appears quite dark but I like the little bit more space you’ve put in front of the boat.
post #10:
Wolfgang:
Joanna, can you check the colours? My screen is set to 5900° Kelvin / 80 cd/m² ARGB.
Joanna:
I don’t see a problem with the colours. It looks good to me.
I also downloaded the published jpg-files from post #6 and #7 and re-checked them in PL4, ExifTool, FastRawViewer and FastPictureViewer.
The pics are all different (and to my surprise don’t contain colour space information any more – in contrary to those I exported in PL = before upload.)
– With the pic in post #1 (as well #3) the shadows on the people’s face look blocked.
– With the pics in post #6 and #7 the overall brightness is the same.
– The 3 pics in post #6 are very green, slighty bluish and very warm / greenish (top to bottom) – compared to post #7.
The appearance changes when you ‘add’ colour (different rendering).
And for the sake … I also set my screen to 5000° Kelvin / 80 cd/m² / ARGB (I just prefer 5900° K instead).
@OXiDant post #9
With Joanna’s remark about ‘dark’, I realized that the shadow in front of the boat is not ‘justified’.
So, I lit it up to match the other water, but then had the feeling, it would be too bright and almost disturbing, when you ‘enter’ the picture from the bottom / the boat’s front – and reduced it to some degree.
Your pic solves ‘the unknown shadow’ in a different way, but same idea.
I think, it really boils down to, how and / or what one wants to convey.
If I am setting up a shot, I agree with you completely - and I look for things I need to “fix”. I go into the scene and move garbage some place out of the scene. Not sure about the ethics, but to me it seems to be the right thing to do. Other times, like today, something great starts to happen, and my mind blanks out - I take the images I wanted to capture, and adapt to what is going on, but there is only time “to do”, and none left over “to think”. That happened today - I was all set up and already photographing a boat coming into the drawbridge, when another boat came out from under the drawbridge, going the other way. I captured several versions - I figured I would select the best one later. I got my “last shot”, and could have taken more, but I didn’t think anything could get much better.
To reply specifically to what you wrote - if things are happening as expected, I’m free to notice other things and adapt to them. Cleaning it out later is something I rarely do. As an example of photojournalism, I’m not supposed to do things like that. As a photo I want to hang on my wall, or show off to others, why not? But to me, this is a “slippery slope”, that needs be thought out. As in, if I can remove a leaf, why can’t I remove a boring sky?
Sure can! I bought the special Leica polarizing filter that goes on the lens, with the filter up high over the lens. Without moving the filter, I can rotate it to get the effect I want, then swing it down over the lens, and since it is now 180 degrees from where it was before, I get the same effect.
I didn’t see anywhere you mentioned what those old cameras were, whether they were SLRs?.
If you want a DSLR but not a huge size, then shop around. I tend to stick large lenses on my Pentax bodies anyway, but when I am walking around in “tourist season” and I see the inevitable Canon 5D and derivatives I am always struck by how enormous they are. I don’t see many Nikons so don’t know how they fare in the size stakes but my Pentax APS-C camera is not much larger than my old Pentax SLR from 1998. It’s actually slightly less wide and only 12% taller. And it also has a screen on the back for those times you don’t want (or can’t have) your face right behind the camera.
I went back to the same spot, armed with my M10 and 50mm. I had to scamper off the bridge when they wanted to raise it, then returned. Not many boats, and none with people visibly enjoying the boat ride. Then I started to watch the black bottom boat come into my frame, and since I was taking multiple shots, I kept on shooting as the other boat came into view from under the bridge. My attention was on the two boats, wanting a composition that I liked.
With what I’ve been learning, editing was easier this time. Some parts of the image were too bright, and others too dark, but that was easy to adjust. I figured the post was probably verticals I set it that way in the image. I was tempted to increase micro-contrast more, but I didn’t want to go too far. I didn’t do a whole lot more. I will check again when it gets darker, to make sure the image isn’t too dark overall.
Maybe I’ll go back again, and try for another “people photo”, like what I was hoping to capture today.
I did get a chance to get another iguana to pose for me - wish I had my tele lens with me for that. I’m getting better at moving around in ways the iguanas ignore.
Understood.
It’s about small things, like that desertshot someone posted for color problems.
There was a thiny whitespot, a piece of paper curled in to a ball. That i will remove because it’s new fresh polution not something which adds to the image.
If there is a rusty old wheel of a old car sticking out the sand? No that’s part of the scene, history of the place.
Indeed how far are you go? It’s all about timeblending how would the shot be if made later or earlier? Distracting things, blobs, replacing sky is fun for practising edit skills but not my cup of thee. Dramatising yes replacing no.
About trash, when i walk around in nature i always have a zipbag with me for human waste like candypaper, sodacans, plastic. It’s a small effort to pick it up and trow it in the bin when i see one.
I think it has to be up to each photographer how much he can do, and how much he has to leave in place. I was about to write I can wipe out a leaf that’s out of place, because ten minutes later it would be gone - but so might a dull and boring sky.
We all should do as you do, picking up trash, and were that the case, the trash does not belong in the photo. The sky of course was part of the scene, so maybe it should be left alone, but many of us are darkening the blue so the fluffy white clouds stand out better.
If I was making a photo to submit to the National Geographic, I’m sure “improving” the sky is not allowed, but for our purposes, to print and hang on a wall, that’s somewhat different.
I agree with you, and for posting images here, using PL4 to enhance an image passes my own rules, but that’s not the case for Luminar. PL4 helps make better Photographs. Luminar helps make better Photo Illustrations.
I suppose it depends on the end purpose of the image.
If you are simply recording stuff for an archive of how things actually were, no emotion attached, then leave stuff in but, if your aim is to publish a photo more as a work of art, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with removing detritus that is not part of, and that draws the eye away from, the main subject.
Think back to the time before cameras existed. Artists were recording what they saw around them but they had the luxury of being able to choose what they put down on the canvas and nobody knew that a particular tree was actually a few feet to the left but wasn’t quite on a line of composition, so the artist “moved” it to look better.
This is the nub of the matter. Are you really a photojournalist or a photographer who is making images that people will want to hang on the wall?
I have a friend who is a photojournalist. He takes jpeg photos, gives the card to the client and has nothing more to do with it. What the client does to it, possibly including editing stuff in or out, is not his concern.
But, the very fact that you want to use PhotoLab to improve your images demonstrates that you are wanting to do more than just “take photos”, you are interested in “making images” - a process that starts before you even press the shutter and that ends with editing what you captured to convey, not only what you saw, but the emotion that you felt.
Even with film, photographers have always edited their images, albeit with dodging and burning, multiple exposures, retouching, etc. With my LF scans, I will sometimes edit out “offensive” objects (like the bright white camper van that was ruining a rural landscape) but things like replacing skies is beyond what I deem to be photography and into the realms of collage.
I have also seen horrendously bad composite images where a sunny Mediterranean sky has been added to an English landscape, just because the sky on the day of shooting was dull and grey. What this gave was, what I would call, the “uncanny valley” experience where things look sort of alright but not quite. Just like when HDR is badly done and the front faces of the backlit rocks in the foreground are brighter than the sunlit middle ground.
Talking of which, here are three versions of a sunset image.
If I can use the movements on an LF camera to produce perspective when taking the shot, is it wrong to use software to create the same effect afterwards? After all, it’s how I envisioned the final image, I just didn’t have the equipment with me at the time of shooting. But note that the front faces of the rocks are dark enough to appear backlit but not too dark to see detail which would have been visible to my eye when shooting. Should I have edited out the person walking on the tideline? My opinion is no, they were there and some people would not even notice them in relation to the whole image - possibly because they are an “expected” part of this kind of scene.
Have I “transgressed” some unwritten rule of what makes a good image, or have I simply made a good image that I would hang on the wall?
Joanna, can you check the colours? My screen is set to 5900° Kelvin / 80 cd/m² ARGB.
Both jpg-files were explicitly exported as sRGB . With screen (profile) set to sRGB, they ‘lose’ colour .
wasn’t ment to you, as Joanna has also set her screen to AdobeRGB …
As long you take photos in RAW, you can set your camera anyhow (sRGB or AdobeRGB, ABW).
PL’s internal colour space (working space) is AdobeRGB. When you export for web or online printing, make sure to export as sRGB.
As your Asus screen is limited to sRGB colour space, you are excluded from seeing (full) AdobeRGB – easier for you.
… … I think I’m stuck with sRGB, but I’m much more likely to be using my Leica or Nikon cameras for anything even semi-serious. …but the small Canon is good for always having it on me, if I start doing that here like I do in India.
Use the camera, that you are comfortable with and does the job – subject (emotion) matters !
When uncomfortable with DSLR e.g. in close-packed condtions, just ‘on the road’ or with family, I will always prefer to take my Panasonic LX100, which is good enough for coffee table books – if exposed
and developed carefully.
In low light, for serious work or printing up to A2 (16 x 23), the big camera will be my choice.
I agree with you, but for me it’s not a matter of being “uncomfortable” with a DSLR, it’s just that a DSLR isn’t really a “go anywhere camera”. The Canon is extremely small, goes in my belt pouch, and is usually just something I wear, along with the rest of my clothes. Its competition is my iPhone, which always goes in my pocket. I’ve learned to usually put it in RAW mode, unless I’m taking snapshots, and while it can’t output in AdobeRGB, it passes all my other tests.
Plan “B”, which I’ve considered, is to always put the Leica over my shoulder, and to attach my collapsible 50mm lens to keep the size down.
Plan “C” is to take along my Lumix DMC-LX5 which has a Leica lens, and is 2/3 the size of my Canon.
As you noted “In low light, for serious work, or printing”, my M10 or the Df DSLR would likely be my choice, and for even higher resolution, I still have my D750 DSLR to use instead of the Df. And if my goal is to capture the highest resolution, best image possible, all the other choices get eliminated and I’m back to my Leica M10 with Leica lenses… unless we’re talking sports, or action photos, or telephoto photos, where my only choice is my Nikons.
You and I have similar tastes for a “walkabout” camera:
you:
me:
I will do some more reading about your camera - it might be a better choice for me than either my Lumix, or my Canon. I like it already.
Having two years experience with the Canon, and all things considered, I think I’ll leave things as-is for now.
There is a big difference between the Canon and my Leica. The Canon feels like a tool, while the Leica feels like an extension of me. Hard to put it in words. The Leica makes me feel that I’m the thing creating an image, while the Canon does it all without me. Point and shoot, vs. create. Probably sounds silly.
For creating the best images I can feed to PL4, the M10 is the best camera I already own. No compromises. If there is anything lacking in my results, it is all on me. And if I could afford to get something else, it would likely be a larger format camera.
Stick with what you have - don’t confuse yourself !
Mike, you already have too many different toys to really get familiar with. Also put your DF and all manual lenses in your cabinet. Instead finally start with your D750 + the telezoom I advised you. You will get the same quality like from your beloved Leica – for a fraction of $$.
Wolfgang
Ouch. Interesting choices, but I think you’re overlooking something. Everything is a compromise, and I guess we all need to do the best we can, with the equipment we’ve got, to select the best compromise of what we’re after.
I look at your three images, and the top one is almost yelling out loud to bring up the foreground detail (all of which would have been perfectly clear had you covered up the sun with your hand), so Image #2 is obviously better.
But then I look at image #3, which again is a different compromise. You gain your goal of making that foreground rock more prominent, but to me, you lose something far more important (again, to me), the sky.
Very good question, that I can’t answer. The best I can say is I’m a photographer, who is limited by all the years in my past where photojournalism was the most important thing, even at the expense of art. I’m always striving to accomplish both, as one without the other isn’t any good. If I have a “hero”, it’s Ansel Adams, who accomplished such wonderful images with no help from digital manipulation. PL4 is to me what the careful darkroom work Ansel excelled at was to him. Most of what you and the others here are teaching me is “the tools”, but in order to see what I need to do with the tools, first I “need to see”. The feedback here is overwhelmingly helpful. …but I still see myself as a photojournalist first, and an artist second.
Yep, parts of that I agree with. Manual Nikon lenses are back in my “cabinet”. I already have a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 lens I bought for around $300 or so. The same lens with a built-in motor sells for over $1,000. I used to have one - sold it for the same $1,000 when I stopped doing race photography.
The closest thing I have for a lens like you suggest is my Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 which is both very good optically, and quite heavy as it’s made from metal, not plastic. That’s probably the best all-around lens I own, and while I used to use it on my F4 film Nikon, it’s great both on the D750 and the Df. I bought the D750 five or six years ago, and used it for everything from then on. The Df was a dream, and now I have one… but the D750 has been as good to/for me as anything I’ve ever had. …and should I ever want to use them, I’ve still got my F4, and also my F2. The F2 even works with my reloadable Nikon film cassettes…
I mostly agree with you though, as everything is put away, except for the two Nikons (D750 and Df) and my Leica. Those are the only cameras I keep my batteries fully charged on.
I have a question for you, and everyone else too. How much of a difference does it make to your photography, based on which camera you hold in your hands?
(I think it makes a big difference to me, but maybe I’m just fooling myself. For me, it’s as if I have a very different outlook on photography, based on which camera I am using.)
I suspect Joanna has a very different feel about photography - if she is shooting large format, she has so many options that other formats normally don’t allow. I suspect she feels “limited” when she uses something smaller. How about you? When you hold the camera up in front of your eye, does it make a difference if you’re seeing an optical view, or a digital view, or a reversed upside-down view?
I don’t think that matters. I can hold a polarizing filter in my hands, and rotate it to whatever effect I prefer. If I then rotate the pole filter 180 degrees, I get the same effect. I can’t see anything differently.
Leica’s design is such that I can position the filter assembly up on top, adjust the filter angle by turning the filter ring, until it works properly while I am looking directly through the filter, then pivot the filter mount180 degrees so the filter is in front of my lens, and capture the desired image.
(Or, I can position the filter on the camera lens such that it is directly in front of the viewfinder window, adjust the filter as I’m looking through the viewfinder, then rotate the filter in the mount so it is in front of the lens again, and then lens sees what I saw.)
If I hold a pole filter in my hands, and adjust the filter angle so the polarizing effect is greatest, let’s call that “position 1”. If I then rotate the filter 90 degrees, the polarizing effect has gone. If I turn it an additional 90 degrees, what I see looks like “position 1”. …I doubted this, so I tried it, and that’s how my filters work for me. I think my filters may be “circular polarized”. There are several types of polarizing filters. I’ll have to read up on this again. Whatever type of filter is sold by Leica does work the way I described.
Added later - this is what I bought, and how to use it is described in the text. It is circularly polarized. And no, I didn’t pay anything remotely close to what it sells for - as I remember it was $35 or so, used.
