Asking right out in the open - am I the only person in this forum who thinks that the types of camera gear I use influences the photos that I take?
Maybe this has nothing to do with the camera, but only with me. I “think” differently depending on what camera gear I have with me. I’ve got three different thought processes - rangefinder, through-the-lens, and P&S. Maybe I’m just weird. By the time the results get ingested into my computer, from then on everything is the same, but I’m almost a different person based on whatever camera gear I have with me. I could elaborate, but why…
That depends on what types of gear you compare. If I was to walk around with a LF camera it would definitely influence the photos I take compared to an an SLR. But If you were to compare an SLR with a comparable SLR I do not see that influence. Again you need to compare apples to apples
Thank you - maybe I’ve been looking at this incorrectly for all these years. Maybe what makes me feel as I do isn’t “the camera”, but “the thing I see with/at/through”
I guess I would be better saying that each of these has a huge effect on my photography:
ground glass screen
optical viewfinder (rangefinder cameras, and similar)
TTL viewfinder (through the lens optical viewfinder)
Digital viewfinder (mirrorless)
Point-and-Shoot cameras (small size).
Phone screens
So, instead of saying I “feel different” when using my DSLR or my Leica, I should simply be comparing an optical viewfinder vs. a “ttl” or “digital” viewfinder.
Question for @Joanna - you seem to feel my comparisons of RF vs. DSLR are silly. Maybe all along I should have been talking about the viewfinders?
With many of these choices, I see exactly what the camera is about to capture. With RF that’s not the case. Maybe that’s why Joanna and I are talking “past” each other, not really talking about the same thing…
…and now that I see this more clearly, I understand why @Joanna was criticizing me, based on what she thought I meant. My fault.
I woke up this morning to the first non-rainy day in almost a week, with a few hours before the rain would likely start. Not wanting to get drenched for the second time this week, as soon as I was out of bed I headed off to the local market. I thought about bringing a real camera, but decided it was too early in the day, and nothing I knew of along the route was worth taking a photograph.
Got to the food market, bought what I needed, stopped off at the body shop to see how my Mazda was doing, then headed home for a nice breakfast. But, along the way, I noticed a gigantic crane was picking up a large piece of concrete to be mounted on the building under construction. I thought phooey (actually a much stronger word) and took out my iPhone. I started taking photos as they picked it up, and stopped after they were putting it in the right position. So, I’ve got 30 or so mediocre photos, and two that I liked a lot, because of the shapes in the structure, the obvious action, and the three workers most involved. It didn’t help me that everything was back-lit.
Yes, @Joanna, had I brought my D780, I’d have been much better prepared, and gotten a better result. I like the photo I got anyway, but know I could have done better. I thought of just ignoring it, and walking home, but I couldn’t force myself to do so.
I may not take my Nikon or Leica with me wherever I go, but I have no excuse for not at least taking my small Fuji X100f. If I walk out the door, it should always be around my neck, unless I take something better.
Think of it as a miserable attempt at a still-life, and don’t look at it set to full-size.
I think the fellow who did the comparison could benefit from coming here, posting some photos, and learn about many things I learned in this forum, about PL tools (not) to use in PL6 such as ClearView Plus.
I wonder how much more AI will be included in the next release of PL7 ?
First, he appears to be a Topaz user rather than a PhotoLab user, and is therefore somewhat predisposed to prefer Topaz’s rendering. Second he is comparing apples to oranges. Including, as you point out, the use of Clearview Plus which may have been used inappropriately. In the hands of a skilled PhotoLab user, the results may have been very different. Also, Topaz Denoise AI can be used to remove noise from non raw files, while DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD cannot. This is not a criticism of Topaz’s products. I own licenses for two of them. I just have a concern with his testing parameters.
Thanks mostly to @Joanna, I have thought of “Clearview Plus” as image poison. I never, not even once, thought it was beneficial. I now use the “Contrast” tool, setting “Microcontrast” to zero, and usually turning on “Fine Contrast” along with “Contrast”. There are six tools in the Contrast group, and I’m rather lost in understanding which to use. Just wondering,
In my latest image (jpg) I turned off contrast, then set Contrast to +28, Fine Contrast to +20, and Shadows to +64. At 100% size, it turned the ugly “ceiling” into a more detailed ugly “ceiling”, and it improved the face of the worker near the top. No other changes. Below is the resulting .dop and the exported image. Any advice on how to best use all these contrast tools, most of which I have been ignoring until just now? Also, when is it appropriate to use “Clearview Plus”?
Clearview Plus does have its uses, both globally and locally. But, It needs to be applied carefully. Some people seem to use it inappropriately for almost every image, perhaps as a kind of a structure tool
Another interpretation. There is so little color, maybe I should use B&W. But then I wanted to change the size and shape of the building, and then I had to bring out the faces of the workers. IMG_6966.JPG.dop (1.0 MB)
I’ve recently been experimenting with the ‘advanced’ contrast controls and found they can help with scenes with poor lighting. For example, you can reduce contrast globally then bring it back up independently for shadows (which works well with backlit photos) plus add a little micro- or fine contrast.
Now that you’e written this, it sounds “obvious”, but it sure wasn’t obvious to me. Nice trick!
In the example you posted, yeah, I capture images like that especially when I’m shooting into the light (backlighting problem). Your exaggerated “fix” somehow looks “un-natural” to me, with the sky so brilliant (nice sunny day sky) but the foreground looking so “dull”, but as an example, this is great. In between those extremes, I can likely find a good option.
Until now, I ever even thought about applying the contrast selectively, with the PhotoLab controls. This sounds like a wonderful new tool I can go to in my PL6 toolbox. Thanks!!!
(I’m sure there are lots of things in PL6 that I’m mostly unaware of, or don’t use. )
@mwsilvers - can you give an example of how this can be used creatively? Any time I tried it, I immediately liked the result, only to get very negative feedback from @Joanna. Bottom line, I forgot about using it at all, but from what you wrote, there are times when it can be helpful. I guess my problem wasn’t in using it, but in over-using it.
I certainly would not use it on my “construction” photo up above, because my iPhone 11 Pro didn’t capture enough detail to begin with, and it didn’t treat the shadow areas very nicely.
Not to keep beating on a dead horse, but my recent lack of an appropriate camera hurt. I got my photo, but it was not what I expected.
@Joanna, your advice would be to carry your D850 with a zoom lens that does everything/anything. I can’t argue with that, as you are prepared for whatever you find. But I don’t see myself doing that when walking to and from the grocery store, or the Post Office, or when shopping. So, what to do? What do you do?
My options are to bring my D780 or M10, with some lenses maybe in my pocket. That’s great if I know I’m going to take some photos, but not what I want if I’m just walking to the post office to mail a letter. That brings up the use of my Fuji X100f, which is small and light, and does everything. But ideally, I would like a smaller camera that goes in a “belt pouch” which I can wear all the time such as my Canon G7x Pro Mk II which is what I did several years ago. Finally, I can take my even smaller Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5) which I used for some trips in India.
I still don’t have a good answer, as it comes down to practicality vs quality. I’ve got a choice of one of the above, or maybe my small and light Nikon Df. That, or maybe buying a newer iPhone, which to me feels like a waste of a thousand dollars since I already own what used to be a “good” iPhone.
It’s probably silly for me to ask for advice here - I’ve got the above choices, and I can always select one of them. My Fuji is likely the most practical choice most of the time.
But what I can do here, is to ask each of you what camera (if any) you take with you when you’re not specifically going out to capture photographs, maybe just taking a walk to go shopping or something.
(…and I assume it will be a camera that can shoot in RAW, with a high-quality lens, and can be conveniently carried with you.)
I guess it all comes down to whether you want to take a high quality image, or just capture a memory.
I always have my iPhone in my pocket and that allows me to take “snaps” whenever I want. But I would not normally consider them for printing large for exhibition. If I am going somewhere in the car, the D850 with 28-300mm lens, tripod, kitbag, etc are stowed in the car and can be quickly accessed.
I don’t normally do street photography, but if I were to, then I guess I would carry something like our Canon G10, which is limited but can be useful in certain circumstances. However, if the subject is anything but well lit and easy to fill the frame with, I wouldn’t bother.
Rather than hoping to get something and getting a “grab shot”, which takes all sorts of messing around to correct in post-processing, I tend to note down where the shot is and come back with something that can give me a worthwhile image.
Having said all that, I have been known to use the iPhone for the odd serious image, especially candid shots or macros where depth of field is a problem with a regular camera.
I enjoy making high dynamic range shots in a single image in the camera (D850) but I have had to develop a technique for shooting that gives me an image that can be successfully processed.
Take this shot of a wreck with a bright sky behind it. Here is a screenshot of the untouched RAW in PL6…
I know that my camera can cope with 14.6 stops range at 100 ISO. So, I took a spot reading from the brightest part of the sky and placed it at 0EV, so it would render 18% grey, allowing me to extract the detail in the clouds.
The first thing I do with this kind of shot is to activate the over and under exposure warnings…
You can see already how this has brought the shadows much more within range, although, if you look carefully, you will see a little bit of the shadow warning under the stern.
Now to adjust the Tone Curve to enhance the contrast and lift the shadows and mid-tones…
Although this is still quite flat and lacking in “oomph!” So I then get to work with the fine contrast sliders, adjusting the tone curve as and when necessary…
I started by drawing, what could be thought of as a graduated filter, but the difference is, by placing the pipette in the sky and activating the mask, I can adjust the Chroma and Luma selectivities to only select the sky, mainly in the upper right corner. Basically, what shows white is the masked area that will be adjusted.
… and use the exposure, contrast and micro-contrast sliders to bring out more detail in the clouds. But you do need to be careful not to overdo this, otherwise you can end up overcooking it.
But it all starts with knowing the dynamic range of your camera and metering for the brightest highlights - only then will you get a good enough RAW file with enough detail in both the shadows and the highlights.
I’ve got to do a lot of reading, and re-reading, and re-re-reading of what you wrote, and then try to capture an appropriate image which I can work on as you described. For me, that is the most important part of what you wrote. As I’ve been writing this, I think I’m beginning to understand.
Also, it ain’t gonna happen, but if I want a small camera that will go under my jacket where it’s somewhat out of sight, and won’t get wet if it rains, and if I want 14.8 stops of dynamic range, maybe I should just spend $9,000 or so on a Leica M11. I don’t see that happening in this lifetime. …but that’s something else - for now, I want to be able to do what you just showed me, and it all starts (as you noted) in setting the camera properly for the lighting.
(I can try to do that if I go back and re-capture my back-lit scene with my D780, spot metering on the clouds.)
Thank you again for taking the time to not only write and illustrate what to do, but to do so in a way that I think I understand this.
For me, the biggest thing I learned from your post, wasn’t the image. When I read what you wrote, about removing contrast and bringing it back selectively, that exploded into dozens of thoughts.
I went to the store and back with my Fuji, but didn’t see anything appropriate to try this with. And no, I don’t have any intention of buying yet another camera. What you wrote to get me thinking in a new way, and with @Joana’s detailed description of how to do things, I’m anxious to pick up my camera and battle with a poorly lit scene.
(Unfortunately, what seems to be a routine scene to view on Joanna’s side of the ocean, doesn’t exist in Miami. The concept is the most important part of all this I guess. I suppose that Joanna’s example, might be even more effective in B&W, since the color doesn’t do all that much. I wonder how the photo would look if Joanna got down right on top of the mud, and took the photo from that angle? That’s an advantage for the Leica - mount a Visoflex on it, and look down, into the camera!)
I think you overcooked it a bit
It looks not natural. A bit too bright. Just my opinion not really a critic.
It’s your image so you can do with it as you like.
But i think you can improve it a bit.
When you use smartlighting with boxes,exposure adjustment, selective tone and advanged contrast together you get bit more balanced effect.
Remember, highlightcontrastslider to minus means its helping highlight selective tone to adjust bright sections. (only selective tone highlight to minus 50 can be done better with minus 25 of slider in tone and contrast) slide it to the plus side it extract detail of a plaine. (in white often greyisch artefact but well what’s not there can’t be extracted.)
But in midtone and shadows it’s a mirakel of a tool.
Try out smart lighting at 25% place boxes on your face, a darker area you like to enhance. This set the tone curve accents on those places.
Then carfully lift some extra shadows by using selective tone en the contrast counterpart. Try both way’s plus tone and minus contrast wile using finecontrast to enhance the blacklevel/ clarity. (color vibrance enhancement)
Micro contrast is often too much.
What you can try is a small amount of clearviewplus( microcontrast placed on a algorithm based edge detection. (just 10 15%) in stead of the microcontrast slider which effecrs every egde of a detail.
I am doing something else so my editing is a bit slow at the moment.
Fun playing wire twister. Break apart, replace central wirebox to the desired point in the imaginairy ceiling.
Demontage ceiling structure for more height.
Rebuild everything,
Add some plaster and get a padding on the shoulder from the wife who wanted this…
Problem is she knows that i am become a handy man because i didn’t had the money to let it done by pro’s.
(i am taking images with my camera so i hope after my first run through “the hell of rebuilding a house interieur” i can develope some.)
When is comes to ClearView Plus settings, less is more. If used inappropriately it will way overcook an image. It is primarily intended as a haze removal tool but depending on content it can sometimes be useful on other images if used with great care. There is no specific use case for that. In my experience newbies tend to significantly over use ClearView Plus on inappropriate images and at high settings.
I don’t understand anything about that photo, what it is, what it does, or how it does it. I have enough on my mind trying to sort out the things I’m already working on here (and more so with bullseye shooting). I also have no idea what I’m seeing in the ceiling photo??? Yes though - at the end of a not-long-enough-day, I find it very enjoyable to fire up PL6 and search for an appropriate image to try to improve to not only where I like it, but where others do as well. I did capture a few boats in motion, but I’ve posted too many of those already.
Unfortunately, you are SO right!!! When I was starting out with PhotoLab, ClearView Plus seemed like a magic tool to bring out all the detail in my images. Then I looked at the images at full size, and they turned to mush. Totally fake. I painted the ClearView Plus button with poison, so I would never use it again. Now I’m finding that in moderation, it’s an interesting tool.
Along with that, for a while I used to use “MicroContrast”. It was at the top of the list, so I figured I would naturally use that much of the time. Then @Joanna told me to never use it, and to use Fine Contrast instead. To be honest here, I’m not sure what the difference is, or why to use one and not the other. But adding a little Contrast, and then a little Fine Contrast usually had a nice effect. As of today, I still don’t “understand” the difference.
It’s like taking a bite of a great steak. Next thing you know, I want more, and more. The more I turned on ClearView Plus, the better my small image on my computer screen looked. Wow, this is great!!! But back then I didn’t zoom in on the image to see what it was doing to the full-size image. Gack!!! …and ouch!!! It’s like stepping barefoot onto something very hot. Ouch! Never again!!
For me, if there are new images in my camera, I find it hard to go to bed without viewing “the day’s catch”. Unfortunately, at that time I want to start editing. Of course, I eventually look at the time, and realize I should climb into bed. Un processed images are like an “itch” to me, and they need to be “scratched”!! Of course, then (or first thing the next morning) I like to post at least one of them. While everything is fresh in my mind, I like to get feedback as to whether I did things acceptably well. This seems to lead to taking new photos almost every day of course. Then I get side-tracked. My mind is like a rotary switch, and it can be set to image processing, or bullseye, or searching for new gear.
…and then too, I love it when one of you posts an image, along with a long explanation. Some explanations I get right away. Others (like from @Wolfgang ) require a lot of time to figure out, because I don’t think fast enough. Like what Joanna just did - so I need to look at the whole thing, step by step, and learn which tool did what… and I immediately need to find one of my images to test it on.
)
