DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> How do I achieve this level of quality??
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 38 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/14/2011 09:26:45 AM · #26
You also mentioned that you use live view. Are you using manual focus as well, because the AF in live view is slow and not as accurate as the normal AF. For what you are trying to achieve I would place the camera on a tripod, zoom in (in live view, not the lens) on where you want your sharpest focus to be and focus manually.
 06/14/2011 09:35:58 AM · #27
Something else I just thought of and I dont think anyone has mentioned on this thread yet - if shooting on a tripod make sure your stabiliser is switched off. Having it switched on AND using a tripod actually makes a picture softer and loses sharpness.
 06/14/2011 09:42:40 AM · #28
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Something else I just thought of and I dont think anyone has mentioned on this thread yet - if shooting on a tripod make sure your stabiliser is switched off. Having it switched on AND using a tripod actually makes a picture softer and loses sharpness.


With some of the older stabilized lenses, yes. With the newer generation of IS lenses, no, the IS will intelligently recognize that it needs to chill.
 06/14/2011 10:05:18 AM · #29
So at this point there's a lot of good information in this thread. Rather than respond to each idea individually, following are my takes on some of the stuff that's been thrown out, keeping in mind that the goal is to generate high detail, keeping foreground and distance sharp as well:

Aperture: Yes, diffraction is a problem, you really won't see its effects noticeably until f/16 or so. Shoot confidently up to f/11, use f/16 when you need to, stay away from f/22 if you want really sharp results.

ISO: Keep it to base ISO unless you really need to shoot at higher ISO. Raising the ISO more than a stop (maybe two) above base ISO will get you less detail, along with more noise. Especially true if you shoot JPEG

Tripod: Yes, definitely if you can. If you can't, then make sure you are comfortably above the 1/FL limit. For instance if you're shooting at 24mm, don't let your shutter speed drop to near 1/25 s, keep it at least two stops faster, say 1/100. Brace your camera when possible.

JPEG vs. RAW: You will always be able to extract more detail out of a RAW file than the in-camera JPEG. How much more is dependent on how good the camera's JPEG engine is. That said, if you aren't used to a RAW workflow, don't try it on a once-in-a-lifetime shoot, experiment with it first.

Hyperfocal Distance: If you want the greatest range of in-focus subject, hyperfocal distance is your friend. The best on-line hyperfocal distance calculator I've seen is DoFMaster. Keep this in mind, though: if you use this calculator by selecting your camera model, you may find that objects at infinity are a little soft. That's because the calculator uses a *very* generous value for the CoC (Circle of Confusion) which results in hyperfocal distances that are a little closer than optimal. For instance, the calculator uses about 0.019mm for all APS-C cameras, but the theoretical CoC for the 7D (based on pixel pitch on the sensor) is actually 0.0086mm, less than half the value used. The optimal value for the 7D probably lies somewhere between the two, and is dependent on the strength of the anti-alias filter on the sensor. I'd use something between 0.010 mm and 0.012mm. You can select a specific CoC by scrolling to the bottom of the list.

Resizing: There are as many theories on resizing as there are photographers. A good resizing/sharpening workflow can definitely make a huge difference in the perceived level of detail of a posted image. The image referred to in the OP's first post is extremely well processed. On resizing trick is to resize to twice the final dimension (if you want an 800px wide image, resize to 1600px wide) then optimize sharpening and do a final resize. You can also experiment with which resizing algorithm to use during each step. the objective is to retain detail without getting halos or other artifacts.
 06/14/2011 10:13:59 AM · #30
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Something else I just thought of and I dont think anyone has mentioned on this thread yet - if shooting on a tripod make sure your stabiliser is switched off. Having it switched on AND using a tripod actually makes a picture softer and loses sharpness.


With some of the older stabilized lenses, yes. With the newer generation of IS lenses, no, the IS will intelligently recognize that it needs to chill.

I have the 24-105 f4 L IS (not that old at all) and it DOES mess with my shots on the tripod... anything more than about 1/20 of a second and I have to switch it off... so I just switch it off when I use a tripod now.
 06/14/2011 10:18:25 AM · #31
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Something else I just thought of and I dont think anyone has mentioned on this thread yet - if shooting on a tripod make sure your stabiliser is switched off. Having it switched on AND using a tripod actually makes a picture softer and loses sharpness.


With some of the older stabilized lenses, yes. With the newer generation of IS lenses, no, the IS will intelligently recognize that it needs to chill.

I have the 24-105 f4 L IS (not that old at all) and it DOES mess with my shots on the tripod... anything more than about 1/20 of a second and I have to switch it off... so I just switch it off when I use a tripod now.


From a practical standpoint, I agree, and I do the same thing (switch it off) just to be sure.
 06/14/2011 12:01:27 PM · #32
This thread is very informative and interesting. I think that everybody has the question of the OP and would be really nice to know how to achieve those results.

It seems to me that there are some more steps on the processing to give the image that "polished" feeling.

For example, this image:


The picture is outstanding by itself, but when you check the processed version, you noticed that everything is vibrant and polished (like the picture on the OP).



I would really love to know how to do this. It seems to be some tonemapping technique, as the description Jovan gave on the entry details.


06/14/2011 12:49:19 PM · #33
Originally posted by jotaga:
This thread is very informative and interesting. I think that everybody has the question of the OP and would be really nice to know how to achieve those results.

It seems to me that there are some more steps on the processing to give the image that "polished" feeling.

For example, this image:


The picture is outstanding by itself, but when you check the processed version, you noticed that everything is vibrant and polished (like the picture on the OP).



I would really love to know how to do this. It seems to be some tonemapping technique, as the description Jovan gave on the entry details.




An under 2 minute edit with an increase in contrast and the use of dodge and burn. I couldn't get to the eyes because this was edit of print screen but they can easily be brightened by the use of dodge on highlight mode

Message edited by author 2011-06-14 12:50:27.
 06/14/2011 01:07:52 PM · #34
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by jotaga:
This thread is very informative and interesting. I think that everybody has the question of the OP and would be really nice to know how to achieve those results.

It seems to me that there are some more steps on the processing to give the image that "polished" feeling.

For example, this image:


The picture is outstanding by itself, but when you check the processed version, you noticed that everything is vibrant and polished (like the picture on the OP).



I would really love to know how to do this. It seems to be some tonemapping technique, as the description Jovan gave on the entry details.




An under 2 minute edit with an increase in contrast and the use of dodge and burn. I couldn't get to the eyes because this was edit of print screen but they can easily be brightened by the use of dodge on highlight mode
I think tonemapping in Photomatix gives nice colors and that "glow" effect that may need some more effort to achieve in Photoshop but it needs to be done on TIFF converted from RAW file.
 06/14/2011 01:15:52 PM · #35
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by jotaga:
This thread is very informative and interesting. I think that everybody has the question of the OP and would be really nice to know how to achieve those results.

It seems to me that there are some more steps on the processing to give the image that "polished" feeling.

For example, this image:


The picture is outstanding by itself, but when you check the processed version, you noticed that everything is vibrant and polished (like the picture on the OP).



I would really love to know how to do this. It seems to be some tonemapping technique, as the description Jovan gave on the entry details.




An under 2 minute edit with an increase in contrast and the use of dodge and burn. I couldn't get to the eyes because this was edit of print screen but they can easily be brightened by the use of dodge on highlight mode
I think tonemapping in Photomatix gives nice colors and that "glow" effect that may need some more effort to achieve in Photoshop but it needs to be done on TIFF converted from RAW file.


true but I dislike how photomatrix takes away some details sometimes even with a single raw. I'm probably using the program all wrong.
06/14/2011 01:58:15 PM · #36
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by MargaretN:

I think tonemapping in Photomatix gives nice colors and that "glow" effect that may need some more effort to achieve in Photoshop but it needs to be done on TIFF converted from RAW file.


true but I dislike how photomatrix takes away some details sometimes even with a single raw. I'm probably using the program all wrong.

I've had the same experience. I cannot figure it out. Two seemingly similar photos will be run through Photomatix with nearly identical settings and one will be sharp and the other soft. I find it highly unpredictable.
 06/14/2011 04:54:19 PM · #37
Originally posted by bohemka:

I've had the same experience. I cannot figure it out. Two seemingly similar photos will be run through Photomatix with nearly identical settings and one will be sharp and the other soft. I find it highly unpredictable.


You can get much more predictable results with Topaz Detail, which is basically a tone mapping tool with additional bells and whistles. Topaz Adjust does it too, but it's set to a coarser calibration. I use Detail now much more than I use Adjust. It lets me fine-tune how much enhancement I dial in at each level of detail: fine, medium, and large.

R.
 06/14/2011 07:40:36 PM · #38
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by MargaretN:

I think tonemapping in Photomatix gives nice colors and that "glow" effect that may need some more effort to achieve in Photoshop but it needs to be done on TIFF converted from RAW file.


true but I dislike how photomatrix takes away some details sometimes even with a single raw. I'm probably using the program all wrong.

I've had the same experience. I cannot figure it out. Two seemingly similar photos will be run through Photomatix with nearly identical settings and one will be sharp and the other soft. I find it highly unpredictable.
I have a "miracle" preset that works as is or slightly modified on most of my photos. I used it on these:
. .
As you can see very diverse scenes but the same preset. It is a very conservative preset as I prefer realistic images. I also do pre-PP in LR before exporting to Photomatix - usually just Recovery and Fill Light to remove the extremes. I also do PP afterwards in either LR (Clarity, Curves, Detail) or Viveza (Structure, Contrast), or even both like in this one (it was a big challenge):

I am still new to the most of the software and in very early days with Photoshop but I have used Photomatix for about 2 years and still like it a lot.

PS What do you mean by sharpness - contrast? Photomatix does not sharpen images.

Message edited by author 2011-06-14 20:02:01.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 09:42:24 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 09:42:24 AM EDT.