Cattails by the Marsh, Near Sunset

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/20/2005 03:50:31 AM · #1

This picture is interesting in that when I print it out there is distinct and beautiful detail in pure white, cotton-like extrusions within all the cattails, and this utterly does not come through in the small version.

Maybe I'll try making a 100% blowup and see if it shows there :-)

Here's a 100% crop, and even this doesn't do it justice. Every week I am learning more about the limitations of showing certain sorts of images online at such low resolutions.

R.

Message edited by author 2005-11-20 04:07:25.

ShotMD

Canon EOS-10D

11/20/2005 04:27:20 AM · #2

This is an area that I need to learn as wellâ�¦ There is such a discrepancy between my monitor and my prints. I know that the sharpening requirements are different for the different mediums and different sizesâ�¦ but my problems even go into color and grain and other aspects. I need to learn to calibrate my entire workflowâ�¦ even in the camera histogram evaluation. It just seems hard to find where to start.

edit: Nice shot, btw.

Message edited by author 2005-11-20 04:28:13.

11/20/2005 04:42:30 AM · #3

Originally posted by ShotMD:

Start with RAW, is my advice :-) Here's another from the same series. Look at the dynamic range; this is full tilt, into-the-sun backlighting here... I am continually being more amazed at just how much range I can pull with this sensor.

If you have any questions re: what you were just talking about, I'm happy to help if I can.

R.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/20/2005 04:59:51 AM · #4

When a master of your caliber shows a shot like this without exposure and hardward details and I as a grasshopper view it, I feel cheated out of a chance to learn though I am still humbled by your skill.

Edited to add: I love how you captured the light in the flora in such detail and left us to wonder about the beauty beyond

Message edited by author 2005-11-20 05:14:51.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/20/2005 11:45:48 AM · #5

Sorry about that. I tend to load 'em up fast and not dig out the details.

These are shot with the 70-200mm f/4L, ISO 200, f/16 or 22, 1/60 sec. RAW format. Daylight WB. Low Contrast. High color saturation.

In Photoshop, contrast masking layers, hue/sat amped a little but not much, USM added.

Pretty basic.

Robt.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/20/2005 11:59:02 AM · #6

Without a doubt, display at 640px is a "challenge." I've often been frustrated by loss of detail, and have rethought challenge entries because the final resized photo did not have the impact of the original due to loss of detail.
The practice I've adopted is "step interpolation", where I downsize in small steps, say 10%, using "bicubic," and sharpen at the end of the process, using small radius and high amount, with non-zero threshold to avoid sharpening noise. That's as good as it gets, IMO, but the results can still be underwhelming at 640. Wish we'd go to 800 wide... here's to "proposition 800!"

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/20/2005 12:01:07 PM · #7

Originally posted by kirbic:

Yes, I have been downsizing via SI for quite a while now, and it makes a noticeable difference. Ditto the size-specific USM as a last step before borders. That part makes all the difference in the world.

R.

AlexSaberi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/20/2005 12:15:57 PM · #8

nice colours here. With a dreamy feel to it.

But I find it rather noisy and for me it lacks a solid focal point! IMHO

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/20/2005 12:25:48 PM · #9

Originally posted by alexsaberi:

nice colours here. With a dreamy feel to it.

But I find it rather noisy and for me it lacks a solid focal point! IMHO

"Noisy"? If you mean camera/sensor "noise", there isn't any to speak of at normal viewing magnifications. If you mean the shots are "busy" with lots of little details, yeah... As for the lack of a focal point, I do a lot of that. One of my pet peeves is that not every image NEEDS a defined focal point. I like images that are about overall texture and light, without defined, localized, "subjects". So that's a conscious choice, albeit a matter of taste...

Robt.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/20/2005 12:34:38 PM · #10

I would imagine that you like Eliot Porter, although his colors were much more understated than these.
Shooting in RAW with low contrast and high color helps to extract the maximum dynamic range and detail the sensor is capable of, but I would have thought that the latter two settings would not affect image quality when a RAW image is captured.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/20/2005 12:36:16 PM · #11

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The low contrast and high color are adjusted paramters in RAW processing. The "RAW negative" of course is zeroed out in all areas.

Eliot Porter is one of my great influences. I love his work.

Robt.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/20/2005 12:47:15 PM · #12

One of my own images of a similar subject but with side lighting and high contrast.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/20/2005 12:48:23 PM · #13

Same danged weeds, yup :-) They are everywhere...

R.

AlexSaberi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/20/2005 02:40:37 PM · #14

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by alexsaberi:
nice colours here. With a dreamy feel to it.

But I find it rather noisy and for me it lacks a solid focal point! IMHO

"Noisy"? If you mean camera/sensor "noise", there isn't any to speak of at normal viewing magnifications. If you mean the shots are "busy" with lots of little details, yeah... As for the lack of a focal point, I do a lot of that. One of my pet peeves is that not every image NEEDS a defined focal point. I like images that are about overall texture and light, without defined, localized, "subjects". So that's a conscious choice, albeit a matter of taste...

Robt.

I would actually say most people would go for photos with a focal point, but I can kinda understand what you are trying to say about texture etc. Would be best to have both hey???? texture, dreamy feel, and focal point.