Random Photos : Part 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Umm - is that real?
Yeah, I cloned out a bit of flax lower left otherwise as the raw file was
Y'know I will admit I had the same sort of thoughts as DD.

Astonishing result Rob.

5DS something?

If so ....

much as I admire the technology (being a confirmed Canon man since my AE1 back '77 (or so), just about every shot I have recognised as being from that platform seems OTT.

Is it just too detailed? My eyes just ain't that capable.

(Could be an age thing ....)

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
Ah Sony a7r I think, so much detail and the raws take a lot of pushing if you want.

DD the lake is very sheltered the clouds are at least 4000m up those mountains you see are 3750m high

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Ah Sony a7r I think, so much detail and the raws take a lot of pushing if you want.

DD the lake is very sheltered the clouds are at least 4000m up those mountains you see are 3750m high
Hmm.

Interesting.

Basically the same thing though. As you say, so much detail.

In theory that is a highly desirable attribute but I have started to wonder whether it can be a bit too much at times. There is no "standard" human eye.

Crop heavily and the detail should be useful.
Print very large and the detail should be useful.

But I just have a nagging feeling that for more "normal" presentations the capabilities of the recent crop of top end sensors takes them to places that can make the results look a little too intense for "everyday" viewing by normal people with average eyes.

It's just a feeling and I can't quite pin it down more accurately than that at the moment.

noell35

3,170 posts

147 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
ROC today. Fuji XF1

#ROCLondon-3953 by northernladgonesouth, on Flickr

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
It's just a feeling and I can't quite pin it down more accurately than that at the moment.
But its web sized. Almost everything that you see here, this size, could be achieved with the first digital SLR's and correct techniques ( lens, shooting, sharpening etc). Checkout the recent story on petapixel about comparing a new camera to an old one, yes the higher ISO showed a huge difference, but the rest, web sized, very close.

There is more advanced detail extraction and sharpening now I think. Clarity, dehaze, smart sharpen, even basic bicubic sharper reduction (which is mostly all I use).

Its true though if you start with a 36mp image and downsample it to 12mp or whatever you do end up with more detail but not sure how apparent that would be online?

Actually after checking its a canon 6d file at 20mp with the 16-35f4L IS.



Apart from cloning out the flax lower left I didnt do anything to it ( in fact I didnt even bother saving a psd..) This is the changes I made in ACR, push those sliders! Probably something you wouldnt get away with in an old camera.


LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Interesting Rob. Very interesting.

I hear what you are saying about web size and probably should mention that my somewhat extended observations were not directed towards that image but a more general observation of something that has been niggling at me.

That shot, at web size but likely not when viewed larger, has some similar characteristics which is why I asked the question. It seemed borderline to the sort of things I had in mind.

The challenge to me seems to be that many recent cameras produce shots that look sort of false somehow when the full (or more or less full) frame is used and crushed for the web. Or, indeed, printed small.

Printed large they look fine. Printed very large they look fine if one can stand back far enough! (Unless one is marvelling at the level of detail of course .... then close up peeking is fine.)

Maybe it's just me and my eyes.

Strangely I don't really see the same effect looking at shrunken images from digital MF cameras for which the pixel density is probably much the same. Larger pixel sites I assume. Or maybe just different technology?

Out of interest I may try to approximate your settings (if I can find a suitably similar file) with my lesser cameras with poorer ISO performance and see what happens in Capture One.

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Back to see an old friend tonight to try and get my enthusiasm fired up again - think it worked smile

One More Time by Mike Smith, on Flickr

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Oh and here's the new one - will be finished next year smile



Queensferry Crossing by Mike Smith, on Flickr

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
getting an early start there DD? biggrin

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
getting an early start there DD? biggrin
Heheh - 3 bridges next year!! cloud9

WWA

119 posts

104 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Love the recent shots in this thread

Farne Islands and Sea by WillWA, on Flickr

SkySailing

511 posts

109 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Kimmeridge, Dorset.








Top Banana

435 posts

211 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
^^ Nice work TB thumbup

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
yeah very polished photography!

nomad63

143 posts

171 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Okay, go easy on me please, as I`m a total newbie at photography, and now trying desperately to learn the ropes, having just bought my first starter DSLR - a Nikon D3300.

In view of the above, how does this one rate for starters; I mean, is it reasonable, or terrible ?

Probably a bit boring, I know, for most of you accomplished, and massively skilled photographers out there, but I`d always fancied having a go at capturing the tail/headlights on cars in this manner, so hopefully it didn`t turn out too badly ?

Any tips/pointers (in relation to this image) greatly appreciated at this stage, by the way....


Lights 1 by Neil Callaghan, on Flickr

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Very nice shot Neil thumbup

Composition and technique wise it looks good to me - maybe just a touch off level (judging by the lampposts)?

nomad63

143 posts

171 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
DibblyDobbler said:
Very nice shot Neil thumbup

Composition and technique wise it looks good to me - maybe just a touch off level (judging by the lampposts)?
Thanks for taking the time to comment bud; I`ll bear it in mind re "levelling up" etc, as TBH, I hadn`t even noticed that until you pointed it out !

As I said, lots (and lots...) to learn, but thanks again, much appreciated. thumbup

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all





Slightly different overall exposure of the same image. Not at its best crushed for the web - not that it's fantastic to start with. But the early part of sunset was notably vibrant in places so worth a grabbed shot.

I would welcome comments about which works best (or at all!). I've spent too much time comparing to be able to make a decision.



Edited by LongQ on Thursday 26th November 03:04

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
nomad63 said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Very nice shot Neil thumbup

Composition and technique wise it looks good to me - maybe just a touch off level (judging by the lampposts)?
Thanks for taking the time to comment bud; I`ll bear it in mind re "levelling up" etc, as TBH, I hadn`t even noticed that until you pointed it out !

As I said, lots (and lots...) to learn, but thanks again, much appreciated. thumbup
Did you shoot that using RAW mode? (I am assuming the camera used offers RAW mode.)

If so you could have some extra fun processing the file with different White Balance settings. The street lights give is a yellow colouring - much as it actually is at the time. But by changing the White Balance you could move it more to looking like a daylight shot if you wanted to. I think that might work quite well. It would be interesting to compare.

It's very easy to make the change for a RAW file. For a jpg file the White balance value is already burned in to things can be changed but not in quite the same way and, usually, not quite as effectively.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED