Posted by Nat Coalson on August 4, 2007 at 2:52 AM
Zebra Canyon, Escalante. 30D 17-40L, printed to 40x60 in. Thoughts on composition and lighting? Comments always welcome... especially for a SW icon like Zebra...
I'm almost as interested in the 40x60 print from an 8MP file as I am in the image. The image first...I like the comp, especially the layering and the tension created by the intersecting lines. Definitely different in that it emphasizes the forces at work in twisting that rock around, vs a lot of the more common perspectives where most of the lines are parallel. The light feels a little flat to me. In print, I think the detail in the sandstone would hold the eye regardless of the light, but on a web .jpg, the loss of detail combined with the low contrast light leaves me wanting for something a little more jazzy, a little less subtle. Certainly a matter of personal tastes, though.
Regarding the print - a 40x60 print from an 8MP file is pretty impressive. How are you up-sizing? I'm assuming the detail holds up well, knowing your attention to detail and presentation.
Posted by Todd Caudle on August 4, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I'm with Rick on this. First, the shot is an extraordinary take, so much different than what we usually see from here. The choice of composition is just mind-bogglingly on. But you obviously mentioned the 40x60 print for a reason. Did you measure in mm? If not, what's your secret? And how does it look at 40x60?
Posted by Momo Vuyisich on August 4, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I like the comp here. I also agree that the image is a bit flat. Not knowing the actual colors of the canyon, it looks like there is a bit too much magenta in the photo (on my monitor). It also seems that the LLC is slightly out of focus. However, it is an overall very pleasant image. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Art Escobado on August 4, 2007 at 11:41 AM
This is interesting image, would you tell us the focus point and any areas selectively sharpened?
Posted by Doug Andrews on August 4, 2007 at 12:21 PM
The comp. is nice, but the lighting is also a little flat for my taste.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on August 4, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Nice composition, different from the norm as mentioned.
I'd like more saturation and contrast too but that's from a landscape perspective. The dull colors and flat light might better reflect the actual conditions or meet your goals for a more abstract feel - that works too.
My wife saw me looking at the photo and wondered why I was looking at a sofa . I think that's actually a compliment as I know you're after abstracts and the detail in the banding and rock does have a textile aspect.
I'm curious about the 40x60 print too. I can see it being possible since the colors are uniform and would probably up-res well without a lot of detail loss, especially if you're not inches away pixel peeping.
Posted by Dan Walters on August 4, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Beautiful shot Nat. I would agree that the light is a little flat, but the comp is ceratinly amazing. I am in awe of the 40x60 print as well from the 30D!
Posted by Nat Coalson on August 5, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
I agree that the light is flat, due to its indirect nature.... when this shot was made, the light was bouncing around the inside of the canyon so its very diffused. (I might go back and enhance the volume of the forms with local dodging and burning.)
The focusing point was set to the curved edge near the center of the frame. The lower right corner - and to a lesser degree, the upper right - are out of focus due to shallow depth-of-field. The shot was made handheld; since I needed the fastest shutter speed possible in low light I had to open up more than I would have if using a tripod. (Actually, had I realized at the time that I would like this composition so much I would have made more images with the camera on the tripod.... this photograph was one of a multitude of handheld experiments while waiting my turn for the standard "tripod holes".)
Although I might like to have a version with more DOF and everything sharp, I'm not a person who believes that all landscape photographs have to feature enormous DOF with everything in sharp focus. To me, this image in particular works with some areas being less or more in focus because it emphasizes the differences between the shapes in the composition, and keeps the eye directed to the main area of interest. I suspect that were everything tack-sharp that the edges between the planes would have produced an even "flatter" appearance. Not better or worse, just different.
I was able to make the enlargement to 40x60 inches from an 8.3 MP capture using the following method. (Actually, I cropped the image in Lightroom, so I started with a file with an even smaller native resolution of 3128x2085.)
In Lightroom
1. Process the DNG file with no sharpening. Using the controls in the Develop module, get the file as "perfect" as possible with regard to cropping, color and contrast. Apply very slight noise reduction if necessary, and make sure to correct any chromatic abberation, which dramatically affects sharpness.
2. Export from LR as 16-bit ProPhoto PSD (or TIF, if you prefer) at 240 ppi with no resizing.
In Photoshop
3. Before doing anything else, apply PhotoKit Capture Sharpen Expert > Digital Hi-Res Sharpen.
4. Make any necessary Adjustments that were not taken care of in Lightroom, such as localized dodging and burning or selective color adjustments.
5. Apply PhotoKit Creative Sharpener > Sharpening Effects > Luminance Sharpen 3 (this selection will depend on the characteristics of the image you're working with; it's a good idea to experiment to learn the best kind of sharpening for different types of images).
6. Save out the layered Master PSD file, then flatten it. (And don't save again just yet.)
7. In Image Size, upsample the image 200% using Bicubic Smoother.
8. Zoom in to see if there was any apparent loss of detail from the resampling. If so, apply another round of sharpening using either PhotoKit, Unsharp Mask or Smart Sharpen, depending on the needs of the image.
9. Upsample the image to its final size, again using Bicubic Smoother. Apply another round of light sharpening if necessary.
10. Flatten again and Save a copy of the resized file for printing.
11. Before printing, apply PhotoKit Output Sharpener > Inkjet > 240 ppi glossy
In summary: making good enlargements from digital captures requires several rounds of gentle sharpening interspersed with several incremental rounds of upsampling. You will get much better results - and have more control over the final image - if you don't try to do all your sharpening or resampling in one step. And of course, some images will have more potential for huge enlargements than others, and no amount of sharpening will make up for an out-of-focus image. (5D owners properly using these techniques may be amazed by the possibilities for enlargement.)
I strongly recommend that you work on your Master File at native resolution, as far through the pipeline as possible. Do your capture sharpen, creative sharpening and all adjustments on the Master File and when you are done with all your edits, do your upsampling on a flattened copy of the file. This way, you can always go back to your Master file and make new derivatives for specific print sizes without having to do your primary work on huge files. And keep in mind that the ideal settings for any sharpening depend on the pixel resolution of the file.
Last year some of these techniques were featured in a very interesting article in Digital Photo Pro, written by Jeff Schewe. Jeff is one of the founders of PixelGenius, who makes PhotoKit. PK Sharpener was developed by the late digital guru Bruce Fraser.... and nobody in the business knew more about digital imaging than Bruce. In my opinion, spending $99 to add PhotoKit Sharpener to Photoshop is one of the best ways to dramatically improve your images. (Note that the CS3 version of PK is still in Beta; for this reason I'm still mainly using CS2.) http://www.pixelgenius.com
I hope readers find this information useful and I will be very interested to hear some "enlargement success stories" from others... and let me know if you need any big prints from my 9800!
Love the comp. It makes my head move as I focus on different areas! Thanks also for the sharpening and upsizing info. Will have to try that with a 5D shot.
Thanks for the uprezing technique Nat. This technique works well on scanned film as well.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on August 5, 2007 at 8:57 PM
As I've stated before, I second the recommendation for PK sharpener!
Nat, the V1.26 on the PG site, for CS3 is final. I've been using it with no issues. The only oddity is stated on the download page, you have to have a pixel layer selected for the sharpener menu options to be available.
Posted by bill meikle on August 7, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Nat, would you allow me to copy your comments to the loveland photographic society newsletter this month, it goes out to about 75 people and you would get the credits?? I think they'd like to read your process. I certainly found it interesting and timely.
please let me know,
Bill
Posted by Nat Coalson on August 7, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Bill - you have my permission to use the text in this thread explaining my resampling and sharpening techniques in the next newsletter for the Loveland Photographic Society. Please let me know if there's anything else you need, including any ideas for editing... and please send me a copy of the newsletter. Thanks!
Discussion
15 repliesRegarding the print - a 40x60 print from an 8MP file is pretty impressive. How are you up-sizing? I'm assuming the detail holds up well, knowing your attention to detail and presentation.
I'd like more saturation and contrast too but that's from a landscape perspective. The dull colors and flat light might better reflect the actual conditions or meet your goals for a more abstract feel - that works too.
My wife saw me looking at the photo and wondered why I was looking at a sofa
I'm curious about the 40x60 print too. I can see it being possible since the colors are uniform and would probably up-res well without a lot of detail loss, especially if you're not inches away pixel peeping.
RichieV
I agree that the light is flat, due to its indirect nature.... when this shot was made, the light was bouncing around the inside of the canyon so its very diffused. (I might go back and enhance the volume of the forms with local dodging and burning.)
The focusing point was set to the curved edge near the center of the frame. The lower right corner - and to a lesser degree, the upper right - are out of focus due to shallow depth-of-field. The shot was made handheld; since I needed the fastest shutter speed possible in low light I had to open up more than I would have if using a tripod. (Actually, had I realized at the time that I would like this composition so much I would have made more images with the camera on the tripod.... this photograph was one of a multitude of handheld experiments while waiting my turn for the standard "tripod holes".)
Although I might like to have a version with more DOF and everything sharp, I'm not a person who believes that all landscape photographs have to feature enormous DOF with everything in sharp focus. To me, this image in particular works with some areas being less or more in focus because it emphasizes the differences between the shapes in the composition, and keeps the eye directed to the main area of interest. I suspect that were everything tack-sharp that the edges between the planes would have produced an even "flatter" appearance. Not better or worse, just different.
I was able to make the enlargement to 40x60 inches from an 8.3 MP capture using the following method. (Actually, I cropped the image in Lightroom, so I started with a file with an even smaller native resolution of 3128x2085.)
In Lightroom
1. Process the DNG file with no sharpening. Using the controls in the Develop module, get the file as "perfect" as possible with regard to cropping, color and contrast. Apply very slight noise reduction if necessary, and make sure to correct any chromatic abberation, which dramatically affects sharpness.
2. Export from LR as 16-bit ProPhoto PSD (or TIF, if you prefer) at 240 ppi with no resizing.
In Photoshop
3. Before doing anything else, apply PhotoKit Capture Sharpen Expert > Digital Hi-Res Sharpen.
4. Make any necessary Adjustments that were not taken care of in Lightroom, such as localized dodging and burning or selective color adjustments.
5. Apply PhotoKit Creative Sharpener > Sharpening Effects > Luminance Sharpen 3 (this selection will depend on the characteristics of the image you're working with; it's a good idea to experiment to learn the best kind of sharpening for different types of images).
6. Save out the layered Master PSD file, then flatten it. (And don't save again just yet.)
7. In Image Size, upsample the image 200% using Bicubic Smoother.
8. Zoom in to see if there was any apparent loss of detail from the resampling. If so, apply another round of sharpening using either PhotoKit, Unsharp Mask or Smart Sharpen, depending on the needs of the image.
9. Upsample the image to its final size, again using Bicubic Smoother. Apply another round of light sharpening if necessary.
10. Flatten again and Save a copy of the resized file for printing.
11. Before printing, apply PhotoKit Output Sharpener > Inkjet > 240 ppi glossy
In summary: making good enlargements from digital captures requires several rounds of gentle sharpening interspersed with several incremental rounds of upsampling. You will get much better results - and have more control over the final image - if you don't try to do all your sharpening or resampling in one step. And of course, some images will have more potential for huge enlargements than others, and no amount of sharpening will make up for an out-of-focus image. (5D owners properly using these techniques may be amazed by the possibilities for enlargement.)
I strongly recommend that you work on your Master File at native resolution, as far through the pipeline as possible. Do your capture sharpen, creative sharpening and all adjustments on the Master File and when you are done with all your edits, do your upsampling on a flattened copy of the file. This way, you can always go back to your Master file and make new derivatives for specific print sizes without having to do your primary work on huge files. And keep in mind that the ideal settings for any sharpening depend on the pixel resolution of the file.
Last year some of these techniques were featured in a very interesting article in Digital Photo Pro, written by Jeff Schewe. Jeff is one of the founders of PixelGenius, who makes PhotoKit. PK Sharpener was developed by the late digital guru Bruce Fraser.... and nobody in the business knew more about digital imaging than Bruce. In my opinion, spending $99 to add PhotoKit Sharpener to Photoshop is one of the best ways to dramatically improve your images. (Note that the CS3 version of PK is still in Beta; for this reason I'm still mainly using CS2.) http://www.pixelgenius.com
I hope readers find this information useful and I will be very interested to hear some "enlargement success stories" from others... and let me know if you need any big prints from my 9800!
Nat, the V1.26 on the PG site, for CS3 is final. I've been using it with no issues. The only oddity is stated on the download page, you have to have a pixel layer selected for the sharpener menu options to be available.
please let me know,
Bill