Quite a range in dynamic range in this image, but was able to blend fairly well to capture this scene from two images. Thank goodness there wasn't a breath of wind.
FYI...I processed this one using a Photoshop CC trial (yea, I know..hiss, boo, etc.) Even though I certainly used a tripod, I still used the shake reduction sharpening feature. It still did a great job of correcting some inherent blur. From what I researched, it can introduce artifacts, particularly if one gets too aggressive with the sliders. So far, with just the default correction, I haven't noticed any artifacts. Seems to me Smart Sharpen is capable to doing a similar task, but I haven't compared them intensely yet. I do appreciate the fact that Smart Sharpen has options to control sharpening in the shadows and highlights.
Hi Ken, overall the image looks pretty good to my eye. I think what we've come down to here is personal preference. I think this shot would look a little better warmed up with more contrast/curves, especially the mountains and sky. I cant speak for John but I bet he sees the light on the mountains appearing a little flat. That will darken the shadows overall but I don't think that's a bad thing. Your foreground shadows look nice and cool which looks natural to me. Last nit pick, the sky seems like it has a greenish/yellow hue that reminds me of my old Nikons and a big reason I jumped to Canon.
Thanks for the review, gents. Indeed, the color was way off. I needed to step away from this image long enough for my "color eye" to come back I guess. Tweaked mainly the color balance to get some realism. John, although I don't normally use auto color, I tried it, but it didn't effect the image at all.
John, when I was referring to the inherent blur, it was a reference to camera processing, the sensor quality, interpolation, the lens itself, etc. Basically, the reason why we typically sharpen every image to some degree. I will say whether it the lack of a anti-aliasing filter or just a better sensor, the Nikon D7100 images right out of the camera and fairly sharp for a DX camera.
That said, this image in particular, probably is a challenge for any camera, considering the wide dynamic range. My conclusion is that it struggled, as seen with the color issues in the original image I posted. And, as Kane alluded to, maybe some of the color issues are related to the manufacturer? Clearly, the image had a significant bias toward yellowish/green. A bit disturbing to say the least. Some day I need to rent a full frame and actually compare with my DX to see what I may be missing. I was on the cusp of purchasing a D600, but the fact many of my lenses don't work with it, compelled my to stick with the DX form factor. One thing I know I am missing...more time shooting than post-processing poor images.
My website has a larger version of the correct image. Still not where it should be, but it provides a better baseline to work with. http://www.henkeimagery.com/p611600783/h653c92db#h653c92db
BTW, why "hiss boo" on PS CC? Man, now that I've used it there's no turning back. Having ACR as a filter so I can go back and do something I hadn't when I opened the RAW file is worth price of admission right there.
Paul,
My comment about CC was based on a "little" bit of negatively about Adobe's new business model. Change is difficult.
Like you, the RAW filter is important to me as well. I use Aperture, and most of the time it works quite well as my RAW processor. But ACR has a few important features I use occasionally. Thus, having the ability to export images to Photoshop, then use ACR is huge. I am fairly sure I will be soon sucked into the deep abyss of Adobe's new business practice. But, at least the use of the software I will enjoy!
Love this shot Ken. The one on the website is incredible. Great improvement over the first post. Don't see that it needs anything else. Nice work!
Posted by Doug Koepsel on August 2, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Ken, the color and contrast of your website version appears the best of the three. Compositionally, this appears a little tight to me- perhaps more on the bottom for the flowers and lake, and just a little more sky would be nice. The angled slope of flowers and the vertical firs against the ridge look real nice.
Discussion
8 repliesFYI...I processed this one using a Photoshop CC trial (yea, I know..hiss, boo, etc.) Even though I certainly used a tripod, I still used the shake reduction sharpening feature. It still did a great job of correcting some inherent blur. From what I researched, it can introduce artifacts, particularly if one gets too aggressive with the sliders. So far, with just the default correction, I haven't noticed any artifacts. Seems to me Smart Sharpen is capable to doing a similar task, but I haven't compared them intensely yet. I do appreciate the fact that Smart Sharpen has options to control sharpening in the shadows and highlights.
Any critiques welcome.
If you used a tripod, how can there be 'inherent blur'? Just curious...
John, when I was referring to the inherent blur, it was a reference to camera processing, the sensor quality, interpolation, the lens itself, etc. Basically, the reason why we typically sharpen every image to some degree. I will say whether it the lack of a anti-aliasing filter or just a better sensor, the Nikon D7100 images right out of the camera and fairly sharp for a DX camera.
That said, this image in particular, probably is a challenge for any camera, considering the wide dynamic range. My conclusion is that it struggled, as seen with the color issues in the original image I posted. And, as Kane alluded to, maybe some of the color issues are related to the manufacturer? Clearly, the image had a significant bias toward yellowish/green. A bit disturbing to say the least. Some day I need to rent a full frame and actually compare with my DX to see what I may be missing. I was on the cusp of purchasing a D600, but the fact many of my lenses don't work with it, compelled my to stick with the DX form factor. One thing I know I am missing...more time shooting than post-processing poor images.
My website has a larger version of the correct image. Still not where it should be, but it provides a better baseline to work with.
http://www.henkeimagery.com/p611600783/h653c92db#h653c92db
BTW, why "hiss boo" on PS CC? Man, now that I've used it there's no turning back. Having ACR as a filter so I can go back and do something I hadn't when I opened the RAW file is worth price of admission right there.
My comment about CC was based on a "little" bit of negatively about Adobe's new business model. Change is difficult.
Like you, the RAW filter is important to me as well. I use Aperture, and most of the time it works quite well as my RAW processor. But ACR has a few important features I use occasionally. Thus, having the ability to export images to Photoshop, then use ACR is huge. I am fairly sure I will be soon sucked into the deep abyss of Adobe's new business practice. But, at least the use of the software I will enjoy!