K3 & F*250-600mm, first test inc. RAW file!


Unlocker

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 14:00
MattMatic wrote:
Quote:
Don't suppose there's a lens profile on Lightroom is there?

Alas no
I even used the Adobe Len Profile Downloader to see if there was anything out there...
You can, however, make your own profiles with the free Lens Profile Creator. It involves creating a test chart, and taking a lot of DNGs at several apertures and focal lengths.
The results of having a suitable profile are, IMO, stunning. The DA12-24 just looks incredible in LR. An old commercial image I was really chuffed with on the K7+DA17-70 that I developed with Silkypix was required for a book - so I ran it through LR using the lens profiles and the difference was astounding.
Not sure how much your F*250-600 would improve though, it's looking pretty fine right now!

Matt

Thanks for the update Matt, the lens profiles are one thing that I really would like in Aperture and would probably be the main reason to try to get to grips with Lightroom should the next version of Aperture not have them, I might just have to give it a go anyway even though I just can't get on with it!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

Darkmunk

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 14:04
Down-sampling a 24MP image to 800px is a big problem for image software. Far from needing less sharpening, it probably needs more to avoid a mushy web image. The app is having to make decisions about which tones to keep and which to bin, averaging out areas and replacing with 1 pixel.
I don't normally use bicubic sharpening on resizing, Preferring to sharpen later, but my first attempt was very soft directly after reducing to 800px, so I decided to give Photoshop a shot at sharpening as it went. Instead of later when it might be too late.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

Fletcher8

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 15:09
These definately look better but I can't help but wonder if going up to 24MP is causing it's own problems by having so much detail that it doesn't need any sharpening at all for web sized images! Just out of interest, is this the same amount of sharpening you would normal apply for printing say A3 or higher?

Glad you like the kingfisher shots, it's been a couple of years nearly since I last shot them and really want to get some better, closer shots with the K-3![/quote]

Danny, I resized these for web and sharpened accordingly. However, they will no doubt look different on the various screens they will be viewed on. As birds are not my area of photography, I am in the dark in terms of how much or little processing to do to the image, hence my fist upload. If I were printing i would sharpen this image differently, depending on the type of paper I was using, but as a general rule of thumb, printing can handle more sharpening than that of a screen.

If i just upload a JPEG to the internet, if can sometimes look soft and lack detail, I guess its a fine line in relation to pleasing other viewers? Print on the other hand will look the same in real life.

I think i need to start looking at some good prints of birds to get an idea of what people like in terms of the right look.

Danny not sure if you are aware of the K3 camera profiles you can get for Lightroom & Photoshop? This link might be of use?http://www.hkphoto.com/blog/x-pentax-k-3-camera-profile-for-lightroom-camera-raw#axzz2wtW6FacP
Fletcher8.
Last Edited by Fletcher8 on 25/03/2014 - 15:14

McGregNi

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 15:10
The amount of sharpening required would presumably also be related to the use or not of the aa filter simulator ... was this on or off for your shot Unlocker?
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

gwing

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 18:18
Fletcher8 wrote:
Rob, like i said, I am not a birder or bird photographer, I just had a play with the RAW file and this is my take and taste of how i would make it look. I appreciate we all have different tastes, and especially in relation to photography.

I guess I prefer to see less sharpening than most folks, and would be happy with either the original image or Matt's take on it. I supposes I'd better step forward and show a version after commenting - here's one from the original jpeg:


Unlocker

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 18:50
McGregNi wrote:
The amount of sharpening required would presumably also be related to the use or not of the aa filter simulator ... was this on or off for your shot Unlocker?

Just knew you'd ask that! It was off!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

Unlocker

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 19:00
@Fletcher8 & gwing

Your both right in that we seem to prefer different levels of sharpness and I think it's a very fine line between 'just right' & 'too much' and because of that I probably err on the caution of not over doing it, if I had to choose someones take on it I think Darkmunks has the right balance.

Will have another go tomorrow with the Nik plugins sharpener as I've not had a proper go with it yet!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

QuestionableCarrot

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 19:23
Great image!

Would love a go with that lens
Learn how to live and you'll know how to die; learn how to die, and you'll know how to live.

Check out ones photographs on Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/

Blythman

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 19:42
Hi Danny

Not much to add to the other versions other than crop a bit off the left so the bird isn't quite central, and a slight vignette as Darkmunk has done, though mine was in lightroom

I'm very jealous of your lens, as you'll already know.

For a lighter walkabout - I use the DA300 with the 1.7x. I've seen some decent pictures with the new 1.4x too on the other forum and DP Review



Alan


PPG
Flickr
Last Edited by Blythman on 25/03/2014 - 19:45

matwhittington

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 20:49
Nice one Danny, that looks like a killer combo, and look forward to seeing some more Like everyone else, I had a go from the RAW file, and here's my take, which I processed using DXO Optics Pro, and then tweaked a little in photoshop:




and, just to be different, did a mono version. Not sure whether it suits the subject but I generally try most things in B/W...




Reckon you'll have a great time with that setup!

Cheers
Mat W

My Flickr: link

DrOrloff

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 22:38
That's a very nice shot indeed, the pose is spot on.

I prefer the original version. The background is subtle, the lower and more natural looking contrast retains detail in the eye which is more engaging. The tones are what one would expect of gentle light. It is just easier on the eye all round. The high contrast high sharpening approach seems the default nowadays and I think it is counterproductive here. I would consider cloning out the sideways blade of grass at the lower right edge and the very slender one above it, but no other changes.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

Darkmunk

Link Posted 25/03/2014 - 23:00
I agree a lot of images nowadays are over sharpened. After reading the first comments, my objective, apart from playing, was to get that whopping great file onto here with as much detail as possible. As the original was a little soft with some detail missing.
Printing also requires a stronger image. I guess in some cases that work flow is filtering through to web images and making them a little too harsh on modern monitors.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer
Last Edited by Darkmunk on 25/03/2014 - 23:01

Darkmunk

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 08:29
By the way, I think that birds and macro are two genres where sharpness and detail are paramount.
If the lovely subtle plumage of this bird isn't revealed in all it's amazing intricacy then Danny's superb image is only half what it could be.
My concern with my own image for the web is that the silhouette is a little false after the bicubic sharpening had taken effect. I normally have sharpening turned off, on image resize; I left this as an example that it needed something but that method can be a bit clumsy.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

DrOrloff

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 09:24
I partially agree, I like to see detail and sharpness where it matters and a light touch where it doesn't. Why bring out sharp detail in the little patch of grass and on the path? - as all bar one of the revised versions do. The 100% crop in the original looks detailed enough for me but the sizes permitted by the forum don't really allow for a proper appreciation of the end result. All just a matter of taste.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

wadna

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:07
"These definately look better but I can't help but wonder if going up to 24MP is causing it's own problems by having so much detail that it doesn't need any sharpening at all for web sized images!"

It doesn't matter how sharp the original file is resizing softens it so a little sharpening is required.

Interestingly I've found my K-5 files can take more sharpening than the K-7 files. Don't know why this should be.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.