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


Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:21
I totally agree that local sharpening and a light touch is better and I wouldn't normally sharpen everything, I'm normally really pedantic about this
That's the trouble with allowing Photoshop to sharpen on resize; uncontrollable.
I'm wishing I'd done it properly now
Personally, I was just quickly discovering if I could get the whole shot onto a web-sized image and retain the detail. Here they are side by side. You're definitely right about the eye, looks like both Matt and I overlooked the tonal range lost there.
I prefer Matt's example

Original image:

My attempt:

Matt's attempt:

looks like we need a combination of all three!
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer


Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 10:52
Interestingly I've found my K-5 files can take more sharpening than the K-7 files. Don't know why this should be.

They have different sensors and different resolution.
Best regards, John


Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 21:52
Finally got back!

Thanks everyone for taking the time to have a look and a play, have definitely learned a couple of things here so greatly appreciated and glad you liked the RAW file!

Right, now off to sort through some shots of smaller birds!



Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 22:40
DrOrloff wrote:
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.

DrOrloff wrote:
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.

That's a very perceptive bit of analysis. I gave my take a really light touch of sharpening all over, with its contrast enhancement dialled down to zero, and with the grass specifically excluded from that sharpening. Just the eyes and beak then had some stronger sharpening. If I was really working it up I would have worked from the raw and probably added a sort of softening vignette explicitly softening the background rather than sharpening it. Like yourself I didn't think the original needed much doing to it, if anything.

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.


Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 22:44
johnriley wrote:
Interestingly I've found my K-5 files can take more sharpening than the K-7 files. Don't know why this should be.

They have different sensors and different resolution.

I've found the same (well between k30/k01 and k7 in my case). I'm pretty sure it is because the K5 sensor generation has got lower inherent noise in the image so you cam sharpen it further before the noise texture (or tonal gradients from denoise processing) become too prominent.

i.e. cleaner image = fewer artifacts = more sharpening potential


Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 23:34

Keep it up guys
K10D, K5 plus plenty of clueless enthusiasm.

My Flickr site link
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.