All Forum Comments
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 05/10/2008 - 10:49
Thanks again everyone for the comments...
as I mentioned I'm going to revisit the sharpening again as I'm still getting used to the 10-20 & each lens produces different PP requirements...
colour wise, well I print pretty much all of my images and this like all the others look fine when printed so I'll leave them as-is. It's always useful to get others feedback/comments but sometimes because of the numerous variables relating to viewing images on the web the best thing to go by is your print quality,
simon
as I mentioned I'm going to revisit the sharpening again as I'm still getting used to the 10-20 & each lens produces different PP requirements...
colour wise, well I print pretty much all of my images and this like all the others look fine when printed so I'll leave them as-is. It's always useful to get others feedback/comments but sometimes because of the numerous variables relating to viewing images on the web the best thing to go by is your print quality,
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 04/10/2008 - 20:43
Darkmunk wrote:
I'll have a go Simon, but really, the only way to get to the bottom of this is to stand next to you and look at the same monitor.
Of the Cornwall images, the colours look good and taking the top one here -
the sea looks like typical summer sea with 'correct' colours, but the image does head towards over processed, specifically over sharpened or too much contrast (very similar). The fact that the entire image is in focus, is perhaps giving it a slightly unreal look. was it a very small aperture? I'm being super critical here, but basically the image looks fine.
My daughter (17) has just come in and when asked to view the two images side by side and give a critique, said, ' the sky looks bright - no, the sea, has it been put on afterwards?...' She said the Mullion image above looks fine.
We can only comment on these images as web images in the context of this forum, If you are using a colour space intended for something else when you are processing them, then maybe there has been a 'shift' on some of them when converted to web JPEGs. But presumably you would see the same shift.
Thanks for the explanation, that certainly helps....I'll have a go Simon, but really, the only way to get to the bottom of this is to stand next to you and look at the same monitor.
Of the Cornwall images, the colours look good and taking the top one here -
the sea looks like typical summer sea with 'correct' colours, but the image does head towards over processed, specifically over sharpened or too much contrast (very similar). The fact that the entire image is in focus, is perhaps giving it a slightly unreal look. was it a very small aperture? I'm being super critical here, but basically the image looks fine.
My daughter (17) has just come in and when asked to view the two images side by side and give a critique, said, ' the sky looks bright - no, the sea, has it been put on afterwards?...' She said the Mullion image above looks fine.
We can only comment on these images as web images in the context of this forum, If you are using a colour space intended for something else when you are processing them, then maybe there has been a 'shift' on some of them when converted to web JPEGs. But presumably you would see the same shift.
With this image you may well have a point with the "oversharpening"..I've recently acquired a Sigma 10-20 & this was taken at 12mm with it's inherent very large DOF, hence everything being sharp. It's quite possible though that this is slightly oversharpened for web display as I'm still "tweaking" my processing technique with the 10-20 having not used it much. I think images are naturally sharper "out of the camera" than with my Sigma 17-70
I'll revisit my 10-20 shots & check the sharpening
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 04/10/2008 - 17:19
Keen2Learn wrote:
I am inclined to agree with Darkmunk.
To me many of your images look un-natural, more postcardy in quality as opposed to an actual photograph.
Sorry to sound so negative.
No problem....I'm intrigued by both your observations to be honest as I'm not quite sure what you mean ??I am inclined to agree with Darkmunk.
To me many of your images look un-natural, more postcardy in quality as opposed to an actual photograph.
Sorry to sound so negative.
Can you maybe pick a couple of examples from my website images & explain a little more perhaps?
thanks
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 04/10/2008 - 16:09
I'm with Pete on this one, I've owned all the consumer telephoto offerings for the Pentax and whilst I enjoyed the better colour/contrast and IMHO build quality of the Sigma ultimately I didn't find it particularly good beyond 240mm and was frequently disappointed by soft looking 300mm shots - the Tamron certainly didn't disappoint in this way although unfortunatly the purple produced by my copy was bl**dy awful sometimes, so much so I had to discard shots. Some Tamron owners report much less purple than I suffered so for the cost I'd also suggest that the Tamron is your best bet
simon
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on which one to buy sigma 70-300mm or tamron 70-300mm? at 04/10/2008 - 16:02
Darkmunk wrote:
Hmm...now I'm more curious than ever
I live by the sea so I have a good idea of the colours it can be and my monitor usually displays the images here 'properly' in as much as they look natural. Sometimes, images look over sharpened on this screen and I mostly put that down to being an LCD.
The polariser would certainly account for some of it. I need some advice about polarisers as mine almost never does anything but I'll start another thread about that
The lines I see are almost imperceptible but the chapel looks kind of like an illustration. Maybe this could be attributed to the polariser too? acting slightly like a graduated ND filter???
Incidentally, the colours in your series of shots from Cornwall look natural.
I think this if a common problem when viewing images on the WWW and must admit I don't often take too much notice of the colours of an image, unless they look way off. Contrast/brightness seem to be easier to judge although a 600x450 image (limited by my website provider) like this doesn't do the full 10MP shot real justice and I think it's the case for many shots posted on the web - just too many variables. Hmm...now I'm more curious than ever
I live by the sea so I have a good idea of the colours it can be and my monitor usually displays the images here 'properly' in as much as they look natural. Sometimes, images look over sharpened on this screen and I mostly put that down to being an LCD.
The polariser would certainly account for some of it. I need some advice about polarisers as mine almost never does anything but I'll start another thread about that
The lines I see are almost imperceptible but the chapel looks kind of like an illustration. Maybe this could be attributed to the polariser too? acting slightly like a graduated ND filter???
Incidentally, the colours in your series of shots from Cornwall look natural.
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 04/10/2008 - 15:57
I've owned both & now own the new Pentax 55-300, which is undoubtedly the best available in the consumer range....
however if I was choosing between the Sigma & Tamron (again) in hindsight I would put up with the poor PF of the Tamron as the Sigma I owned wasn't particularly sharp after 240mm, certainly not as sharp as the Tamron....
if you don't necessarily need 300mm the Pentax 50-200 is worth considering, nicer colour/contrast than the Tamron although again not quite as sharp at full focal length
simon
however if I was choosing between the Sigma & Tamron (again) in hindsight I would put up with the poor PF of the Tamron as the Sigma I owned wasn't particularly sharp after 240mm, certainly not as sharp as the Tamron....
if you don't necessarily need 300mm the Pentax 50-200 is worth considering, nicer colour/contrast than the Tamron although again not quite as sharp at full focal length
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on which one to buy sigma 70-300mm or tamron 70-300mm? at 03/10/2008 - 23:01
womble wrote:
Do you sharpen before or after re-sizing to post on the web? I have read that sharpening should be left until the image is at its final size.
Best wishes, Kris.
Hi Kris,Do you sharpen before or after re-sizing to post on the web? I have read that sharpening should be left until the image is at its final size.
Best wishes, Kris.
A little of both..I use the "Bruce Fraser" method, usually applying a small amount of "capture sharpening" in ACR & then using "Photokit Sharpener" plugin to apply the final "output sharpening"
Here's an article explaining the 3 stage process incase you haven't come across it
http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflo...
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 03/10/2008 - 18:00
Thnaks for the comments...
To answer a couple of the question..
This was taken with my new Sigma 10-20 + polariser, which hopefully explains the strong colours, which to be honest on my monitor/in print don't appear "unreal", just saturated.
The lines around the chapel, I honestly can't see them - either in this or the original version ??
Processing wise I do very little-- do the usual ACR exposure/clarity etc etc & then in CS3 I usually add a little additional "Local Contrast Enhancements (LCE)" & the final sharpening - that's it. I much prefer to spend my time trying to catch nice lighting than "tweak" shots using HDR etc.
thanks
simon
To answer a couple of the question..
This was taken with my new Sigma 10-20 + polariser, which hopefully explains the strong colours, which to be honest on my monitor/in print don't appear "unreal", just saturated.
The lines around the chapel, I honestly can't see them - either in this or the original version ??
Processing wise I do very little-- do the usual ACR exposure/clarity etc etc & then in CS3 I usually add a little additional "Local Contrast Enhancements (LCE)" & the final sharpening - that's it. I much prefer to spend my time trying to catch nice lighting than "tweak" shots using HDR etc.
thanks
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A bit of North Wales heritage at 03/10/2008 - 10:09
Mannesty wrote:
Postcard stuff. Good, but not very interesting for me.
No problem Peter....as you say these are probably shots more about the "being there", should appeal to people familiar with the area but with nothing "special" for othersPostcard stuff. Good, but not very interesting for me.
thanks
simon
Comment by simonkit posted on A couple of SUNNY Anglesey shots at 03/10/2008 - 10:02
Dan, Good to know I'm not seeing things In my first post I said to Simon that it could go through to print and look fine all the way through on his system (in which case everything is fine).
But Simon displays on web galleries (including his own) in which case a separate workflow is called for, and crucially, honest feedback from people with different systems.
If these images were taken from a print-based workflow then they would (and should) look over-sharpened and some colours in the gamut will shift into unexpected hues.
Even calibrated monitors will see colour shifts on images from other machines - it depends what they are calibrated for.
To be safe on the web then web-safe colour space is called for in PP.
Regarding colour, if the image is processed on a calibrated monitor (which it is) and then output in Srgb colourspace (which it is)it's difficult to see how it's possible to calibrate images to suit the differing colour reproduction of different monitors...it's the problem with web display. Even when people are using calibrated monitors, different makes display colour in slightly different ways and it's surely impossible to account for these variations ??
simon