Test Images

On 6/07/2016 1:12 @wiz, PeterN wrote:



Sharpening and art are like drinking, purely a matter of taste. I
abhor Scotch, but will drink a good Irish, or Bourbon slowly.

And I'll join you there, your very good health!


My personal astrophotography is limited to moon shots however I
appreciate the work and beauty of your astro work.

It's a recent thing for me. I always liked astronomy but in the film
days it was just impossible to get any good results without a huge
investment in specialized cooling gear.

Was quite surprised by the quality I could get off the Oly EM5 at 800ISO
when I first got it in 2013. But since I got the EM5MII, it's been an
eye-opener. That thing can push ISOs all the way up to 25000 and still
get perfectly acceptable results, particularly if stacked with software
like Deep Sky Stacker.

Stacking is an art in itself which I've had to crash learn of late. Lots
of tweaks and little details to lose one's mind into!
In simpler terms: the perfect hobby!

In the process of trying out a 2nd hand Takahashi tracking mount
($$$,ouch!...) that should let me get into the 30-90 secs of exposure
without all stars becoming trails.
Early days and I'll still have to stack but the difference is already
very real in getting expanded colours from far nebulas and clusters.


it's IQ wasn't there anymore for me. I narrowed my choice to between
the D750 and the D500. I tried both, but just liked the 500 better.
Only drawback is no built in flash.

I was very tempted by the D7200 but ended getting one for my daughter
who had been using my D80 for a while now. She's into surfing and the
APS-C sensor size is perfect for her photography.


Thanks for your feedback. I have looked at FM for sharpening, but I
already have Topaz InFocus, which works on the same principle as FM,
but don't use it. I will give it a try.

Deconvolution sharpening is IMHO a step above any USM methods. At least
the ones I've tried. So far nothing beats it. And it works a treat for
scanned film as well. Which definitely makes it important for me as I
still use film, although not as much as before.

On 7/6/2016 6:18 AM, Noons wrote:
On 6/07/2016 1:12 @wiz, PeterN wrote:



Sharpening and art are like drinking, purely a matter of taste. I
abhor Scotch, but will drink a good Irish, or Bourbon slowly.

And I'll join you there, your very good health!

And back at ya.



My personal astrophotography is limited to moon shots however I
appreciate the work and beauty of your astro work.

It's a recent thing for me. I always liked astronomy but in the film
days it was just impossible to get any good results without a huge
investment in specialized cooling gear.

Was quite surprised by the quality I could get off the Oly EM5 at 800ISO
when I first got it in 2013. But since I got the EM5MII, it's been an
eye-opener. That thing can push ISOs all the way up to 25000 and still
get perfectly acceptable results, particularly if stacked with software
like Deep Sky Stacker.

Stacking is an art in itself which I've had to crash learn of late. Lots
of tweaks and little details to lose one's mind into!
In simpler terms: the perfect hobby!

When my kids were about 10, one of my friends was selling a 6" telescope
for about $100. I thought that meant it was six inches long, so I bought
it, sight unseen. Turned out it had an equatorial mount and tripod. With
that thing, when properly aligned, there should be little, or no need
for stacking, except perhaps for vibration compensation.





In the process of trying out a 2nd hand Takahashi tracking mount
($$$,ouch!...) that should let me get into the 30-90 secs of exposure
without all stars becoming trails.
Early days and I'll still have to stack but the difference is already
very real in getting expanded colours from far nebulas and clusters.


it's IQ wasn't there anymore for me. I narrowed my choice to between
the D750 and the D500. I tried both, but just liked the 500 better.
Only drawback is no built in flash.

I was very tempted by the D7200 but ended getting one for my daughter
who had been using my D80 for a while now. She's into surfing and the
APS-C sensor size is perfect for her photography.


Thanks for your feedback. I have looked at FM for sharpening, but I
already have Topaz InFocus, which works on the same principle as FM,
but don't use it. I will give it a try.

Deconvolution sharpening is IMHO a step above any USM methods. At least
the ones I've tried. So far nothing beats it. And it works a treat for
scanned film as well. Which definitely makes it important for me as I
still use film, although not as much as before.



--
PeterN

On 7/4/2016 1:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:


I still have it, I am a bit of a packrat with my old stuff. I still have
my Yashica Electro 35, K1000, and D70. I still use it from time to time,
it is slow, and the AF hunts, but it gives me a bit of extra reach and
adds a particular flavor to the images I get when I use it.

Ah the Electro 35, that was magic in its day! I still have mine too,
somewhere.

Quite a similar feel to a Fuji-X, to my mind.

On 2016-07-06 20:27:36 +0000, newshound said:

On 7/4/2016 1:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:


I still have it, I am a bit of a packrat with my old stuff. I still have
my Yashica Electro 35, K1000, and D70. I still use it from time to time,
it is slow, and the AF hunts, but it gives me a bit of extra reach and
adds a particular flavor to the images I get when I use it.

Ah the Electro 35, that was magic in its day! I still have mine too, somewhere.

Quite a similar feel to a Fuji-X, to my mind.

I have a nostalgic soft spot for rangefinder cameras.

It is probably most similar to the X-100, since, as you know it has a
fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens and the only way to get a bit of variety is with
the two auxillary add-on lenses. It was a great camera to use with
split-image manual focus and basic exposure control. If you used the
metering for aperture adjustment, it was just a matter of moving the
aperture ring according to the yellow or red light to get a correct
exposure. If the yellow light showed it was more of a suggestion to
adjust in the direction of the arrow, and the shutter speed would
compensate. If the red light came on you either had to push the ASA
(that's what is was back then) or go to bulb and a cable release. It
was sort of the fundemental aperture priority camera of its day.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/5/2016 6:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 21:38:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/5/2016 5:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 19:02:49 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/5/2016 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 16:51:51 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/5/2016 10:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Le Snip

I think Peter's image quality issues with his severe crops, and
some of his closer to normal crops can be found in his post
processing
methodology. He has a particular Photoshop workflow that he adopted
early in his start up the PS learning curve and has stuck with
it when
another method would produce better results.

Photoshop has improved its Smart Sharpening algorithm in recent
versions that the results are not bad at all.

For RAW files the ACR/Lightroom sharpening can do such a good
job that
no futher sharpening is needed.
Much of the time it looks as if he has over cooked his favorite
sharpening method, the High Pass filter method in combination
with a
blur layer, whether or not it is needed. Sometimes I think he
would do
better sticking to USM.

OK Here is a RAW file.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160704_bir%20osprey_4717.NEF


Cropped and burned to comply with PSA nature rules.
At first I thought the white on the osprey's feathers was blown.
But I
was able to get some detail in the feathers. I also desaturated and
decreased the luminescence of the green foliage.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160704_bir%20osprey_4717.jpg



I will see what I can do with that.
...and here is what I got with a little less on the crop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/PN-Osprey_4717-1.jpg



That's a lot less crop, and it presents as a totally different image.

Easily fixed.

1. The take off bar is far too prominent.

So?

2. I prefer a darker background to highlight the subject; and

That was my rendition, but if you want dark background, and a similar
crop to yours, that is also easily fixed.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/PN-Osprey_4717-1C.jpg



My point is that the image should first please the maker. You and I
have different likes and dislikes.


3. Your crop violates PSA nature photography rules, in that it shows a
man made structure.

Of course it violates PSA rules, I have no idea WTF PSA rules are.
Without a man made structure that nest wouldn't be where you could get
shots of it. How do you explain away all the black plastic garbage bags
in the nest?

http://www.psa-photo.org/index.php?nature-nature-definition

I think your "man made structure" in that nest stand and the
superfluous perch is OK according to anal PSA rules:
"Human elements shall not be present, except where those human
elements are integral parts of the nature story such as nature
subjects, like barn owls or storks, adapted to an environment modified
by humans, or where those human elements are in situations depicting
natural forces, like hurricanes or tidal waves. Scientific bands,
scientific tags or radio collars on wild animals are permissible.
Photographs of human created hybrid plants, cultivated plants, feral
animals, domestic animals, or mounted specimens are ineligible, as is
any form of manipulation that alters the truth of the photographic
statement."

...but that doesn't explain why you can include the black garbage bags.

AFAIK, the birds used the black garbage bags when the they made the nest.

On 7/7/2016 11:30 AM, PAS wrote:
On 7/5/2016 6:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 21:38:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/5/2016 5:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 19:02:49 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/5/2016 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 16:51:51 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/5/2016 10:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Le Snip

I think Peter's image quality issues with his severe crops, and
some of his closer to normal crops can be found in his post
processing
methodology. He has a particular Photoshop workflow that he adopted
early in his start up the PS learning curve and has stuck with
it when
another method would produce better results.

Photoshop has improved its Smart Sharpening algorithm in recent
versions that the results are not bad at all.

For RAW files the ACR/Lightroom sharpening can do such a good
job that
no futher sharpening is needed.
Much of the time it looks as if he has over cooked his favorite
sharpening method, the High Pass filter method in combination
with a
blur layer, whether or not it is needed. Sometimes I think he
would do
better sticking to USM.

OK Here is a RAW file.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160704_bir%20osprey_4717.NEF


Cropped and burned to comply with PSA nature rules.
At first I thought the white on the osprey's feathers was blown.
But I
was able to get some detail in the feathers. I also desaturated and
decreased the luminescence of the green foliage.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160704_bir%20osprey_4717.jpg



I will see what I can do with that.
...and here is what I got with a little less on the crop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/PN-Osprey_4717-1.jpg



That's a lot less crop, and it presents as a totally different image.

Easily fixed.

1. The take off bar is far too prominent.

So?

2. I prefer a darker background to highlight the subject; and

That was my rendition, but if you want dark background, and a similar
crop to yours, that is also easily fixed.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/PN-Osprey_4717-1C.jpg



My point is that the image should first please the maker. You and I
have different likes and dislikes.


3. Your crop violates PSA nature photography rules, in that it shows a
man made structure.

Of course it violates PSA rules, I have no idea WTF PSA rules are.
Without a man made structure that nest wouldn't be where you could get
shots of it. How do you explain away all the black plastic garbage bags
in the nest?

http://www.psa-photo.org/index.php?nature-nature-definition

I think your "man made structure" in that nest stand and the
superfluous perch is OK according to anal PSA rules:
"Human elements shall not be present, except where those human
elements are integral parts of the nature story such as nature
subjects, like barn owls or storks, adapted to an environment modified
by humans, or where those human elements are in situations depicting
natural forces, like hurricanes or tidal waves. Scientific bands,
scientific tags or radio collars on wild animals are permissible.
Photographs of human created hybrid plants, cultivated plants, feral
animals, domestic animals, or mounted specimens are ineligible, as is
any form of manipulation that alters the truth of the photographic
statement."

...but that doesn't explain why you can include the black garbage bags.

AFAIK, the birds used the black garbage bags when the they made the nest.


In case you didn't see it, thanks for the location.

--
PeterN

On 7/7/2016 1:39 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/7/2016 11:30 AM, PAS wrote:
On 7/5/2016 6:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 21:38:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/5/2016 5:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 19:02:49 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/5/2016 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-05 16:51:51 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/5/2016 10:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Le Snip

I think Peter's image quality issues with his severe crops, and
some of his closer to normal crops can be found in his post
processing
methodology. He has a particular Photoshop workflow that he
adopted
early in his start up the PS learning curve and has stuck with
it when
another method would produce better results.

Photoshop has improved its Smart Sharpening algorithm in recent
versions that the results are not bad at all.

For RAW files the ACR/Lightroom sharpening can do such a good
job that
no futher sharpening is needed.
Much of the time it looks as if he has over cooked his favorite
sharpening method, the High Pass filter method in combination
with a
blur layer, whether or not it is needed. Sometimes I think he
would do
better sticking to USM.

OK Here is a RAW file.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160704_bir%20osprey_4717.NEF



Cropped and burned to comply with PSA nature rules.
At first I thought the white on the osprey's feathers was blown.
But I
was able to get some detail in the feathers. I also desaturated
and
decreased the luminescence of the green foliage.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160704_bir%20osprey_4717.jpg




I will see what I can do with that.
...and here is what I got with a little less on the crop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/PN-Osprey_4717-1.jpg




That's a lot less crop, and it presents as a totally different
image.

Easily fixed.

1. The take off bar is far too prominent.

So?

2. I prefer a darker background to highlight the subject; and

That was my rendition, but if you want dark background, and a similar
crop to yours, that is also easily fixed.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/PN-Osprey_4717-1C.jpg




My point is that the image should first please the maker. You and I
have different likes and dislikes.


3. Your crop violates PSA nature photography rules, in that it
shows a
man made structure.

Of course it violates PSA rules, I have no idea WTF PSA rules are.
Without a man made structure that nest wouldn't be where you could
get
shots of it. How do you explain away all the black plastic garbage
bags
in the nest?

http://www.psa-photo.org/index.php?nature-nature-definition

I think your "man made structure" in that nest stand and the
superfluous perch is OK according to anal PSA rules:
"Human elements shall not be present, except where those human
elements are integral parts of the nature story such as nature
subjects, like barn owls or storks, adapted to an environment modified
by humans, or where those human elements are in situations depicting
natural forces, like hurricanes or tidal waves. Scientific bands,
scientific tags or radio collars on wild animals are permissible.
Photographs of human created hybrid plants, cultivated plants, feral
animals, domestic animals, or mounted specimens are ineligible, as is
any form of manipulation that alters the truth of the photographic
statement."

...but that doesn't explain why you can include the black garbage bags.

AFAIK, the birds used the black garbage bags when the they made the
nest.


In case you didn't see it, thanks for the location.

Yes I did see that and you are most welcome. I've been away for a
vacation. Congrats on the new toy too!