X-T2 @ Yosemite Today SOOC

On May 18, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...

Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

Okay, here's what I did:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/19e11z

Not bad at all.

I would guess that this is not an accurate rendering of what is
actually there, at least as far as the white balance is concerned. I
fiddled with it until I thought it looked okay, and that's that. I
agree with someone else (Eric?) who said the original looks hazy, but
you did say the conditions weren't so great that day.

Given the scene and what Ansel Adams did from the same location, achieving an
accurate rendering isn’t as important as producing an image of a familiar
scene that is pleasing to the eye without shocking the senses. To that end
you did very well.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...


Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

For some reason none of my (up todate) Adobe CC software can open that
file. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-05-18 23:43:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

For some reason none of my (up todate) Adobe CC software can open that
file. :-(

That is odd, since PS CC/LR CC - ACR has been able to handle (open)
Fujifilm X-T2 RAF files since August 2016. I would check on your
updates.
Adobe has even added the two most recent RAF formats for the X100F and
the MF GXR in their most recent CC updates for ACR 35 days ago, and I
have the latest PS CC (2017) update as just 14 days ago.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:55:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 18, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...

Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

Okay, here's what I did:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/19e11z

Not bad at all.

I would guess that this is not an accurate rendering of what is
actually there, at least as far as the white balance is concerned. I
fiddled with it until I thought it looked okay, and that's that. I
agree with someone else (Eric?) who said the original looks hazy, but
you did say the conditions weren't so great that day.

Given the scene and what Ansel Adams did from the same location, achieving an
accurate rendering isn’t as important as producing an image of a familiar
scene that is pleasing to the eye without shocking the senses. To that end
you did very well.

Good to hear. I usually go for accuracy, but decided to just go with
what I felt looked nice to my eye.

On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:25:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 23:43:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

For some reason none of my (up todate) Adobe CC software can open that
file. :-(

That is odd, since PS CC/LR CC - ACR has been able to handle (open)
Fujifilm X-T2 RAF files since August 2016. I would check on your
updates.
Adobe has even added the two most recent RAF formats for the X100F and
the MF GXR in their most recent CC updates for ACR 35 days ago, and I
have the latest PS CC (2017) update as just 14 days ago.

I used CC (LR) and there were no issues at all. Eric's file might have
corrupted while downloading.

On 5/18/2017 7:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...


Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

For some reason none of my (up todate) Adobe CC software can open that
file. :-(


I had no issue with that.
What I do have an issue with is the blocking in the shadow areas. The BW
conversion was done using NIK.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jm920a15esdee0p/Duck%20Yellowstone_DSF4603.jpg?dl=0

--
PeterN

On 2017-05-19 01:23:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:36:40 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:25:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 23:43:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

For some reason none of my (up todate) Adobe CC software can open that
file. :-(

That is odd, since PS CC/LR CC - ACR has been able to handle (open)
Fujifilm X-T2 RAF files since August 2016. I would check on your
updates.
Adobe has even added the two most recent RAF formats for the X100F and
the MF GXR in their most recent CC updates for ACR 35 days ago, and I
have the latest PS CC (2017) update as just 14 days ago.

I used CC (LR) and there were no issues at all. Eric's file might have
corrupted while downloading.

When I click the link, a screen pops up that says that .raf files
can't be previewed. However, if I download the file, it can be opened
in CC.

Exactly.
Clicking the DB link to any RAW file, be it NEF, RAF, CR2, or even DNG,
the DB dialog will give you the option to download. It can then be
opened in whatever software will support that particular RAW file.

I believe that Eric managed to download the RAF, so I guess there is
something else afoot.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/18/2017 4:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 18, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...

Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

Okay, here's what I did:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/19e11z

Not bad at all.

I would guess that this is not an accurate rendering of what is
actually there, at least as far as the white balance is concerned. I
fiddled with it until I thought it looked okay, and that's that. I
agree with someone else (Eric?) who said the original looks hazy, but
you did say the conditions weren't so great that day.

Given the scene and what Ansel Adams did from the same location, achieving an
accurate rendering isn’t as important as producing an image of a familiar
scene that is pleasing to the eye without shocking the senses. To that end
you did very well.


thanks for letting me play. As I posted to Eric, I had a real problem
with blocking in the shadow areas. But then I just played for a few
minutes.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jm920a15esdee0p/Duck%20Yellowstone_DSF4603.jpg?dl=0

--
PeterN

On 2017-05-19 01:37:28 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/18/2017 7:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...


Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

For some reason none of my (up todate) Adobe CC software can open that
file. :-(


I had no issue with that.
What I do have an issue with is the blocking in the shadow areas. The
BW conversion was done using NIK.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jm920a15esdee0p/Duck%20Yellowstone_DSF4603.jpg?dl=0

While the B&W conversion might have been done using NIK (I assume
Silver Efex Pro2), what else did you do to create that Mess?
Specialized Peter sharpening perhaps?

I would have gone about a B&W conversion with a somewhat lighter hand,
even with NIK Silver Efex Pro2.
This rendition was done in LR CC + NIK Silver Efex Pro2:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t03g89o9psq61te/DSF4603-E2.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-05-19 01:39:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/18/2017 4:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 18, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:56:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-18 04:49:46 +0000, Bill said:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 00:37:33 -0400,
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 12:07 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:55:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is more to it than that. The colors look slightly off and the
lightin is peculiar. I have had a quick go at one of your shots with
Photoshop although this required dabbling in unfamiliar territory. See
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6dbcdd34m...3-EES.jpg?dl=0

Now the sky is purple...

Hmm.
Talk about ambiguity.
Song, or LGBT?

Nah, I'm a boring person. It's neither, just an objective comment. I
wish I could do better...

Here is the RAF if you care to try.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj7bmsr7vabc9dt/_DSF4603.raf

Okay, here's what I did:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/19e11z

Not bad at all.

I would guess that this is not an accurate rendering of what is
actually there, at least as far as the white balance is concerned. I
fiddled with it until I thought it looked okay, and that's that. I
agree with someone else (Eric?) who said the original looks hazy, but
you did say the conditions weren't so great that day.

Given the scene and what Ansel Adams did from the same location, achieving an
accurate rendering isn’t as important as producing an image of a familiar
scene that is pleasing to the eye without shocking the senses. To that end
you did very well.


thanks for letting me play.

I am here to serve and entertain. ;-)

As I posted to Eric, I had a real problem with blocking in the shadow areas.

I have a feeling that might have something to do with your particular
methodology.

But then I just played for a few minutes.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jm920a15esdee0p/Duck%20Yellowstone_DSF4603.jpg?dl=0

I saw that and I replied elsewhere. I hope it doesn't work for you,
because it doesn't work for me.



--
Regards,

Savageduck