Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on January 03, 2013, 10:03:36 am

Title: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2013, 10:03:36 am
.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2013, 10:27:25 am
The scene? Yes.

 The photograph? Hmmm...
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: amolitor on January 03, 2013, 10:45:05 am
Mostly pretty, I think.

There's a little something going on for me between the silvery moss center/right and the green+brown palm frondish foliage left, though.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 03, 2013, 11:03:39 am
Yes.

I hope you get back in the street soon.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: stamper on January 03, 2013, 11:08:46 am
I think this is pretty but possibly over sharpened? I have looked at it twice and it sort of grows on you. There isn't anything wrong in branching out as long as you don't get in over your head. ;)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Chris Calohan on January 03, 2013, 01:00:58 pm
Scary thought...editing one of Russ's images... :)

Slight CC rotation and a 16:9 pano crop and a slight density adjustment.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8492/8342041303_695f9d5454_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: WalterEG on January 03, 2013, 02:58:09 pm
It is a pleasant enough shot but "pretty" is not a word that springs to mind.  I don't say this to get bogged down in a debate about semantics, but it has commendable qualities other than "pretty" for me.

Cheers,

Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RobbieV on January 03, 2013, 05:57:17 pm
It's a place I'd rather be. But, it doesn't really have any points of interest for me (be it light or subject).
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 04, 2013, 03:54:21 am
Oxymoron, Russ. There's nothing "mere" about "pretty" - when applied to scenery, anyway.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 04, 2013, 04:44:09 am
I think this is pretty but possibly over sharpened? I have looked at it twice and it sort of grows on you. There isn't anything wrong in branching out as long as you don't get in over your head. ;)
+1  The scene itself has a lot of potential for interesting work and it appears some type of detail enhancer was used.. and while I can't pinpoint what's "wrong" with it's use, my best guess would be using a detail enhancer on an already highly detailed subject.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2013, 07:34:41 am
Actually, Steve, the "detail enhancer" was a D800. I used minimal sharpening on this picture. Conversion to jpeg always increases the illusion of oversharpening.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: fike on January 04, 2013, 08:00:27 am
Actually, Steve, the "detail enhancer" was a D800. I used minimal sharpening on this picture. Conversion to jpeg always increases the illusion of oversharpening.

Sorry to be nitpicky....but...if you convert to jpg and it LOOKS oversharpened then it IS oversharpened.  Sharpening for online viewing is not the same as print sharpening where on-screen display is sometimes a bit crunchy looking.  This one is a bit digital looking...crunchy in my opinion.

As for the image.  I think we are beating a dead horse.  Reshoot with more interesting light.  There might be something here, but it wasn't captured on that day with that composition.  Different cropping and levels adjustments are unlikely to change that fact. 
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2013, 08:52:22 am
Hi Marc, guess you haven't read the commentaries I've posted on sharpening for printing versus monitor display. Believe me, the only sharpening this picture had was capture sharpening. Unless they've been working with high-resolution MF, people aren't used to the results you get from the D800. And jpeg conversion from raw definitely adds "crunchiness" to any picture. But "different cropping and levels adjustments" almost never improve any picture -- good or bad, as Chris so convincingly demonstrated in this very thread. As far as the light is concerned, you might want to try calibrating your monitor and see if that improves things.

Sorry you didn't like the image. I'm never big on pictures that are, as I put it, "merely pretty," and this one almost falls into that category. But I'm almost where Walter was with his comment. There's something here beyond pretty I can't quite put my finger on.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: fike on January 04, 2013, 11:00:17 am
Interesting that you say the D800 looks oversharp when viewed on screen.  I have found that the OM-D sometimes doesn't need sharpening, just downsampling, to get a sharp output for on screen display.  If the D800 is oversharp for online viewing, is anyone doing output blurring?  I know that sounds crazy, but if it looks oversharp, that means it is TOO sharp and needs to be softened a bit.

I guess we have discovered that sometimes you can have too much of a good thing.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: amolitor on January 04, 2013, 11:17:20 am
Proper down-sampling includes blurring, in fact. You have to low-pass filter the high res file down to the appropriate spatial frequencies, otherwise you get aliasing and other nastiness. I'm more of an audio guy, where this would be unthinkable, but I have the impression that a surprising number of photo editing applications don't do this by default.

They may have a thing called "smart resize" or something, as opposed to "correctly implemented resize that doesn't produce grotesque artifacts".
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Chris Calohan on January 04, 2013, 12:29:58 pm
Hi Marc, guess you haven't read the commentaries I've posted on sharpening for printing versus monitor display. Believe me, the only sharpening this picture had was capture sharpening. Unless they've been working with high-resolution MF, people aren't used to the results you get from the D800. And jpeg conversion from raw definitely adds "crunchiness" to any picture. But "different cropping and levels adjustments" almost never improve any picture -- good or bad, as Chris so convincingly demonstrated in this very thread. As far as the light is concerned, you might want to try calibrating your monitor and see if that improves things.

Sorry you didn't like the image. I'm never big on pictures that are, as I put it, "merely pretty," and this one almost falls into that category. But I'm almost where Walter was with his comment. There's something here beyond pretty I can't quite put my finger on.


As per usual, the translation didn't go as edited...sometimes this forum is so weird. As to the crop, I didn't like the silly tiki torch on the right and the horizon was a tad off kilter. i fixed it. Shoot me. As to density...8% gray boost. Almost negligible. I guess it depends on the screen. I set the comp on an 18% gray.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8363/8346830952_43cffbd1c4_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2013, 02:45:51 pm
Hi Chris, Well, the torch didn't bother me at first, but now that you've mentioned it, every time I come back to the pic it bothers me. So here's my solution. No need to damage the picture with a crop.

Marc, I didn't say that the D800 looks oversharp when viewed on the screen. What I said is that people aren't used to the results you get from the D800. One result people aren't used to is the incredible color rendition, which tends to make the output look sharper than, say, the output I get from my D3. As I said, you might want to try calibrating your monitor. On my own calibrated top-of-the line Dell Ultra-Sharp I don't see any sign of oversharpening. I do see some small and annoying artifacts caused by converting to jpeg. You'll have to take my word for it that there's no sign of over-sharpning in the 4912 x 7360 pixel PSD version. There is a tiny bit of noise since the shot was made at ISO 1200.

But none of this technical crap deals with my original question. I see far too many people shooting things that are pretty simply because they're pretty. I do it too, but I don't keep the results and I certainly don't post the results. This one stopped me because there seemed to be something there beyond pretty, though I couldn't, and still can't, get a grip on it. It may be something that appeals only to me because of some experience way back there that I've forgotten. That's why I asked the question.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 04, 2013, 04:40:19 pm
Actually, Steve, the "detail enhancer" was a D800. I used minimal sharpening on this picture. Conversion to jpeg always increases the illusion of oversharpening.
Interesting bit of topic we're getting into.  I don't shoot D800's personally, but I have hundreds of D800(E) files in my archives taken with students cameras and I've never noticed this before.  I went back and looked for such instances of enhanced detail with the few hundred I do have and couldn't find any.. but unless otherwise requested I teach/shoot RAW images.  But I can't be sure from what you said if you mean you're letting the camera convert your jpegs, or you're doing it via LR or ACR or C1 or some other RAW converter?

"illusion of over sharpening"  In my mind if something appears over sharpened then it is indeed for practical purposes, over sharpened.  But detail enhancers are different.  They earn their keep not only through traditional sharpening methods, but different plays on micro-contrast and more I can't easily identify.   Any insight on this you could provide would certainly increase my knowledge of the subject.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 04, 2013, 04:43:41 pm
Interesting that you say the D800 looks oversharp when viewed on screen.  I have found that the OM-D sometimes doesn't need sharpening, just downsampling, to get a sharp output for on screen display.  If the D800 is oversharp for online viewing, is anyone doing output blurring?  I know that sounds crazy, but if it looks oversharp, that means it is TOO sharp and needs to be softened a bit.

I guess we have discovered that sometimes you can have too much of a good thing.
Right.. "sharpening" in my mind merely compensates for the AA filter.  Any more than that and we're into the realm of the trendy "detail enhancing" for lack of better terminolgy.  If we have a very weak or no AA, then over sharpened images look over sharpened.  I mean in that it's obvious through halos and the such.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2013, 05:14:01 pm
Hi Steve, Looks as if this whole thing is getting out of hand. Conversion to jpeg introduces small artifacts that sometimes make a picture that's very sharp look over-sharpened.

If you can't see enhanced detail in a D800 picture, either the student who shot the picture used a sub-optimal technique or a sub-optimal lens, or you're looking at a picture that's been degraded in some way after the shot was made. On the face of it, with 36.3 megapixels the D800 simply produces more detail, but in addition to that you gain at least an additional stop of dynamic range, and the ability of the camera to reproduce color is phenomenal. On the other hand, the camera is pretty fussy about the lenses you use with it. A crappy lens on the D800 is going to show its flaws immediately. If your students are using glass that's less than top-of-the-line you probably won't see a difference.

I'm converting to jpeg in Photoshop CS6. But it doesn't really matter what you use for the conversion. The conversion algorithm developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group is the same no matter what software you hook on to it.

Yes, if something appears over-sharpened it's over-sharpened. But as I said, on my monitor it's not over-sharpened. Maybe on yours it is. As they used to say in Vietnam, "Sorry about that."
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 04, 2013, 06:59:06 pm
Right.. "sharpening" in my mind merely compensates for the AA filter. 

I think that's just wrong. Think about the compromises involved in converting the analogue real world to pixels. Jeff's Real World Sharpening has a good discussion of the need for capture sharpening, I recall, and AA filters, while no doubt relevant, are far from the whole story.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 04, 2013, 08:16:39 pm
Hi Steve, Looks as if this whole thing is getting out of hand. Conversion to jpeg introduces small artifacts that sometimes make a picture that's very sharp look over-sharpened.

If you can't see enhanced detail in a D800 picture, either the student who shot the picture used a sub-optimal technique or a sub-optimal lens, or you're looking at a picture that's been degraded in some way after the shot was made. On the face of it, with 36.3 megapixels the D800 simply produces more detail, but in addition to that you gain at least an additional stop of dynamic range, and the ability of the camera to reproduce color is phenomenal. On the other hand, the camera is pretty fussy about the lenses you use with it. A crappy lens on the D800 is going to show its flaws immediately. If your students are using glass that's less than top-of-the-line you probably won't see a difference.

I'm converting to jpeg in Photoshop CS6. But it doesn't really matter what you use for the conversion. The conversion algorithm developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group is the same no matter what software you hook on to it.

Yes, if something appears over-sharpened it's over-sharpened. But as I said, on my monitor it's not over-sharpened. Maybe on yours it is. As they used to say in Vietnam, "Sorry about that."


1.  I don't understand, but if discussion about the photographic merits of your image (which I was complementing albeit with less than my full endorsement) means things have gotten out of hand then close the thread.  Or if it's just me, say so and I'll move on.  To me, we've just hit on an area of interest I enjoy far more than the usual prattle. 

2.  Agreed.

3.  I don't think it's sound to suggest the D800(E) has "enhanced detail" beyond the inherent capabilities of a like 36mp DSLR assuming there was one.   The D800 is a fine instrument, but in the hundreds of images I've taken myself with some of the best glass available at the time, I see only a 36mp DSLR performing as you'd expect a 36mp DSLR to perform.

4.  Compared to what other 36mp DSLR?  I understand you think the D800  is a good camera, but it's no more or less good as a 36mp camera than a 24mp camera would be if there were no other 24mp DSLR's with which to compare.

5.  A crappy lens remains a crappy lens provided all other constants remain equal.  We don't teach only 36mp DSLR's need good lenses, we only need teach it's possible for a sensor to exceed the capabilities of a lens at any resolution and how to determine if it is.

6.  Certainly you'll want to re-examine this statement and why one of the chief differences  DPR and other major reviewers have looked at over the years has indeed been the quality of rendered jpegs.

7.  I said from the beginning I do not think your image is "over-sharpened", but I do think your image exhibits traits in-common with those whose details have been enhanced further than I'd care for them to be.  Which admittedly is a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 04, 2013, 08:18:05 pm
I think that's just wrong. Think about the compromises involved in converting the analogue real world to pixels. Jeff's Real World Sharpening has a good discussion of the need for capture sharpening, I recall, and AA filters, while no doubt relevant, are far from the whole story.

Jeremy

It's certainly possible, but in the absence of an example(s) not something we can say for sure.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: WalterEG on January 05, 2013, 02:30:26 am
We don't teach only 36mp DSLR's need good lenses, we only need teach it's possible for a sensor to exceed the capabilities of a lens at any resolution and how to determine if it is.

Steve,

How encouraging to hear matters of Nyquist theory being alluded to.  Thanks for your reasoned and detailed responses.  For once some rewarding discussion.

Cheers,

Walter
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 05, 2013, 10:13:19 am
1.  I don't understand, but if discussion about the photographic merits of your image (which I was complementing albeit with less than my full endorsement) means things have gotten out of hand then close the thread.  Or if it's just me, say so and I'll move on.  To me, we've just hit on an area of interest I enjoy far more than the usual prattle.

Hi Steve, Things have gotten out of hand because normally I refuse to screw around with discussions about equipment and post-processing. To me the photograph is what matters: first the content, then the presentation. Content has absolutely nothing to do with equipment. Presentation begins to get into the equipment realm, but not necessarily very far. Cartier-Bresson made some of the finest photographs in the history of the art without worrying about post-processing. On the other hand, Gene Smith's fabulous work was photographic history's prime demonstration of Ansel's "The negative is the score, the print is the performance," statement,  even more so than the work of the author of the phrase.

Quote
3.  I don't think it's sound to suggest the D800(E) has "enhanced detail" beyond the inherent capabilities of a like 36mp DSLR assuming there was (sic) one.  The D800 is a fine instrument, but in the hundreds of images I've taken myself with some of the best glass available at the time, I see only a 36mp DSLR performing as you'd expect a 36mp DSLR to perform.

Of course there isn't one, so any speculation in that direction is misdirected. And how do you determine how you'd expect a 36mp DSLR to perform when this is the only one out there so far? Ah yes, "the best glass available at the time. . ." There's the rub. I've been shooting pictures with the best glass available since 1953, and "the best glass available" keeps changing, always with improvements. So I don't understand what "the best glass available" has to do with a 36mp DSLR.

Quote
4.  Compared to what other 36mp DSLR?  I understand you think the D800  is a good camera, but it's no more or less good as a 36mp camera than a 24mp camera would be if there were no other 24mp DSLR's with which to compare.

?

Quote
7.  I said from the beginning I do not think your image is "over-sharpened", but I do think your image exhibits traits in-common with those whose details have been enhanced further than I'd care for them to be.  Which admittedly is a matter of opinion.

I just uploaded the original raw file to one of my webs. It's right out of the camera, but I've converted it from NEF to DNG since I'm not sure who has equipment to handle Nikon files. I know Steve has, since he's made that clear. I've done minimum post-processing to this file. Of course it's not sharpened at all, but in ACR I've changed exposure -.9, contrast +15, whites +7, blacks -6, and I've added clarity +24. This is minimal post-processing, and you'll be able to undo it with a single click. The clarity may be what makes you think details have been "enhanced," but a clarity boost of 24 in a landscape isn't much. Download it and take a look. What you'll see is very close to what you're seeing in this thread. Oh, by the way, I shot that with the new Nikkor 70-200mm f/4, which is a lens that can take advantage of the D800.

The file's at http://www.fineartsnaps.com/downloads/MerelyPretty.zip. It's a 44.26 megabyte file, so you might want to start the download and then go have lunch. I'll leave the file up until the end of the coming week for anybody who's curious and has the gear to play with it.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: degrub on January 05, 2013, 01:34:32 pm
Russ,

Speaking as a beginner, what keeps me coming back to this image is the contrast between the Spanish moss and the lush growth of ferns and palm. My eye is drawn straight in  to the red plant and then explores the green palm and the moss. Something akin to the mystery of a decaying southern plantation and the exuberance of new life that is covering it. The timelessness of the moss and the now.

Maybe additional highlighting of the evidence of the "hand of man"  in the plank footbridge ?

It is probably just my screen calibration, but i got more of the above effect in ACR4.6 by shifting the tint -25 (more green), exposure -.9, and highlight +12.
Frank
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Patricia Sheley on January 05, 2013, 02:15:46 pm
Russ...for me the "Je ne sais quoi" of this image is the very nice flow of light back and forth through through the image. The two roadblocks to that flow and therefore the unfettered enjoyment of that light take place in the indicated bright (clipped) triangle upper left and static almost monochrome bottom in competition against that flow. The processing doesn't bother me as it has some, because it seemed to have an intent, ie: I could see this as a left plate in a 48-50 page book of thoughts inspired by the area(thoughts/essays facing on the right.) If you were to carry the intent consistently through it would make for a pleasant small book. But ... I would want to carefully address those areas that somehow just don't sync with the rest of the image,(and then have all other left plate images similarly processed for a nice flow through the book/ your increased contrast, blacks, whites, clarity adj's)( I think it is that contrast combined with the clarity that is moving the impression to bookplates for me)  In the attached I have a full negative clarity where you can easily see the trouble spots for me. .. just for me, and only because I am seeing the image as having a specific intent in its processing purpose, an interesting, almost 1930's bookplate effect which could work well.

If you try blocking those two areas you may see a solution in processing that could work. Doing something to define flow in lower, perhaps a content aware move or fill along with subtle negative exposure above. ...or not. Love to see other's struggles as I am so often there myself.
Best regards, p.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: pegelli on January 05, 2013, 02:53:44 pm
Thanks Russ for letting me play with your raw capture. Mainly doing it to learn more about sharpening and how to best apply it to certain images but I think it's worthwhile to share these learnings here.

First observation was indeed, holimoly, that's a sharp lens. Even at 36 MP and 1:1 it shows plenty of small details. Impressive piece of kit you have there.

With regard to post-processing I don't have the latest versions of photoshop or lightroom (still running my desktop on XP) to exactly mimick your settings so I tried as well as I could with Lightroom 3.
Based on some comparisons (see below) I still think your workflow applied some hefty sharpening between the raw converter and the export to jpg (probably unintentional), but I think the oversharpened look that some people "complain" about is still caused by your workflow and settings, and not by this very sharp lens/high MP sensor combination.

I have 3 image versions from LR 3 for you to look at and then a pixel peeping comparison at 600% of a specific area to observe the sharpening halo's.
They might be a little large to show full resolution here on LuLa, so if you really want to see the full effect you should probably download them on your computer.

I left the default capture sharpening in Lightroom 3 untouched (amount 25, radius 1,0, detail 25 and masking 0) and exported to the same picture size as the version you posted (961 x 1440 pixels)

I then exported 3 versions:
Merely Pretty-2: no export sharpening
Merely Pretty-3: standard export sharpening for screen
Merely Pretty-4: high export sharpening for screen

Judge for yourself, I even think the version without export sharpening looks a bit soft, which is probably caused by the downsizing without a sharpening step to follow.
I personally like the version with standard export sharpening best, but I know sharpening is more a matter of taste then science



 
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 05, 2013, 03:07:54 pm
... I don't think it's sound to suggest the D800(E) has "enhanced detail" beyond the inherent capabilities of a like 36mp DSLR assuming there was one.   The D800 is a fine instrument, but in the hundreds of images I've taken myself with some of the best glass available at the time, I see only a 36mp DSLR performing as you'd expect a 36mp DSLR to perform.

4.  Compared to what other 36mp DSLR?  I understand you think the D800  is a good camera, but it's no more or less good as a 36mp camera than a 24mp camera would be if there were no other 24mp DSLR's with which to compare...

Right!

Wait... what!?

It makes as much sense as saying: Picasso is good, but not better than any other Picasso out there ;)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Rob C on January 05, 2013, 05:33:54 pm
Right!

Wait... what!?

It makes as much sense as saying: Picasso is good, but not better than any other Picasso out there ;)




Slobodan, lay of the Xmas vodka! The Artist's Statement posts are elsewhere - this isn't the place to drop them.

; -)

Rob C
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 05, 2013, 06:18:50 pm
Hi Steve, Things have gotten out of hand because normally I refuse to screw around with discussions about equipment and post-processing. To me the photograph is what matters: first the content, then the presentation. Content has absolutely nothing to do with equipment. Presentation begins to get into the equipment realm, but not necessarily very far. Cartier-Bresson made some of the finest photographs in the history of the art without worrying about post-processing. On the other hand, Gene Smith's fabulous work was photographic history's prime demonstration of Ansel's "The negative is the score, the print is the performance," statement,  even more so than the work of the author of the phrase.

I understand now. 

Maybe it's possible through this discussion we'll make discoveries we wouldn't have otherwise.

Question:  Haven't most professional photographers "post processed" their work throughout history through the development process, or perhaps even just through the selection of who did their development, was it Fotomat or Thrifty Drugs Store, type of decision?  If someone had approached Ansel and whispered in his ear "company x makes this chemical that would blow your socks off.." would not he have appreciated it?  I lean towards your latter example as more practical, and I'm not sure if I'd even want to take the development process out of the equation.. doing so would only 'shift' the origin of talent.


Of course there isn't one, so any speculation in that direction is misdirected. And how do you determine how you'd expect a 36mp DSLR to perform when this is the only one out there so far? Ah yes, "the best glass available at the time. . ." There's the rub. I've been shooting pictures with the best glass available since 1953, and "the best glass available" keeps changing, always with improvements. So I don't understand what "the best glass available" has to do with a 36mp DSLR.

At some point we have to give each other enough respect to realize we've all read at least an aggregate of the same reviews, tests, etc, and we know how to achieve the best image at the higher resolutions and which lenses to use.  Yes, the "best" does keep changing, but very slowly and lately/usually with the advent of the latest bodies.  I'm sure we're both current.

?

I shouldn't have assumed.  Sorry.   Presently we only have a single 36mp camera type/model to evaluate.  We have no other way than history to know if it will be an "average" 36mp DSLR or even a subpar example.  But current history, patent review, and theory suggests all 36mp DSLR's will fall in the same general  "ballpark" of "excellent" with  the differences leaning more towards ergonomics and choice of programming (i.e. high vs. low ISO performance) trade-offs.  The same as if we currently had our first 24mp DSLR and the others haven't yet followed.  Or 21mp, or 16mp..  There is nothing to suggest the D800(E) is anything more than average in this regard.


I just uploaded the original raw file to one of my webs. It's right out of the camera, but I've converted it from NEF to DNG since I'm not sure who has equipment to handle Nikon files. I know Steve has, since he's made that clear. I've done minimum post-processing to this file. Of course it's not sharpened at all, but in ACR I've changed exposure -.9, contrast +15, whites +7, blacks -6, and I've added clarity +24. This is minimal post-processing, and you'll be able to undo it with a single click. The clarity may be what makes you think details have been "enhanced," but a clarity boost of 24 in a landscape isn't much. Download it and take a look. What you'll see is very close to what you're seeing in this thread. Oh, by the way, I shot that with the new Nikkor 70-200mm f/4, which is a lens that can take advantage of the D800.

The file's at http://www.fineartsnaps.com/downloads/MerelyPretty.zip. It's a 44.26 megabyte file, so you might want to start the download and then go have lunch. I'll leave the file up until the end of the coming week for anybody who's curious and has the gear to play with it.

Thank you.  If my results are any different from the others currently posted from your file I'll comment.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: cmi on January 05, 2013, 07:12:30 pm
The scene is beautiful and the light seems quite good. The problem I see at least for my intention with this image, the surroundigs make the otherwise good center seem trivial. It is not isolated.

I probably would have zoomed in and played with some foreground/background elements around the water like in the crop. Maybe a slightly different camera position to balance the elements better. If once I had established a good point I would come back another day and reshoot from tripod with some nd to get calm water.

This crop is only to convey my feeling how I would try to frame while there, it is not particularly good on itself.

Best regards

Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: stamper on January 06, 2013, 05:24:20 am
That is now a completely different image and without a focal point that the original had. To be honest Russ's image has now been over scrutinised way beyond what he probably expected. I have seen better images "dismissed" with ... I like it.....or..... +1. Regarding sharpening then someone can nitpick on the technicalities of the process but it is a subjective process that Russ was happy about.. I thought it was a little overdone but not to the extent that the whole process should have become a subject in itself? There will however be members who wish their posted images had gotten so much attention. :)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 06, 2013, 09:10:20 am
Some pretty interesting responses here. The one that made me scratch my head was the idea that this picture is "enhanced." I'm not quite sure what that word means in this context. Enhanced in what way? I suspect the answer is that those who saw "enhancement" in this picture live in areas where the light and vegetation are less dramatic. I notice that Chris, even though he decided to whack off the right side of the picture, didn't see "enhancement" in it. He's familiar with the natural "enhancement" in Florida's nature scenes. As those who downloaded the original file know, there was no enhancement. You can't "enhance" a raw file. I listed the minimal ACR changes I'd made in the post with the URL for the download, and anyone who downloaded the file was able to return the raw file to its original condition.

There were four things at work in the "enhancement:" First, 36.3 megapixels can capture more detail than 12 or 16 or whatever smaller number you might settle on. Second, the D800 has the best color capabilities I've seen on any camera. Third, the lens I used is a new generation winner that can make use of the D800's incredible capabilities. Fourth, and most important, the light was perfect (Marc Shaffer to the contrary notwithstanding)  as I drove by, stopped, lowered my driver's-side window, and made the shot.

I may go bald scratching my head over Steve's weird idea that somehow we need to compare the D800 to a mythical 36 mpx camera that may appear in the future. I never suggested that the D800 is better than something that may come along down the road, but Steve seems hung up on this mystery. Frankly, Steve, I don't understand what such a futile consideration has to do with respect to the picture I posted. By the way, I doubt there'll be another 36 mpx camera in the future. The next jump probably will be to 48 mpx, which will double the resolution of my 12 mpx D3. Oh, and your question: "Haven't most professional photographers post-processed their work throughout history. . ?" completely ignored the most influential photographer of the twentieth century: HCB, who, as I pointed out, didn't bother with post-processing. Yes, Ansel and Gene Smith were into post-processing in a big way. And, yes, most photographers did their own darkroom work. But most of them did their own darkroom work because there wasn't an alternative.

Several folks have posted cropped versions of the picture, and that's fine if that's what turns you on, but I framed the picture the way I wanted it, and as I said earlier, I didn't post this picture for comments on technicalities. I got something out of it that went beyond its prettiness and I wondered if it was just me, or if there was something there for others.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Chris Calohan on January 06, 2013, 09:58:38 am
Well, Russ..........Nicely stated!
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Patricia Sheley on January 06, 2013, 12:33:01 pm
I got something out of it that went beyond its prettiness and I wondered if it was just me, or if there was something there for others.

Well the backs of my hands hurt, and it is not just the temperatures well into dark that I've been enjoying lately. I saw your request, "Merely Pretty?" and took it to be a question...my error ... I watched the discussion for awhile and wondered really what had triggered the direction it took, but also returned to wonder for myself just where the element which held appeal for me actually was located. I found it's appeal, answered that question and went a bit further to define how I saw that appeal, and what held it back for me...I carefully considered my reply to your question and perhaps will need to hold my thoughts ... you have my apology for the offense you took to a heartfelt response on my part...
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: pegelli on January 06, 2013, 02:37:34 pm
You can't "enhance" a raw file. I listed the minimal ACR changes I'd made in the post with the URL for the download, and anyone who downloaded the file was able to return the raw file to its original condition.

Which I did and showed that somehow your workflow added a lot more output sharpening than you were aware of. I'm surprized you keep claiming the oversharpened look is caused by the sensor/lens combination which in my mind is not the case. The original you posted got a lot of sharpening, saying too much is a matter of taste but to say it is only capture sharpened doesn't jive with my observations and conversions of your raw file.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Rob C on January 06, 2013, 03:23:49 pm
Russ, that's why Without Prejudice was created. Not why woman was created, of course, and not meant as some far-fetched reference to a seminal Brigitte Bardot epic of long, long ago. (I remember parts of it well.) Funny; as I age, my memory gets sharper about some decades and passes others totally by; for instance, I can hardly remember a thing about the 70s. I think they were ugly.

A form of differential focussing; through a Nikon A2 filter, no doubt.

Rob C
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 06, 2013, 04:23:49 pm
Well the backs of my hands hurt, and it is not just the temperatures well into dark that I've been enjoying lately. I saw your request, "Merely Pretty?" and took it to be a question...my error ... I watched the discussion for awhile and wondered really what had triggered the direction it took, but also returned to wonder for myself just where the element which held appeal for me actually was located. I found it's appeal, answered that question and went a bit further to define how I saw that appeal, and what held it back for me...I carefully considered my reply to your question and perhaps will need to hold my thoughts ... you have my apology for the offense you took to a heartfelt response on my part...

Patricia, I wasn't offended at all. I'm always interested to look at alternatives to my way of seeing, but from my own point of view, when I frame a picture, that's almost always it. Sometimes I goof on alignment and have to straighten the result, and sometimes I can't get in position to get what I want and have to crop to get there. But by the time I post something, you can be sure it's what I visualized when I raised the camera. The only out-and-out change I can remember making was after Slobodan swapped direction 180 degrees on a picture, and I agreed that the left-to-right alignment of the irrigation rig in the picture was better than the right-to-left alignment that was there in reality. So Slobodan was right, and I'm always ready to look at alternatives even though I very rarely agree.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 06, 2013, 04:41:56 pm
Which I did and showed that somehow your workflow added a lot more output sharpening than you were aware of. I'm surprized you keep claiming the oversharpened look is caused by the sensor/lens combination which in my mind is not the case. The original you posted got a lot of sharpening, saying too much is a matter of taste but to say it is only capture sharpened doesn't jive with my observations and conversions of your raw file.

Hi Pieter, I went back through the steps I took for the first post, and I have to confess that I might have grabbed the Nik output sharpener instead of the raw presharpener. If so it's not the first time I've done that. I still can't see that the thing is over-sharpened, though.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 06, 2013, 07:03:13 pm
I may go bald scratching my head over Steve's weird idea that somehow we need to compare the D800 to a mythical 36 mpx camera that may appear in the future.  I never suggested that the D800 is better than something that may come along down the road, but Steve seems hung up on this mystery. Frankly, Steve, I don't understand what such a futile consideration has to do with respect to the picture I posted. By the way, I doubt there'll be another 36 mpx camera in the future. The next jump probably will be to 48 mpx, which will double the resolution of my 12 mpx D3. Oh, and your question: "Haven't most professional photographers post-processed their work throughout history. . ?" completely ignored the most influential photographer of the twentieth century: HCB, who, as I pointed out, didn't bother with post-processing. Yes, Ansel and Gene Smith were into post-processing in a big way. And, yes, most photographers did their own darkroom work. But most of them did their own darkroom work because there wasn't an alternative.


1.  Russ, it was you who wanted me to believe that somehow your 36mp DSLR enhanced detail all on it's own.  "Enhanced" for the sake of context was used to not insult or put down should plainly have meant any detail not normally expected of a 36mp DSLR such as you're see from Topaz or some such "enhancer," but through misunderstandings we seem to have taken it further for some reason.  So stop scratching your head bald and let's just agree the D800 produces detail we'd expect from ANY 36mp DSLR that happens to come down the pike (including the D800) which still doesn't explain the enhanced detail I mentioned.  You want to believe we've never been to Florida.. fine.  You want to believe I've never used a D800 or a lens that takes advantage of it.. fine.  But I have and so have others.  Far more believable was your final statement "and I have to confess that I might have grabbed the Nik output sharpener instead of the raw presharpener. If so it's not the first time I've done that. " A simple mistake.  Because I do not see the "enhanced" detail in the other conversions (or my own).. and again, it was slight.  No big deal.

2.  It will be interesting to see.  I think Nikon has "sold" the concept of a 36mp DSLR and I'd expect others to want a piece of that, and not risk going further.. or too much further.  We live in good times.

3.   No, it didn't ignore him.  But my response did point out that he was far from the norm.  Perhaps not the only one, but the  only one of note.  It appears even you post process.. so not sure where this is relevant anyway.

4.   I don't agree.  Clearly the others had alternatives as do you and I today.  He just didn't choose post-processing as his alternative.  Makes you wonder why eh?  Think he was lazy?  Maybe he wasn't good at it?  Sensitive to chemicals?   

Anyway, nice pic.. I liked it.  A bit "enhanced" looking to my eyes but enjoyable for sure.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: pegelli on January 07, 2013, 03:26:55 am
Hi Pieter, I went back through the steps I took for the first post, and I have to confess that I might have grabbed the Nik output sharpener instead of the raw presharpener. If so it's not the first time I've done that. I still can't see that the thing is over-sharpened, though.
OK, that clears it up then, no big deal.
Sharpening is really a matter of taste and even influenced by viewing conditioned and medium, so in the end the photographer has the last word in that.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: stamper on January 07, 2013, 04:28:03 am
LR/ACR has a default sharpening in place. It isn't really apparent when you open an image but if you add ANY sharpening along with contrast and clarity in the work flow then it can quickly become "over sharpened". Russ is correct when he states Save for Web makes an image look sharper when used. Save for Web has a preview in which an image can be viewed in internet explorer or Firefox - the main two browsers - so the whole work flow can be judged with regards to sharpening. If the D800 is as sharp as Russ suggest then on import an image can have no sharpening applied as part of a preset. In a nutshell the work flow can be wholly managed to somebodies taste but ultimately someone else will "suggest" an improvement? :)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 07, 2013, 11:20:27 am
I went back to the original raw and made sure it wasn't sharpened when I brought it into Photoshop CS6. Stamper's right, of course, but I normally have the built-in capture sharpening in ACR turned off. In this case I checked to make sure it was off. In Photoshop I made sure I grabbed Nik's Sharpener Pro Raw Presharpener and accepted the defaults. Here's the result. I can't see much if any difference between this one and the first post, but maybe my eyes are just getting old.

One problem is that I normally sharpen for printing, so out of habit I go for the Nik Output sharpener. I probably did that this time.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 07, 2013, 11:57:51 am
3.   No, it didn't ignore him.  But my response did point out that he was far from the norm.  Perhaps not the only one, but the  only one of note.  It appears even you post process.. so not sure where this is relevant anyway.

4.   I don't agree.  Clearly the others had alternatives as do you and I today.  He just didn't choose post-processing as his alternative.  Makes you wonder why eh?  Think he was lazy?  Maybe he wasn't good at it?  Sensitive to chemicals?   

Steve, before I let this go I need to go back to your arguments about the need for a photographer to do his own post-processing and printing.

Cartier-Bresson wasn't "far from the norm." He was a photographer, not a printer. His art was in the picture, not the presentation. Besides that he was all over the world, all the time, and he couldn't very well carry a darkroom around with him. He knew that Magnum, and more specifically, Voja Mitrovic would produce prints he'd be happy to sign. The photographers who produced the incredible stuff in the FSA archive didn't do their own printing, though some of them, like Walker Evans processed film and made preliminary prints on the road in spite of Striker's admonitions against that. When you say that "the others had alternatives," you might want to be a bit more specific. A lot of them were poor enough that they couldn't afford to hire a lab to do the work, but the majority of the pros I've known farmed out their processing. If they were good, they had to; they were too busy shooting to do it.

There's a difference between a photographer and a guy with a camera who considers himself a "fine artist." The "fine artist" insists on doing his own printing and "editions" his prints to make them more precious by limiting them and numbering them as if they were etchings. It would be hard to find anything in the art world more asinine than that, but it's stuff like that that constitutes what's commonly known nowadays as "fine art photography." Rhine II and Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #96" are classic examples.

Yes, I post-process because it saves me time running back and forth to the nearest lab. But my printer won't make a print larger than 17 x 22 and if I need something larger it's off to the lab.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2013, 02:46:45 pm
Photographers doing or not doing their own processing/printing.

The examples that Russ quotes are photo-journalistic sorts of snappers. Their remit and reality isn’t the same as for general advertising, fashion, industrial or even high street lensmen.

All manner of restrictions can come in to play: in my inudustrial baptism, for example, high security wouldn’t permit the farming out of most of the work, and on the very few occassions when some was, it had to go to labs with special security clearances. Fashion shooters used either to do their own or, if big enough, had their own in-house darkroom teams. Commerical guys were the same. Farming out work increases prices, reduces control over the quality of the final result and holds you captive to the ‘external’ services’ whims and priorities.

Fine art photographer. What’s that? Is it a guy on his own, is it another chap with a team doing the production? I think the fine art photographer is a distraction because hardly anyone I’ve heard of can earn a living from selling gallery prints and nothing else.

The reality is that fine art, as a full-time genre or job, is much of an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. There were always the independently rich snappers; they don’t really count in this general discussion because they inhabit another planet and are too few to count.

The big thing is this: in commercial photography, one doesn’t usually think of one’s output as art: it’s thought of as photography, either good, excellent or best not mentioned. Art as in photography is an artifice, a creation of the gallery world. That in no way knocks or belittles the very good commercial shooters of this world. Their talent is real, and they have an eye for their genre, and that’s about it, the rest coming down to the clients, projects and the budgets available. But art? I don’t think they ever thought of what they did as art; only the hangers-on, their groupies, had those golden words to bandy about.

Rob C
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: WalterEG on January 07, 2013, 02:51:41 pm
Amen to that Rob!!
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 07, 2013, 03:14:19 pm
Rob's right. I forgot about the kind of work Rob used to do when I made that statement. But the local "pro" who does portraits, weddings, etc., more often than not farms out his processing. I had a retired friend here in Florida who was a pro in a city in Indiana for decades. Early on he established a processing business that before long took in work from professionals all over his part of the state. He sent his shoots to his own processing plant.

My hat's off to Rob and Walter. They and their cohorts were the real "fine art" photographers, though I'll bet they'll both roll on the floor laughing when they read that statement.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: amolitor on January 07, 2013, 04:13:00 pm
Art as in photography is an artifice, a creation of the gallery world.

I don't understand this, Rob, could you expand on it? It's possible I disagree with it, but I don't want to start arguing about what I imagine you meant, rather than what you actually meant.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2013, 05:03:57 pm
I don't understand this, Rob, could you expand on it? It's possible I disagree with it, but I don't want to start arguing about what I imagine you meant, rather than what you actually meant.



The brief reply, which is all I have time to offer at this precise moment, is that art and photography have become terribly confused, the one with the other, and that many people become photographers because they can't be traditional artists such as painters, pencil-wielders or scuptors. They lack the skills. So, easy solution: buy a camera.

I became a photographer because of a heritage of gallery/museum visits prompted by my mother, one of the most cultured women I ever knew. I entertained fond ideas of being another Vincent, but realised that I wasn't going to be good enough; I also had a fascination with cameras from the age of about fourteen... it wasn't difficult to make the switch and I never really regretted not following through on a lesser (for me it would have been) trajectory in paint or pencil. I did what I enjoyed, seemed to have a knack for it, and people paid me to enjoy the life for a few golden decades. What more can you ask?

But did I think myself an artist? It never crossed my mind until after I retired, and then, from seeing the crap that was called photographic art, it seemed a new world had appeared from the blue, and that from my point of view, I was far better than most of the famous photographic 'artists' as indeed, were most of my contemporaries as well as several currently working professional photographer on LuLa who have never, as far as I can see, referred to themselves as artists.

That's all I can manage the noo!

Rob C
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: amolitor on January 07, 2013, 05:23:30 pm
Aha! So it is Photography As Art-with-a-capital-A that you have difficulty with.

While I might disagree with you on THAT point, it's not worth it. Photography As Art is undeniably problematic in several different dimensions, and if one digs in to a disagreement on that point one usually finds that what one is really disagreeing about is the definition of the word Art-with-a-capital-A. I think we both have better things than argue the fine points of what some word means!

Thanks, Rob. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program of cropping Russ's photographs!
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 08, 2013, 03:17:07 am
Steve, before I let this go I need to go back to your arguments about the need for a photographer to do his own post-processing and printing.

Cartier-Bresson wasn't "far from the norm." He was a photographer, not a printer. His art was in the picture, not the presentation. Besides that he was all over the world, all the time, and he couldn't very well carry a darkroom around with him. He knew that Magnum, and more specifically, Voja Mitrovic would produce prints he'd be happy to sign. The photographers who produced the incredible stuff in the FSA archive didn't do their own printing, though some of them, like Walker Evans processed film and made preliminary prints on the road in spite of Striker's admonitions against that. When you say that "the others had alternatives," you might want to be a bit more specific. A lot of them were poor enough that they couldn't afford to hire a lab to do the work, but the majority of the pros I've known farmed out their processing. If they were good, they had to; they were too busy shooting to do it.

There's a difference between a photographer and a guy with a camera who considers himself a "fine artist." The "fine artist" insists on doing his own printing and "editions" his prints to make them more precious by limiting them and numbering them as if they were etchings. It would be hard to find anything in the art world more asinine than that, but it's stuff like that that constitutes what's commonly known nowadays as "fine art photography." Rhine II and Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #96" are classic examples.

Yes, I post-process because it saves me time running back and forth to the nearest lab. But my printer won't make a print larger than 17 x 22 and if I need something larger it's off to the lab.

This is interesting material.   The economics of artists over the generations and how it influenced their processes.. as you describe this I can well picture these men.

Do you think post processing is as much about being a photographer as it used to be in generations past?   Most of us will often push our files during post, but I never stopped and thought much how it would change things if I was leaning on another professional to do these tasks for me.   Would my overall work suffer because I'd never be in sync to the same degree as I can be with myself?  Or maybe my work would get better having someone at a higher level push my work with their skills?   All interesting stuff to think about.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Rob C on January 08, 2013, 04:06:08 am
Aha! So it is Photography As Art-with-a-capital-A that you have difficulty with.

While I might disagree with you on THAT point, it's not worth it. Photography As Art is undeniably problematic in several different dimensions, and if one digs in to a disagreement on that point one usually finds that what one is really disagreeing about is the definition of the word Art-with-a-capital-A. I think we both have better things than argue the fine points of what some word means!

Thanks, Rob. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program of cropping Russ's photographs!



Please explain.

Rob C
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: amolitor on January 08, 2013, 09:30:20 am
Well, Russ is a fine fellow and a good photographer, but he never frames things quite right in camera ;)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: popnfresh on January 09, 2013, 11:56:32 am
I tried, but I couldn't resist.
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Bruce Cox on January 09, 2013, 12:24:20 pm
I'm glad you didn't resist and like the B&W.  However, thought Russ may have been overly inclusive of the continually interesting scene, he was more or less right about the center.  So I cropped your crop to recenter it.

Bruce
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2013, 01:28:41 pm
Pop and Bruce, I like the B&Ws, mainly because the light was so good. But seems to me that much as I love B&W this is a scene that cries out for color. (If you put your ear close to your monitor you can hear it.)
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Rob C on January 09, 2013, 02:00:04 pm
Pop and Bruce, I like the B&Ws, mainly because the light was so good. But seems to me that much as I love B&W this is a scene that cries out for color. (If you put your ear close to your monitor you can hear it.)



Absolutely; that's how you can tell a truly calibrated unit.

Rob C
Title: Re: Merely Pretty?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 09, 2013, 06:15:35 pm
Just to correct an important point in this thread: Russ's original photo is, in fact enhanced.
My Canon 5D II has only 21 megapixels and his Nikon D800 has 36, so any image coming from it is inevitably enhanced by about 15 MP over what I can get.  ::)