I am unable to help John, but this might be of interest:
I have just followed your instructions on one of my images, and found no difference in the final JPEG file size, when downsizing to your usual web image of 916px across by each route, and only a very small reduction in file size if further reduced to 915px across.
However, as you know, I use PaintShop Pro, so presumably it is a phenomenon of the software that you are using.
Cheers.
Philip
(This post was last modified: Feb 28, 2016, 05:28 by MrB.)
Can't answer John, use/work jpeg only, , but I sharpen last, at 100% size, save at maximum size, then resize any I want for Forum, no further sharpening. Ed.
I store my images, unsharpened, as TIFF files as well as sharpening them at 100% and converting to JPEGS for display. The idea there is that sharpening for display and sharpening for print are different, so if I wish to print an image, I will sharpen the original TIFF, and print that.
Once converted to JPEG, I resized to use here, on the forum. However, the perceived wisdom is to resize first, then sharpen at 100%, so as of today, that is what I will do.
If I need an image here, I copy the original TIFF file, resize it for the forum, sharpen it at 100% of the new size and then convert it to a JPEG. Seems long winded, but it is seemingly what the professionals do.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
Display sharpening is for viewing on a computer screen. The Print sharpening, for hard copy output, varies depending on the size of print (a 20x16 requires more than 10X8), type of paper (glossy requires less sharpening than lustre), viewing distance, type of printer (inkjet, continuous tone, halftone or hybrid) and printer resolution. The Output Sharpening Software I use has all these algorithms built in. It is just a case of selecting the values appropriate to your output.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
You can fine tune the sharpening using the sliders though the algorithms are exceptionally good. On a high ISO image I would reduce the Output slider a bit.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
I have got a fixed procedure for my post processing these days. I shoot in raw, then convert into TIFF, 16 bit, ProPhoto RGB, to do all my manipulations. It seems to work quite well, and now I have a fixed routine, I made less errors.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
Another couple of pictures of my step-daughter. She was at Knockhill for a Ferrari F430 experience, we got her for her 40th. Her husband took the photos, but I did the post processing. The moving shot was sharp so I added the blur.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
(This post was last modified: Mar 4, 2016, 15:33 by Jocko.)
I am going to have to move to full frame format and damn the cost. I downloaded a raw tutorial image today, for a lesson I am doing, and it was almost 4 times the pixel count of the best images I can produce with my camera, and much higher quality. The question is what manufacturer do I go for, and what model. I currently use Nikon, and have been happy with the brand, but perhaps it is not the way to go. The EXIF data for the image I was working with gave no camera details. I will be looking at VR/IS lenses and ideally covering 28mm to about 450mm. I realise that lenses by the body manufacturer will be very pricey, so I will have to look at 3rd party glass. What do you guys recommend, body and lens wise?
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
(Mar 6, 2016, 05:10)Jocko Wrote: I am going to have to move to full frame format and damn the cost.....
.....What do you guys recommend, body and lens wise?
Sorry, John, but I just don't understand this, except as a good example of the "want" v. "need" phenomenon.
I would recommend reading around the topic of sensor size. Also read lots of reviews of the image quality capabilities of recent APS-C cameras. Also consider how the images will be viewed - are they to be the size of a wall and viewed only through a magnifier?
Current APS-C cameras will produce very highly-detailed A2 prints (or even larger), particularly after applying good processing and printing techniques. Stunning quality images are now being produced even by modern micro-four-thirds cameras.
You could save a lot with regard to cost, bulk, and weight (important as we age) by upgrading within the APS-C format, and perhaps use the money saved for travelling to interesting places to take more good photographs.
Cheers.
Philip
P.S. Edmak's principle applies here, as usual!
(This post was last modified: Mar 6, 2016, 07:02 by MrB.)
Law of diminishing returns here. I moved from a 6.1M Pxls, to 14M, and, saw no difference really. I only print to A3 for keeping.
The pic of the clock face is effectively, from a 9x5 feet, poster print, which I have never seen! Taken with the 6M Pxl Camera, Minolta Maxxum 5D, 35mm Tamron 28/200mm lens, about 35 years old, 1/320th @ F5, 400 ISO, 2009. Hand held, a 760Kb file for Forum use.
Shot RAW, but no RAW processing, did not know how,opened immediately, and P/S CS2, mainly for sharpening. Saved as a jpeg. Eventually asked P/S To "make" a 9 X5 Print, file size 81Mb, sent to person who asked me to take it, was used and printed, down south for an exhibition. Several who have seen it were complementary, means nothing really.
This should be viewed about 5/7 yards away, although seemed to have moved the goalposts for viewing distance now.
Unfortunately, I cannot show a full frame version, a friend has 2 Canon FF, his work looks good to me, his outlay is eye watering.
Your money, your choice, just a bit of research first perhaps. Cheers. Ed.
It is probably the way to go, sticking with a DX format Nikon. That way there is no need for new glass or having to learn a new control layout. That brings us back to either the D5500, or my preferred (but slightly dearer option) of the D7200.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
Hi John,
Then there is the new D500.
I am off to ' The Photography Show ' on the 21st of this month. If you would like any literature on Cameras and Lenses just e-mail/ PM me with a list and I will see what I can get. No problem to post them to you.
Mike.
" Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst "
Henri Cartier - Bresson.
That D500 is some piece of kit. Don't think I would want to spend that much and still have a DX body though. I will have a look around and get back to you.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
It is an impressive difference, John, but the colours seem rather surreal to me, so I would try to achieve what would be, for me, a more natural appearance.
[ Edited in PaintShop Pro X8 ]
Cheers.
Philip
(This post was last modified: Mar 7, 2016, 12:14 by MrB.)
For me I personally prefer Philip's version, but the second one I posted is the professional Landscape photographer's interpretation of the image he saw and captured. The tutorial shows you exactly what he did, so you can see his approach and work through it, but the values used are exactly what he used, giving you his finished rendition.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
A point that is of interest to me, John, is that the edit in Post #193 was processed from the dark starting point image in Post #192. This was downloaded from the screen - a small (1349x900 pixels) JPEG image which had been compressed for the Web (only 258KB of data). Nevertheless, it has been relatively easily processed to enhance colour and reveal detail, including applying an increase of over 2 EV of brightening to the shadow areas of the image, without much perceptible loss of quality. After an extra bit of gentle output sharpening, the edited JPEG file (now 265 KB of data) has produced a quite acceptable 8 inch print on smooth matt photo paper from my HP inkjet printer. It does not require much of a leap of the imagination to realise what can be achieved by starting with the full-size high-quality JPEG from the camera.
The photographer tells us that the image was captured with a Sony A7r body and a Canon EF 24-70 f4 L lens using an adaptor, to mount the lens. He used a 2 stop graduated ND filter. It was shot in raw, and the original file was 35.2Mb and 7392 x 4920. It was seeing the quality and detail in this image that set me off on my full frame lusting.
There was no clipping of the original image, and one of the first things he did was increase the exposure by two stops, as you rightly said.
The drawback I found, in working with such a large image, was my laptop struggled with the processing. If I do ever go for a full frame system, I had better factor in the cost if a quick desktop computer! Oh, and a desk!!
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
Bought another amplifier last night (Marshall Class 5), and I was asked for photos from the guitar forum I frequent. Well, as soon as I got the amp out, camera shy Lucy decided it was for her.
Nikon D80, 1/60 sec, f4, ISO 200, 37mm lens equivalent.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
(Mar 10, 2016, 13:25)Jocko Wrote: Bought another amplifier last night (Marshall Class 5), and I was asked for photos from the guitar forum I frequent. Well, as soon as I got the amp out, camera shy Lucy decided it was for her.
Nikon D80, 1/60 sec, f4, ISO 200, 37mm lens equivalent.
