Zion - Cross lit - A day of impossible shooting. - pics embedded

[Sean Dempsey]

Here's a shot of Zion. Drove over 300 miles saturday, yet never left 50 miles from my house. Southern utah... pffft, does it ever end? Was lots of cross lighting and clouds, changed minute to minute, really dynamic.

This is one of the only good shots I did, out of 384.

done with 17-40L, polarizer. minor levels and selective color adjustments.

[Peter_AUS]

Just for checking sake. You shoot digital don't you ? If so, did you try your shots at all without the Polarizer on the lens. Doesn't the Polarizer cause the exposure to underexpose a bit, by up to 2 stop ? Just something I thought I read from the old boards that is why I am asking.

Also do you do unsharpen mask at all on your images after processing them ?

This image seems dark, I know there are clouds in it and the image is not tack sharp as I would expect from the lens.

[Sean Dempsey]

Yes, I use a 10D. I did some with and without the polarizer. I am not sure if it casues it to underexpose, I had thought it would obtain a correct exposure regardless of the polarizer or ND filter, since the TTL just uses what it's shown.

I did unsharp mask this. I can't speak for the sharpness of the image in relation to the lense, I don't see where you're seeing the lack of sharpness.

Its 100 iso, 1/125, f/8.

[Peter_AUS]

Sean, did you save this as sRGB working space for the net.

Why such a shallow F/stop, I would have thought for this type of shot, f/22 would be the order of the day. Don't you use an inifinity setting f/stop for vista type shots, or am I just totally confused.

Thanks for posting the settings.

[kamboura]

Peter as a newbie, I am usualy blown away by the majority of your posts, you bring a lot of knowledge to this forum, however, for this once only, I just don't see your point. This picutre seems super sharp to me, I don't see any softness. Look at the cloud on the right side !.. Woow...
Sean, think this is a great shot, the cloud add a mood to it, maybe not what you were looking for, but it is not bad. Did you try to do a panorama with that? Do you have a couple of pictures that you can stitch together. This would be really nice.

[Mig]

Jpeg artifacts perhaps? I see some hatching, maybe that's why it doesn't seem sharp to you Peter?

Danielle

[Peter_AUS]

The rock faces don't seem that defined, that is what I am talking about, I don't think it is my glasses, I clean them daily. I looked at the image in Photoshop, keeping in mind that it is a low data image, just applying a little more unsharpen mask made the rock faces stand out more, that is what I was trying to look at, yes the clouds look sharp, but then clouds are clouds to me not the focus of the image which I thought is the rock face, the cuts in it, the way the light is shining on the earthen tones.

That is what I am talking about.

[Elysian]

The rock faces don't seem that defined, that is what I am talking about, I don't think it is my glasses, I clean them daily. I looked at the image in Photoshop, keeping in mind that it is a low data image, just applying a little more unsharpen mask made the rock faces stand out more, that is what I was trying to look at, yes the clouds look sharp, but then clouds are clouds to me not the focus of the image which I thought is the rock face, the cuts in it, the way the light is shining on the earthen tones.

That is what I am talking about.

I agree with you Peter, I also thought it lacked some sharpness.

I really like that last shot Sean, the light is way more dramatic and the image is a lot more balanced after showing more of the lower parts of the rocks and giving the top more space to breathe.

Well done, A+ ;)

[Liz]

Beautiful image. It looks sharp, with great color on my screen - not dark at all. Excellent composition, contrast......color.

Liz

[Mig]

There's something about this that just doesn't work for me. I think it's a combination of the shadows and the fact that it seems a little tight. Like the mountain is just too close. If that makes any sense.

Danielle

[Sean Dempsey]

Here's another one just a few seconds later.... notice the DRASTIC cloud/shadow change. This is a wider shot, btw, if you can't tell =)

I think you all have valid points, it's good to get feedback.

[Peter_AUS]

Here's another one just a few seconds later.... notice the DRASTIC cloud/shadow change. This is a wider shot, btw, if you can't tell =)

I think you all have valid points, it's good to get feedback.

than the first one. I certainly wasn't trying to detract from the image at all, I wish mine were like that most of the time. My only comment was the cuttings within the rocks seemed a little soft to me. I have a reasonalbly good Mitsubishi Monitor that is always well warmed up when looking at photos as is suggested in lots of places to do.

I think I have it reasonably balanced for colour, not using a calibrating instrument, but eye sight, so colours are always subjective aren't they.

My working space in Photoshop is Adobe RGB and when I open an image that is saved as sRGB it asks about changing to the working space, so I detect which images are saved for web browsers that way. The first image didn't ask me to change the working space so I assume the image was Adobe RGB. It is really important to get this right in ones head otherwise (as it did for me for a long time) confuse things when viewing images between what you see in PS and in a web browser.

I still struggle getting the image out to printer, but that will either resolve in the forseeable future or a new printer is comming my way, one or the other.

Now back to the photo. That must be one huge mountain head there and it seems to go on for ever as well. With the extra foreground in the image it makes it more significant.

What were the shooting specs for this one Sean.

[Mig]

Yes! This one I really like. To me that little bit of extra space shows more of the character of the location - more of that open, clear-air feel. Okay I'm babbling - I need more coffee.

Danielle

[gahspidy]

I think the original is a great image, shadows helping it and the polarizer the right move. With ttl metering, as I have as well, you don't have to worry bout the filters you use. This is a perfect exposure, but while it seems sharp it is not tack sharp as one would like to see these formations. I think maybe a tad more unsharp mask would help. Btw, did you do any smoothing or cleaning up in ps. If you did, that might take away from some sharpness aswell. Still, sharp enough and know it would be much sharper even in print.
great shot, Sean.

[Elysian]

I think maybe a tad more unsharp mask would help.

Be careful though Gary. See, the first time I looked at Sean's final shot I considered it sharper than the first one but I felt with my trained Photoshop eye that too much sharpening was applied, but I wasn't sure.
Your comment made me examine the image in more detail and as you can see halos (in this case dark lines) are already occuring.

Personally I never use unsharp mask. I think it's too clumsy to use. I rather prefer highpass sharpening using the high pass filter, but most of the time I use Focusmagic (one of the few plugins I have) which avoids these halos as much as possible and you also don't have to fiddle with 3 sliders all the time to get it right.

Just my $0.02

[Sebastian]

Be careful though Gary. See, the first time I looked at Sean's final shot I considered it sharper than the first one but I felt with my trained Photoshop eye that too much sharpening was applied, but I wasn't sure.
Your comment made me examine the image in more detail and as you can see halos (in this case dark lines) are already occuring.

Personally I never use unsharp mask. I think it's too clumsy to use. I rather prefer highpass sharpening using the high pass filter, but most of the time I use Focusmagic (one of the few plugins I have) which avoids these halos as much as possible and you also don't have to fiddle with 3 sliders all the time to get it right.

Just my $0.02

Joe,

Those halos are not necessarily due to unsharp masking. My Nikons never exhibited it, but the Canon does. Not sure why, but there sems to be much more of a "halo" effect occuring, even with sharpening off. It's not a sharpening artifact sort of look, but it's almost like some sort of contrast effect from the lenses or lens/sensor combination. When reduced in size it can appear like a sharpening halo, but at full rez it clearly is an optical effect.

Not saying that's what's going on here, no way to tell, just an other theory.

[Elysian]

Not sure why, but there sems to be much more of a "halo" effect occuring, even with sharpening off. It's not a sharpening artifact sort of look, but it's almost like some sort of contrast effect from the lenses or lens/sensor combination.

Oh, I didn't know that Sebastian. Interesting, learned something new again, thanks! ;)

[gahspidy]

Joe,and Seb, interesting theories.
I also thought upon looking at the second shot that there was too much sharpening going on. When applying the mask to an image to be displayed on the web, the Radius amount should never be over 1.00. I personally use.75, with a strength of about 70-100, and clipping of 2 approx.
With an image to be prepped for printing, the strength of sharpening should increase significantly and clipping can go as much as 2-3.00
I use Jasc paint shop pro 8 , so i do not have a whole lot of powerful weapons in my arsenal of image editing gizmos. I have heard about the High pass filter and read that some pros prefer it over the unsharp mask.

[Sebastian]

Joe,and Seb, interesting theories.
I also thought upon looking at the second shot that there was too much sharpening going on. When applying the mask to an image to be displayed on the web, the Radius amount should never be over 1.00. I personally use.75, with a strength of about 70-100, and clipping of 2 approx.
With an image to be prepped for printing, the strength of sharpening should increase significantly and clipping can go as much as 2-3.00
I use Jasc paint shop pro 8 , so i do not have a whole lot of powerful weapons in my arsenal of image editing gizmos. I have heard about the High pass filter and read that some pros prefer it over the unsharp mask.

Gary,

I use setting a bit different than yours. I hardly ever go over 0.3 radius and usually go in the 150-300% strength. THreshhold is anywhere between 0 and 6.

I have tried the high-pass method extnesively and just didn't see enough of a difference to integrate it into my workflow. If I needed really high quality sharpening I would just invest in a plugin that minimizes the amount of time I have to spend not focusing on the message of the image.

[Sean Dempsey]

I suppose it would make a difference that the posted images aren't the actual image.. the images are both 5400x3600, so of course impossible to post here.

The sharpness can be adjusted for either. The first one was sharpened as much as possible in full size, but for the web I shrunk it down and didn't resharpen it at the small size, so in the downsizing it got softened.

The second image is shrunk, then sharpened, so you can see the effects of it.

Printed at 12x18 at 300dpi, they both look quite good to me. And yeah, the first is in AdobeRGB, and the second sRGB, so thats what the color tone difference is. I neglected to convert the first one since it was coming off the printer when I decided to post it. Plus, to post small images, all I do is zoom out to 25%, do a screenshot, and then repaste it and crop it. I find that is a fast way to make web images of huge files.

[Peter_AUS]

Sean if you are using Photoshop and I think you said you do, if you just click File Save for Web you can change the size of the image directly in the save window and adjust it according to the size to post here. That is what I do and I can see the time it is going to take downloading on dialups for people like Liz who I know has difficulty viewing long postings of images, not that yours is long.

[Elysian]

Sean if you are using Photoshop and I think you said you do, if you just click File Save for Web you can change the size of the image directly in the save window and adjust it according to the size to post here.

Incredible, I never saw that option!!

Thanks a lot Peter, this is really useful! ;)