Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 03 Apr 2014 (Thursday) 22:44
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

How much pp is need for this look...

 
Perfectly ­ Frank
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2010
Apr 03, 2014 22:44 |  #1

I came across this photographer's work while surfing flickr.
These images (and this one in particular) look exceptionally sharp and very detailed.
Can both LR and CS provide this quality? Or is some special technique used?

https://www.flickr.com ...otocomphotos/126558​57404/external link


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,056 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Apr 03, 2014 22:47 |  #2

Doesn't really look like much was done at all. Maybe shot with a polarizer and a few adjustments like contrast, saturation and such.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Apr 03, 2014 23:12 |  #3

Micro contrast and curves.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2010
Apr 04, 2014 00:06 as a reply to Alveric's post |  #4

Thanks for the replies. I considered asking the photographer herself, but she gets hundreds of comments per shot, so I doubt she'd answer. ;)

One more thing, her photos are very sharp. When I upload my photos they always loose some sharpness. They never look super sharp like hers.


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Apr 04, 2014 00:09 |  #5

Do you apply any 'export sharpness'?


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2010
Apr 04, 2014 00:44 |  #6

Alveric wrote in post #16808587external link
Do you apply any 'export sharpness'?

I upload the full size jpeg image. I don't resize for the web. Is export sharpness a feature of flickr, or pp software? I'm only using dpp.


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
tonylong's Avatar
54,592 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Vancouver, WA USA
Apr 04, 2014 00:56 |  #7

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #16808658external link
I upload the full size jpeg image. I don't resize for the web. Is export sharpness a feature of flickr, or pp software? I'm only using dpp.

If you are uploading "full size" images to Flickr, then Flickr has to do a lot of "resizing" in order to display it at a "normal" Web-viewing size. So, if you aren't happy with those re-sized images, then it's up to you to size your images smaller for viewing...although if you have a reason for uploading a full-size "original" (like if you are providing large files for clients to get big prints) then your options may be limited...

Otherwise, DPP gives you the tools to resize in the Convert and Save and the Batch Process dialogs. You can resize to your chosen "pixel dimensions". For example, you can resize pics to the POTN limit of 1023 pixels at the widest dimension (although I'm not sure if you can do this with a "non-pro" Flickr account...? You can also use DPP to "play with" the final sharpness of an image...try resizing, Converting and Saving an image to a jpeg, open the smaller jpeg in the DPP editor, then applying some sharpening. If the result is better than what Flickr has been producing, then try uploading the resized image to Flickr.

It's true that Flickr will still resize your pics to produce the various "views", Thumbnails, Small, etc., but you will have more control over your outcome.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2010
Apr 04, 2014 19:11 as a reply to tonylong's post |  #8

^^ Thanks Tony, much appreciated info!

I do have a pro flickr account. I upload the full size image as a type of backup, so I can recover images if needed (I also backup on HDs as well).

I'll give your suggestions a try. I think it's also time I give LR or CS a try.


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Adharr
Senior Member
Adharr's Avatar
324 posts
Joined Mar 2014
Arizona, United States
Apr 05, 2014 05:29 |  #9
banned

Alveric wrote in post #16808587external link
Do you apply any 'export sharpness'?

I have never actually used export sharpness in Lightroom. I just do my sharpness and noise reduction processing in the he Details panel and have never thought twice about it. Do any of you see an advantage to doing so?


My Homepageexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Apr 05, 2014 11:29 |  #10

Adharr wrote in post #16811227external link
I have never actually used export sharpness in Lightroom. I just do my sharpness and noise reduction processing in the he Details panel and have never thought twice about it. Do any of you see an advantage to doing so?

I never do either. I just thought that maybe that was the cause for the 'super sharpness' in that photographer's photos.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Apr 05, 2014 14:33 |  #11

All of my images posted to Flickr are resized down to 1024 px on the long edge. I also have sharpening output sharpening set to Screen/Standard and I set the PPI value in the publish dialogue to 100 as this setting is also used by LR within the output sharpening algorithm. If I size LR so that the an image is sized to about fill 1024 pixels (in the Library module) and compare it to an exported JPEG displayed from Flickr (in Chrome) then the uploaded image has much better micro contrast than that of the image displayed in LR. All finished images exported from LR get output sharpening added with the settings depending on the intended use of the export. The only draw back with LR output sharpening is that you cannot preview it, although it's not much of a problem with prints, you only really know if it's right when you have the print in hand.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2010
Apr 05, 2014 15:57 as a reply to BigAl007's post |  #12

Thanks folks for the tips.


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
bsmotril
Goldmember
bsmotril's Avatar
Joined Feb 2006
Austin TX
Apr 05, 2014 20:05 |  #13

To my eye, that image looks like a focus bracketed stack of images blended together.


Gear List
Galleries: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/smopho/external link --- http://billsmotrilla.z​enfolio.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
HBOC
Senior Member
357 posts
Joined Mar 2010
PDX
Apr 06, 2014 22:00 |  #14

it might have very well been a depth of field blend. I use the kuyper action for web sharpening and use save for web. I never post anything over 900px on the long side. For print, I use Niks output sharpening with amazing results!


FBexternal link
500pxexternal link
Blogexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
catclaw
Senior Member
344 posts
Joined Apr 2014
Apr 07, 2014 13:31 |  #15
banned

bsmotril wrote in post #16812429external link
To my eye, that image looks like a focus bracketed stack of images blended together.

That's a great idea. I never thought about doing that for landscapes.


TriExposureexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,849 views & 0 likes for this thread
How much pp is need for this look...
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00187 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is Mark Shutt
918 guests, 403 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016