• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Is this over sharpened ? (1 Viewer)

Roy C said:
Like I say, it is interesting how we view thing differently because I view the Robin shot as being soft but that it just me.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's fine, Roy - as I say, it's lightly sharpened (only capture sharpening, as far as I recall) and it can take a lot more sharpening and still keep a "natural" look to it, which is my personal taste.

As a matter of interest, would you agree that the robin has more detail than the blue tit? That's what my processing approach favours - keeping as much fine detail as possible.
 
Last edited:
Looks a smidgeon over sharpened to me but then again I have one of those new fangled LCD jobbies. It`s a good one though ! The LCD I meant....LOL But I would be very happy with that piccie.
 
The Great Tit definitely looks 'wrong' on my LCD screen, perhaps over-sharpened, but I agree with Keith, it looks like it's had too much noise reduction (that's not to say it has, just what it looks like). The Robin looks spot on, I personally wouldn't want to sharpen it any more than that. Interesting how the same image can look so different on different screens though.
 
Clive Watson said:
Interesting how the same image can look so different on different screens though.
Click to expand...
This was the whole point of the thread Clive. I was trying to ascertain if my 7 year old CRT was on its way out because the image looked so different on my laptop. I was not after a debate as to weather the image was good, bad or indifferent but merely trying to gauge if other people were seeing the same as me.

It is obvious from the responses that different people have there own ideas about how sharp or otherwise an image should be and long may this variation be (it would be pretty boring if we all though the same wouldn't it ?). At the end of the day I guess most of us take pictures for our own benefit and if someone else happens to like it then that's a bonus.

That aside and taking a balanced view of all the responses I am reassured that my trusted CRT lives to fight another day. Thanks to everyone for your responses in this thread.

Out of interest this shot was not taken with my normal prime lens but with a zoom lens which is noticeably softer than the prime. This is one reason why I had to sharpen the image at all (very often with my prime lens I do not apply any sharpening).

Once again thanks to everyone who contributed :t:
 
Hi Roy looks pretty good to me on a lcd ;) the slight softness maybe from the lens ??
As for the laptop it may not have a very good graphics card or on board graphics ;)
 
I think that we have to be careful here when comparing image sharpeness on these two images. We have two entirely different light conditions.

On Keith's Robin, there is an even light, which enables the full tonal range through the image.

On Roy's Great Tit, the light is harsher, boosting contrast and scrunching-up the mid-tonal range. With a bit of work you can make Roy's a very dramatic image, darken and gradient the background, change the highlight from blue light to yellow, and repaint the eye reflecting.

Cheating, possibly, but it's gone on since the invention of enlargers and holes in pieces of cardboard.
 
Last edited:
Roy,

I've hesitated for a while now to put this in writing, but I think this is the time.

On the understanding that this is meant constructively and in friendship, then...

I've seen this "look" in your pictures ever since you got your 40D - even with shots taken with the prime. Your pre 40D gallery shots often show more feather detail and have a less "processed" look to them.

I think that maybe your 40D and lens aren't very well suited to each other and need calibration.

I believe you might be over sharpening and otherwise over processing (and having looked at this thread on three different computers now, only one of which - mine - has a calibrated monitor, I have to say I'm seeing heavy over sharpening and over processing) to make up for images that are coming off the camera too soft.

In other words, for me it's not about the amount of sharpening you're using per se as much as it is the possibility that you aren't getting as much fine detail and sharpness in your pictures in the first place, and are having to PP them heavily (to the point of losing "naturalness") to try and account for that.

Roy, can you do me a favour please?

Can you make an unprocessed copy of the blue tit jpeg available? Better still, the RAW file? I'd really like to have a go at processing it from scratch my way, and posting up the results.

I'm not saying that what I do is "better" - indeed I am not - but I definitely do things "differently", so it'd be revealing I think, to compare results with the blue tit you posted...
 
Last edited:
Keith Reeder said:
I think that maybe your 40D and lens aren't very well suited to each other and need calibration.
Click to expand...

Apologies for going slightly off-thread, but are there specific places to take equipment to for this, or can it be done in any decent camera shop? I don't think my gear is faulty but I've sometimes wondered if I should get it checked out anyway, just to maximise its potential.
 
Keith, This picture was taken with the 70-200 + 1.4tc on the 30D (see EXIF data).
 
Last edited:
For those that may be interested here is the virtually unprocessed shot.
Taken on the 30D with 70-200 f4 and Kenko 1.4tc handheld.
Absolutely no sharpening and no Noise reduction (in both DPP and CS2) BTW this is a 100% crop. so not even any size reduction.
I attach this for info only - please respect my image and do not download. I am not interested in other peoples processing methods as like I said earlier the main purpose was to ascertain if my CRT was still up to it.
 

Attachments

  • gtit1v25.jpg
    gtit1v25.jpg
    130.1 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
Confession time Roy. Like the wally that I am I had my monitor on the wrong resolution. I have now changed it and your piccie looks a lot better and less over sharpened.
I think I am losing the plot !
 
JohnZ said:
Confession time Roy. Like the wally that I am I had my monitor on the wrong resolution. I have now changed it and your piccie looks a lot better and less over sharpened.
I think I am losing the plot !
Click to expand...
LOL :-O:-O:-O
 
Interesting debate. I knew that brightness and colour balance varied widely between monitors, but I didn't realise it applied to things like sharpness too. I may well be able to get the original picture looking better too with some fiddling.

Moral: when I see someone's photo and think it doesn't look that great, I might be doing them a disservice!
 
I agree with Clive on this, there does seem to be a vast differential in the clarity people are seeing through their monitors.

Roy’s thread has opened up a debate I’ve never really thought about. I’m very lucky in having the best equipment; I assume people are viewing likewise. Its only when you view other peoples screens that things look ropey.

I’ve never been a great advocate of altering images by eye on screen, and some of the diy techniques which are published, I would question.

As flat screen become cheaper and cheaper, can we be assured that what we see will reproduce correctly?
 
So what is the answer? Fork out on a really good monitor? Or will normal monitors suffice provided they've been calibrated with the calibration software that's available?
 
Clive Watson said:
So what is the answer? Fork out on a really good monitor? Or will normal monitors suffice provided they've been calibrated with the calibration software that's available?
Click to expand...
Three or four months ago I thought my CRT had packed-up and so started looking at a modern flat screen replacement. I must have read several thousand post on loads of different forums as well as every review I could find on various monitors. Although you will always get users with cheapish monitors who think they are great (as long as they are happy that's fair enough). But the conclusion I came to was that you need to spent almost £1k minimum to get a monitor that is as good as a good fine pitched CRT. I am thing about the likes of Eizo and Lacie ....
Trouble is that monitors are like Flat screen TV's 'One mans meat is another mans poison' (or something like that).
 
Clive Watson said:
So what is the answer? Fork out on a really good monitor? Or will normal monitors suffice provided they've been calibrated with the calibration software that's available?
Click to expand...


That's simple Clive.


You don't need the monitors, software or calibrators I've got; all you need is to know is the correct colour formulas and apply them to your images.

But unfortunately, they don’t teach colour relationships anymore.
 
pe'rigin said:
You don't need the monitors, software or calibrators I've got; all you need is to know is the correct colour formulas and apply them to your images.

But unfortunately, they don’t teach colour relationships anymore.
Click to expand...

Clearly not, because I've not heard of this. Could you point me in the direction of a reference or website that may be useful?
 
Roy C said:
At the end of the day I guess most of us take pictures for our own benefit and if someone else happens to like it then that's a bonus.
Click to expand...

I'd rather stick to this statement. I used to trust my eyes in the past when developing in a dark room, and I intend to keep on trusting them on my, calibrated using adobe's tool, CRT screen. On the other hand most of the time I'll also use PS's info palette to keep an eye at the numbers.

All the best

Takis
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

P
Picture Editing Thoughts
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
PaulCountyDurham
P
S
Using iPad as monitor for DSLR Digiscoping
Replies
0
Views
544
SwannyVancouver
S
Evan Atkinson
Binoculars around £1000
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
iseegeorgesstar
I
John Nihon
Is it my eyesight 👀 ....
Replies
1
Views
1K
MikeInPA
M
I
Geese ID Shropshire
Replies
3
Views
524
wheatearlp
wheatearlp

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top