Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Discover the ZEISS Digital Nature Hub

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Is this over sharpened ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 19th June 2008, 07:56   #26
Spot Focus
Registered User
 
Spot Focus's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Coast NSW Australia
Posts: 155
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
__________________
Cheers
Nick
Pentax K10D
Sigma 50-500 APO DG
Spot Focus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th June 2008, 09:23   #27
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
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 by pe'rigin : Thursday 19th June 2008 at 09:29.
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th June 2008, 10:01   #28
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
 
Keith Reeder's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
Posts: 11,038
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...
__________________
Keith Reeder

Canon 7D, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS, TCs.
www.capture-the-moment.co.uk

Last edited by Keith Reeder : Thursday 19th June 2008 at 10:30.
Keith Reeder is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 19th June 2008, 12:04   #29
Clive Watson
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
 
Clive Watson's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Reeder View Post

I think that maybe your 40D and lens aren't very well suited to each other and need calibration.
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.
Clive Watson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 19th June 2008, 12:42   #30
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,333
Keith, This picture was taken with the 70-200 + 1.4tc on the 30D (see EXIF data).

Last edited by Roy C : Thursday 19th June 2008 at 12:45.
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th June 2008, 06:51   #31
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,333
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gtit1v25.jpg
Views:	121
Size:	130.1 KB
ID:	145844  

Last edited by Roy C : Friday 20th June 2008 at 07:06.
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th June 2008, 08:18   #32
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 08:36   #33
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZ View Post
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 !
LOL
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th June 2008, 09:01   #34
Clive Watson
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
 
Clive Watson's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,231
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!
Clive Watson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 10:54   #35
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
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?
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 11:21   #36
Clive Watson
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
 
Clive Watson's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,231
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 11:43   #37
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Watson View Post
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?
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).
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th June 2008, 14:43   #38
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Watson View Post
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?

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 donít teach colour relationships anymore.
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 14:50   #39
Clive Watson
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
 
Clive Watson's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by pe'rigin View Post
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 donít teach colour relationships anymore.
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?
Clive Watson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 18:24   #40
tzanampeths
Registered User
 
tzanampeths's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GR
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy C View Post
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.
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
tzanampeths is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th June 2008, 19:08   #41
Robert L Jarvis
Robert L Jarvis
 
Robert L Jarvis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Burnley, Lancashire
Posts: 6,710
Hi Roy, I use a 19" inch CRT and the image looks a trifle overdone, I can see glistening on some feather points which to me is oversharpened but as Keith said this varies from person to person.

Robert

PS I wear glasses with bulls eye lenses.

only joking about that LOL.
Robert L Jarvis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st June 2008, 09:15   #42
JohnZ
Registered User
 
JohnZ's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8,611
Roy, Get under that old mattress and get some money out ! I am surprised that you think that to get a replacement for your CRT will cost £1K. I feel fairly certain that somebody like BenQ or similar would fulfil your needs.
JohnZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st June 2008, 10:26   #43
paul goode
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Posts: 4,323
Roy,
I had a good look at this at Focus on Imaging and was very impressed. http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg222w/index.asp
It should be available now, I just haven't got a clue where to find the money
paul goode is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 21st June 2008, 13:26   #44
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul goode View Post
Roy,
I had a good look at this at Focus on Imaging and was very impressed. http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg222w/index.asp
It should be available now, I just haven't got a clue where to find the money
That looks good Paul, coming in at less than a grand as well.
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 21st June 2008, 14:01   #45
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Watson View Post
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?

Unfortunately Clive I donít,

All I use is the old knowledge of additive or subtractive colour, which was drummed into me at an early age.

Iím sure that there will be still old colour photographic printing books out there for reference. But, you would then have to amalgamate those colour theories into todayís digital processing.

Do you really want to start learning a technique that is second nature to me?

And to honest if you read the digital colour Ďguruísí a technique well passed its sell by date!

I think that itís down to the individual on how they handle their own images, and to whatever degree of alteration they deem necessary.

The proviso to that would be if I had paid for the image then I feel at liberty to correct it.
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd June 2008, 18:39   #46
a.dancy
Registered User
 
a.dancy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salford England
Posts: 41,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by pe'rigin View Post

I think that itís down to the individual on how they handle their own images, and to whatever degree of alteration they deem necessary.

The proviso to that would be if I had paid for the image then I feel at liberty to correct it.
Clearly you know the game and technicalities far better than I will ever know but if it is agreed that photography is an 'art', isn't your last comment like saying to Piccasso 'I want to buy your picture but I'm going to correct it'?

I could say more but I'm not going to dig myself into a deeper hole than the one I've just made
a.dancy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 24th June 2008, 08:25   #47
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by a.dancy View Post
Clearly you know the game and technicalities far better than I will ever know but if it is agreed that photography is an 'art', isn't your last comment like saying to Piccasso 'I want to buy your picture but I'm going to correct it'? -O
Photography is one of many skilled art forms; I think that there has been a progressive Ďdumbing downí of skill levels for many years. There are many reasons for this mainly commercial.

The Picasso argument is semantics, if you asked a painter and decorator to paint the outside of your house white and he paints it green, then you have the right to question why.
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th June 2008, 08:53   #48
Cudyll Bach
Registered User
 
Cudyll Bach's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 731
My CRT monitor broke down a few months back and since then I have been really unhappy with the results I get with my new LCD monitor. Saying that the shot of the great tit looks fine, as does the robin.

When you guys talk about sharpening, are you referring to Unsharp Mask or the basic Sharpen filter? I attended a short beginners digital photography course and the tutor recommended I use Unsharp Mask at around 110%, with a radius of 2 pixels and a threshold of 1. Hence I have been using these settings on virtually all my pictures, I know this is probably incorrect, can someone clarify what the 110%, 2 pixel radius and threshold settings actually do?
__________________
The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.
Cudyll Bach is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th June 2008, 10:00   #49
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
CB,

There's an article by Thom Hogan, which might help explain.

http://www.bythom.com/sharpening.htm

The only thing I would say, would be to apply a sharpening technique that suits the subject image.
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th June 2008, 15:55   #50
hughredcanary
hugh
 
hughredcanary's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 364
Grate shot Roy
Hugh

http://hughsphotoshop.com/
hughredcanary is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone need shorebird ID skills sharpened? birderbf Birds & Birding 0 Thursday 21st June 2007 00:56

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.16680694 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24.