UKC

In reply to stroppygob:

The "straight from raw", undeveloped image can be seen here.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-P-GRn1o8080/UpKBaZdXAQI/AAAAAAAACxM/Pp9I...

In reply to stroppygob:

jpg to RAW: well the difference is clear & obvious! Definitely not doing the original image justice with the rendering depicted in the UKC jpg.

No time to comment in length now, sorry.

In reply to stroppygob:
You've improved the clouds, and where the light hits the mountain in the background. I agree about the foreground tho. Can you give us the original raw to have a play with.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Cheers Dan,

the RAW file is large, I can give you a link to it via "dropbox" if you send me an email address.

In reply to stroppygob:


To be honest, compared with some other shots in your gallery, I don't see that shot being worth posting on a public gallery, sharpened or not. It's just dull, and completely unengaging.

I like some of your other shots.

In reply to Dispater:

Thanks for your honesty mate.

In reply to stroppygob:

I have had the hump posting here, btw, after all the bloody faff it used to involve meeting the pixel dimensions.
Then after 2 hours work, some sodding moderator refused to allow half of them.

I believe the uploading is easier now, but I've still got the arse about the moderation.

In reply to stroppygob:

Just to add some muddiness to the picture, do people sharpen in RAW or when converted to Jpeg?

I've never used the RAW sharpener before, but I’ve been playing about with it since ChrisJD’s comment, and it does seem to give a more “natural" sharpen.

Thoughts?

In reply to stroppygob:

I am far less experienced than some on here, but why sharpen in JPEG if you've got a RAW image to handle?

On development in general, I've found Jeff Schewe's "The Digitial Negative" really excellent. He has a separate book on sharpening but "The DNG" is pretty useful.

In reply to stroppygob:

Buy Lightroom.

Uses a two step process:

'Input' Sharpening on the RAW image (in line with a classic 'Photoshop' approach)
'Output' Sharpening - dependant on intent (print, screen) and output size/dpi etc, and desired sharpening 'strength' .

Very effective.

In reply to stroppygob:

That looks much more natural and, in my opinion, better than the processed one

In reply to Solaris:

Lightroom sharpening approach was driven by Jeff Schewe

I've got his 2009 book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom-ebook/d...

In reply to Solaris in reply to stroppygob:

PS: I assumed that you use one of the Photoshop family of products, such as Lightroom. "The Digital Negative" is written for that software.

In reply to Solaris:


I used to use Qimage for printing - gave amazing results (probably still is better than LR fro printing), but too lazy nowadays to boot up a separate program, lol.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/index.html

In reply to ChrisJD:

D'you export from Lr into Qimage to prepare images you want to print, or do you now do everything in Qimage?

(Having lots of fun with my Iceland images; will eventually get round to putting some in my gallery - cheers for the help and advice.)

In reply to Solaris:


Would export a tiff from LR without any Output Sharpening and let QImage handle the sharpening optimisation for printing. (I don't use Qimage anymore though)


Great stuff!

In reply to Robert Durran:

One thing that might be worth mentioning is that the RAW image you prefer is *less* processed even than what a camera shows you on its screen, or what you see when you've imported a JPEG into your own computer. So the RAW image you prefer is even further from what the eye sees naturally than what the camera's computer, or your computer, has been told by its programmer the human eye sees naturally.

Apologies to the OP!

In reply to Solaris & Robert:

Let's not start that whole debate again on this thread ;-0

In reply to stroppygob:

tbh I'm with Dispater on this one I'm afraid. Silk purse, sow's ear and all that, sorry.

FWIW, I'd read somewhere that sharpening should be the last action you apply to an image. Some more qualified on here can perhaps comment further.

In reply to Fraser:



See two-stage approach comment and links to books above.

In my original comment to OP about his photo(s), I was not commenting on the merit/content of the photos, just the technical image quality of the presented jpg. And only trying to help the OP.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Appreciated.

More links to good tutorials would be great.

Oh, and thanks to the guys (IainS & Dan Arkle,)who had a play about with the original RAW file, and showed me how they would do it. I learned a lot from that.

In reply to stroppygob:


The UKC Photographic Collective at its best .... even if we are all 'lying cheating Photoshoppers' (RD, 2013)

In reply to stroppygob:

Balls.

I will now be going back to the start of my holiday snaps, and redoing teh whole bloody lot of them in the light, (scuse pun,) of the information gained here.

Will be sharpening the RAW image in CS6.

May be willing to share some here, if they look good/better.

In reply to stroppygob:

Think about giving Lightroom a go as well (free trials from Adobe) - will help you manage your whole set of images. But another learning curve (scuse the pun).

Good luck and have fun

In reply to ChrisJD:

Cheers Chris, but, no offense, I think I'll stick with CS6, I haven't the brain space for another learning curve.

It's all your fault by the way....

In reply to stroppygob:


Sorry

In reply to stroppygob:

If they are holiday snaps, and it takes lots of time/effort to mess about with the RAW files, why not just shoot in jpeg like the rest of us punters do?

In reply to TobyA:

On the 5d mk iii, dpreview pointed out three jpg problems:
- Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO
- Visible sharpening artifacts at default settings
- Heavy-handed noise reduction leads to lack of low-contrast detail at higher ISOs

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29


L

In reply to TobyA:

It's a hobby.

In reply to LukeO:

Very interesting, thanks for that.

In reply to stroppygob:

Yep, fair enough - always satisfying when you learn a new skill too although I need to put more effort into using the settings ON the camera before I need to start worrying about how to fiddle with the picture after it's in the computer!

In reply to TobyA:



Eh? If you are shooting RAW there's not much to think about on the camera! Focal length, shutter, f.stop, ISO as low as possible. Job done.

In reply to ChrisJD:


You see, there you go - getting all technical like.

In reply to TobyA:

In reply to stroppygob:

I use LR as I like the fact that it's non-destructive and I find its sharpening better than PS.