No problem but we all should remain aware that there is a lot of rubbish information out there!

The Nikon 70-300 VR is around 3-4 f/stops better.

That's OK, also, when making a response, hit the "quote reply" button so that everyone knows to which post you are referring.

Why are you having a go at me?

It was that dope lighthouse who "critiqued" your post.

It looks like you managed to work out precisely what htsmith wanted.

And I dare say that if you can then anybody can.

Oh I get it, silly me! You were answering someone else's question.....

As for your language, do your two dogs know that you speak to others that way?

That explains a lot.

Please be careful what you say if you don't know what you are talking about.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a Nikon 12-24 f/1.4, and secondly, how can a stated 12-24mm lens have a zoom ratio of 1:4?

What value or parameter does the vertical scale represent?

Sorry! Started with Adobe PhotoDeluxe in 1998 and worked up to CC. Never used Lightroom so please delete reference. :oops: :oops: :oops:

Crude but effective, make a layer copy, apply noise reduction to the top layer as required then erase everything on that layer that you don't want affected. Merge the layers.

Lighthouse

A beautiful photo Frank that had lots of potential.
There is a bit of noise in the green background but it is not a distracting element in the bokeh. It just looks like a natural noisy background without being overbearing.
The ant? I'm sorry, it misses the mark Frank. It is plain and simple outside of the depth of field. It is soft, out of focus.
The flower - the flower is wonderful.
The sublety and softness in the yellows is very good.
And the little double curls on the ends of many of the petals are wonderful. (Stamens between the petals?)
I'd flick the ant, and spend half an hour or so exploring the flower with different light, different lenses maybe, different DOF etc all manner of things.


dardan

I am sorry to contradict but the red channel is totally blown out and there is virtually no blue. The photograph is very much over processed.


OP

Could you tell me how you know this. Is there special software to detect this? I see comments like this and wonder where the information comes from and would like to learn.

dardan

Sure thing, no problem, glad to help.

If you look at your photograph, it is practically all yellow.

There is no detail whatsoever in the flower petals.

Without knowing what program you are using I can't be specific but in Photoshop, go to "channels" which is a selection box at the top of the layers inset and switch on the histogram by going to "window" and click "histogram".

By checking the histo in channels you can see the spread of values for each of red, green and blue separately, rather than an assemblage of all three at once (shown in white) when the histo is generated for the layer as a whole.

Please come back if this is still unclear.

dardan

If analyzing the finer points, histograms can be of some use but in a case such as this to my mind the question might be, "what are my eyes telling me?" So Frank, what do you see? Does this really look like a flower or is there something missing? The other person who responded mentioned the detail in the petals but apart from the little squiggles, there isn't any. The yellow has more the appearance of having been cut from a sheet of paper, does it not? If that was your intention then fine, but I suspect that it was not. Do you still have the original? If so, have another go at your processing and make your changes with a deft hand. In photography your eyes are 50% of your tool box.

OP

Sorry to be so dense dardan. I guess I just don't get where the blown out stuff is seen. Here's a shot of the original PP, the basic tab is all that was done nothing else. Thank you so much for trying to help me.

dardan

You are not dense. It's only that this is quite a difficult area to get a good handle on.

The sensor of a camera has a limited range of operation. It's task is for each separate sensing element or "pixel" as is is commonly known, is to produce a tiny voltage which corresponds to the level of light to which it is exposed. The minimum level is set some way above the normal quiescent level of noise which the sensor and ancillaries naturally produce and the maximum level is a product of the sensor's design. This range is known as the "dynamic range" and is expressed in a number of f/stops.

Upon interrogation, the camera's software assigns a binary number according to the level as a 12 bit or even 14 bit word.

Further to this each exposure records these values as the levels of red, green and blue light which fell upon the sensor and when combined in software and by the screen, becomes a viewable image.

Viewing the histogram can be misleading if taken in isolation. The horizontal component represents levels of brightness, from darkest at left (a value of 0) to the lightest at right (255), that were recorded but the tricky bit is that one must always interpret what it represents in accordance with the actual image.

The other, mostly overlooked aspect is that if any part of the image records a value in excess of 255, or even if it is a very large proportion of that image, you may only see a very narrow bar at the extreme right.

Your screen shot in Lightroom differs from what I see in CC, which shows, even without viewing your image, that the red channel is blown, undoubtedly by your wish to emphasize the yellow.

dardan

The other person who responded mentioned the detail in the petals but apart from the little squiggles, there isn't any. The yellow has more the appearance of having been cut from a sheet of paper, does it not? If that was your intention then fine, but I suspect that it was not.

other member

I cannot see where anybody else has mentioned detail in the petals?
Petals are actually OK the ant is soft

dardan

Very well then, "the flower is wonderful" except that the red channel is blown out.

Pretty well most of us ask for help or advice from time to time, right? And we like to think that such advice is reliable, especially coming from a source purporting to specialize in providing it, right?

So when I saw that a member was being grossly misled into believing that his photo was beyond fault, especially by someone who is evidently revered by at least one other of his team as having some knowledge of the subject, I felt that I should put matters in proper perspective or put the OP and anyone else who knew no better at risk of being substantially misled.

The thread may be viewed at the C&C section but as it may well be deleted from there in short order I reproduce it here for convenience.

Judge for yourself from whom you would rather take guidance in matters technical.

.
Attached file:
(Download)

Darn tricky one this. Anyway, please add this to the offerings..

(Download)

Thanks dand43, there was much tooting of horns and I nearly got run over as I stood in the middle of the road trying to get the shot!