New Monitor, New Computer and a new look at old images: I recently purchased a new LG 27" IPS LED 4K monitor along with a new 16GB Dell computer. When looking through my older images I...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

New Monitor, New Computer and a new look at old images

Page 1 of 2 next>

Feb 7, 2019 14:21:11 #

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

I recently purchased a new LG 27" IPS LED 4K monitor along with a new 16GB Dell computer. When looking through my older images I find nearly all of them to look over sharpened and very noisy. As a result, I have been adjusting many of the better ones so they look good on my new equipment. I have three examples for you. The first two were taken in Utah's Capital Reef National Park in 2009 with a Nikon D300 and a Nikon wide angle DX lens (10x20mm I think). The third was taken in 2012 with the wider kit lens that came with the D300. In these examples, the first image is the "original" processed image from years past. The second is my recent attempt to make them better. My questions are as follows:
1) which images look best to you? Are the newer ones in fact better?
2) have you experienced an altering perception of your old images when viewed with new hardware?
3) are there other observations you would care to make?

Thank you for you helping me understand exactly what is happening.

Chris

(Download)

Feb 7, 2019 14:32:31 #

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I like the second one in each case. It looks like you've improved their exposure and vibrance.

Feb 7, 2019 14:34:17 #

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

saxman71 I viewed the first two... both appeared to be over sharped (the second one as more artifacts) Why are you showing images sharpen for printing? No one is ever going to view these images full resolution in a normal web presence... especially at the size you have presented here...

Do yourself a favor and study what is meant by "Targeting for Print verses Display"
There is a HUGE difference between what is germane for viewing on-line and what is to be sent to a print lab.... anything larger than 1600 pixels wide is inappropriate for online viewing....

btw, look at the commercial web presence of any major brand... that should help you get your head around what is standard practice for on-line audiences...

hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey saxman71...

Feb 7, 2019 14:38:56 #

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Thank you Thomas. I will give your comments/recommendations/suggestions some thought.

Thomas902 wrote:

saxman71 I viewed the first two... both appeared t... (show quote)

Feb 7, 2019 14:39:33 #

R.G. Loc: Scotland

saxman71 wrote:

I recently purchased a new LG 27" IPS LED 4K ... (show quote)

Your new PC and monitor have given you the confidence to add more pop to your images and it's working. The most important aspect of that process is that you need to know when too much is too much, and a good monitor will help you to see exactly that.

You've managed to pull off a noticeable amount of noise reduction without compromising the fine detail, which suggests that your PC/monitor are showing you what you need to know.

Feb 7, 2019 14:52:45 #

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Thank you R.G. That is helpful.

Feb 7, 2019 15:06:51 #

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

DWU2 wrote:

I like the second one in each case. It looks like you've improved their exposure and vibrance.

me too!

Feb 7, 2019 15:35:44 #

Low Budget Dave

I think you are on the right track by increasing the contrast and colors, but be careful not to be too heavy-handed. Misty mountains are meant to be misty, and haze is meant to be haze. When people put too much blue in the sky it looks unnatural, and when people put too much red in the red rock canyons (so to speak), it looks fake.

Always think first about who will be viewing the picture, and what mood you are trying to create. If you want the desert to look like it was bathing in heat, then feel free to let the yellows run wild. If you are just showing the stillness and silence of the desert, then be careful not to use too much "loud" colors.

Feb 7, 2019 20:52:47 #

Photobum Loc: Auburn, Washington

Yeah, in each case, the second photo gets my vote. They 're all great photos, but the vibrance in the "new and improved" versions really make them pop imho.

Feb 7, 2019 21:47:24 #

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Thanks Photobum. I appreciate your input/thoughts.

Chris

Feb 7, 2019 22:59:26 #

Properframe Loc: US Virginia

the seconds are better. An issue though is it looks like you lost some detail and likely via noise reduction. It is evident maybe best if you look at the concentric circles on the mound at 5 o'clock in image 2. The updated image has become overly smooth. That same level of detail will have been removed elsewhere. I can see it in the rock strata in both 1 and 2. It is a balance and remember the NR is removing data. That said the second sets all look better as the color is better and the noise is removed. Using those see if you can adjust some detail back.

Feb 7, 2019 23:08:49 #

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Yes indeed Properframe, you are correct. Good suggestion. Thank you for the help.

Feb 8, 2019 07:55:14 #