Hi all,
This is a photo processed with a custom camera profile in Lightroom. Lightroom usually applies an S curve to the raw file which compresses the highlight detail, i took away the curve...
Longshadow wrote:
Nice shot.
(Is it level?)
I think it is based on the fence posts and the growing things
Longshadow wrote:
Nice shot.
(Is it level?)
Good question
Composition Adjust : Off
Roll Angle : -2
Pitch Angle : 0
Composition Adjust X : 97
Composition Adjust Y : 1
Composition Adjust Rotation : 0.5
I'm not sure which way to adjust it -.5 maybe?
With the K1 the sensor can level the photograph +/- 1 degree with SR on or 2 degrees with it off as this was a tripod shot it would have been off which might be the roll angle, hmm i really should figure this out.
blackest wrote:
Good question
Composition Adjust : Off
Roll Angle : -2
Pitch Angle : 0
Composition Adjust X : 97
Composition Adjust Y : 1
Composition Adjust Rotation : 0.5
I'm not sure which way to adjust it -.5 maybe?
With the K1 the sensor can level the photograph +/- 1 degree with SR on or 2 degrees with it off as this was a tripod shot it would have been off which might be the roll angle, hmm i really should figure this out.
Good question br br Composition Adjust ... (
show quote)
I'd try counter-clockwise a scosh.
(Could be an optical illusion also.)
I wonder if that's got anything to do with the haloing that you get when you ramp up the contrast in the files that you get from merging bracketed shots. Contrast on its own wouldn't normally do that, but merged shots are prone to it. It's been suggested elsewhere that the haloing is caused by the processing involved in the merging process, but it would be interesting to find out if it had anything to do with compressing the greyscale when converting from raw.
It would also be interesting to find out if all merging software produces files that are prone to haloing, or are some better than others (but that's another subject for another thread).
The software manufacturers probably apply that compression to make things easy for us, but like the jpg v raw issue, we can get better results if we're given unprocessed files to work with - provided we have the PP skills to edit from scratch.
Longshadow wrote:
I'd try counter-clockwise a scosh.
(Could be an optical illusion also.)
well -0.5 degrees gives. Exiftool is quite useful when the camera records the angle that the photo was taken at.
blackest wrote:
well -0.5 degrees gives. Exiftool is quite useful when the camera records the angle that the photo was taken at.
Aesthetically it looks closer.
I believe my camera does not store the shot angle, THAT'S great!
R.G. wrote:
I wonder if that's got anything to do with the haloing that you get when you ramp up the contrast in the files that you get from merging bracketed shots. Contrast on its own wouldn't normally do that, but merged shots are prone to it. It's been suggested elsewhere that the haloing is caused by the processing involved in the merging process, but it would be interesting to find out if it had anything to do with compressing the greyscale when converting from raw.
It would also be interesting to find out if all merging software produces files that are prone to haloing, or are some better than others (but that's another subject for another thread).
The software manufacturers probably apply that compression to make things easy for us, but like the jpg v raw issue, we can get better results if we're given unprocessed files to work with - provided we have the PP skills to edit from scratch.
I wonder if that's got anything to do with the hal... (
show quote)
You might find this post interesting, especially the video
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-586601-1.html I read somewhere that film makers were not so interested in color accuracy but in making a pleasing photograph, adding a curve helps if there isn't too much dynamic range.
Longshadow wrote:
Aesthetically it looks closer.
I believe my camera does not store the shot angle, THAT'S great!
There are a few cameras that have electronic leveling but Pentax have a floating sensor which gives stabilization to every lens, but also lets the camera adjust the angle of the sensor for relatively straight forward shots such as this or astro tracing where it moves the sensor to track the stars as you are making the exposure. It also gets pixel shift taking 4 photos displaced by 1 pixel, where most cameras record red green or blue at each pixel site by shifting the sensor by 1 pixel its recording actual color information in all 3 channels for each location. This gives finer detail than interpolation although if anything moves these areas will be just from 1 of the 4 images. Huge raw files in this mode.
Faster AF and more focus points and better video profiles would be nice but i don't think there is a camera with everything. Although some choices made you wonder about sometimes. E.g it was a good move to remove pop up flash from the body which probably made it easier to include wifi and GPS but going with electronic rather than mechanical stabilization for video seems an error. The reason behind it was due to it causing noise that would be picked up by the onboard microphones, however it's not a good place to have microphones for best sound you always want the microphones near the subject! If you do that then you will not be picking up noise from the camera. Kind of stupid to not use the best form of video stabilization in order to improve a second rate audio recording.
blackest wrote:
You might find this post interesting, especially the video
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-586601-1.html I read somewhere that film makers were not so interested in color accuracy but in making a pleasing photograph, adding a curve helps if there isn't too much dynamic range.
Thanks for the link. Messing with camera profiles is a bit above my skills level just now, but working with linear files sounds promising.
For most of my landscape shots I use split toning to add a touch of amber (~33) to the darks and blue (~220) to the highlights. It looks like LUTs allow you to apply that sort of adjustment automatically.
R.G. wrote:
Thanks for the link. Messing with camera profiles is a bit above my skills level just now, but working with linear files sounds promising.
For most of my landscape shots I use split toning to add a touch of amber (~33) to the darks and blue (~220) to the highlights. It looks like LUTs allow you to apply that sort of adjustment automatically.
Luts are amazingly powerful, I think the video gives a small clue at what they can do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxiTsm80Xho this is a fairly common problem, with an interesting solution.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.