.....Perhaps, if you feel like it, sharing what you did with a bit more detail would benefit us.....
Most of what I did was run-of-the-mill stuff. I wanted to brighten it a touch, and since most of the shot is dark, nudging the shadows up a bit was enough to lighten all that needed lightening.
Negative Clarity adds diffuseness without weakening shapes and edges (unless it's extreme), but it does reduce the contrast somewhat, mainly in the mid-tones. A generous amount of contrast counteracts that, which probably accounts for most of the clarity that you mention (that and seeing more in the shadows). And as you yourself did, I went for edge-strengthening. I did it using Masking in the Sharpen tool. I used lots of Sharpen and lots of Masking with a boost to Radius. With paintings the edges are typically strong whereas the fine detail tends to be lost or minimised.
I didn't use much luminance denoise but I did use a fair amount of colour denoise to clean up the colours. This seemed OK because with paintings there is typically a tendency towards simplicity and uniformity with the colours. Subtle gradations and fine colour texture are both possible with paint, but compared to reality the colours tend to be cleaner.
I used split toning to add orange to the highlights (to enhance the ambient light coming from the lamp), and added blue-green to the shadows which not only balances the warmth of the highlights tint with something cooler, it also affects the mood or feel of the scene in an appropriate way. And because the tints are roughly complementary and applied to opposite ends of the luminosity spectrum, the split toning enhances the contrast - which may be another reason for the enhanced clarity.
I would say the biggest obstacle to doing a realistic save is the loss of detail. That leaves a painterly effect as one of the best options. I don't have painterly filters so I did some home brew stuff with the light, colour and negative Clarity.
Not sure how much of the purple cast is due to ambient light and how much due to the camera's misplaced enthusiasm
. I thought some of the suggested corrections looked a bit off so I moderated the Tint/WB shifts that I gave it and the colour tweaks in the HSL section. More pop was added by upping the contrast and vibrance, which then required that the Blacks be raised slightly and blue be desaturated selectively in the HSL section. Apart from overall sharpening I also selected the swallow and gave it a touch more sharpening, Clarity and Contrast. I also selected the area round (and including) the eyes and added more Clarity and sharpening.
The bird is a bit soft and the more you zoom in on it the worse it gets, so I moderated my crop, but the bird is sufficiently vivid that it can hold its own against the generous amounts of context. Bright grey skies are never going to be optimum but they're not a total spoiler either.
I wouldn't normally go for a semi-panoramic crop, but this shot to me says "expanse". We have the expanse of the back yard and the expanse of the surrounding countryside. I wanted to catch generous amounts of the yard and the scene beyond and still have a reasonably balanced composition. I also brightened it up a bit and warmed up the colours to give the impression of a warm, sunny day (ideal viewing conditions for a scene like this).
I like viewing the files full screen and scrolling down through them using the scroll wheel.
Fixing my attention on the subject and not paying enough attention to the foreground, background and setting.
The numbers in millimeters (mm) on the front of the lenses indicate the focal length. The shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view - or alternatively, the longer the focal length, the more zoomed-in you will be.
80-200 is a telephoto zoom lens which will be good for zooming in on things from a distance.
35-70 is a standard zoom (general purpose) and probably the most useful one to have on most of the time (unless there's a zoom lens that goes a bit wider - down to 24mm or thereabouts. You don't say if all of the lenses are shown).
The lenses that have only one value (e.g. 50mm) are called prime lenses and provide a fixed angle of view - i.e. no zoom. The fisheye lens will provide a very wide angle of view, which will be handy for close-up shots in confined spaces.
The 52mm on the filters refers to the diameter of the mounting ring and it has to match the lens that you're using.
The EM stands for "economy model" (i.e. not professional grade).
Softness can be a very effective look, but here it just looks wishy-washy. The flowers need more contrast and possibly more saturation, even if softness is the intended look.
Now that they've expressed their preference you would be going against their wishes if you used any of those images in a sharing context such as a portfolio.
Did you make it clear that you were doing it for free because you were expecting to be able to use the images in your portfolio? If you didn't make that clear, you should have. If you did make that clear then they are guilty of playing you along. It's your choice whether you want to continue to respect their wishes or not.
Chris T wrote:
… when will the a7sIII be released, RG? …
Rumours abound. Some say October, some say before that, some say not until before the Olympics in 2020.
Chris T wrote:
....what about the current one of that model - that'd be the a7sII - right? Is that 12MP?....
12.2MP. The A7S series have been notable for their exceptional low light capabilities, which I'm sure are due to the large photo sites combined with the latest sensor design. The new A7Siii promises to take that even further. My guess is that it won't depend on in-camera processing, so the benefits will be more substantial, and the high ISO performance claims will be more realistic.
Chris T wrote:
....Is the Sony a7sIII - one of the 12MP FF MILCs?....
The A7Siii is the next incarnation of the A7s series and it's not out yet. All we have to go on is rumours - which abound - and according to those rumours the resolution could be anything from 14 to 36 MP. A value at the lower end of that range seems more likely. According to comments from a Sony exec, it will be capable of 4K video recording, so 12MP would be a possibility. I think it's interesting that it's not 6K video, which would have meant a higher resolution (around the 24MP mark, I think).
There used to be a clear link between photo site size and dynamic range. I would consider it strange if that factor has become completely irrelevant. I've noticed a connection between dynamic range and the generation of processor used in the camera. My suspicion is that that's the more relevant factor, but I'm guessing.....
Chris T wrote:
..Sony has about eight or nine models... but the lower res ones.... may be closer to achieving Nirvana than the 42MP ones - which will, undoubtedly - provide higher Dynamic Range - but, at what cost?
It would be interesting to know exactly what is compromised to maintain dynamic range in modern high res cameras. I suspect that in-camera processing does a good job of hiding the shortcomings that you get from smaller photo sites, but as you say - at a cost. And the claimed extra high ISO performance is questionable and doesn't seem to be entirely realistic. That's why I think the A7Siii will be interesting. It'll be a chance to compare on a level playing field. We should have larger photo sites combined with the best of modern sensor design and in-camera processing, which I suspect will produce some undeniable real world benefits.
(Scotland can claim to be the inventor of all sorts of things, but mint Aeros isn't one of them. I was assuming that foreigners see the UK as being "the country" with Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales as sub-divisions. Thanks for seeing Scotland as a country in its own right
I wonder how many people would see a door and think it would be better as a backdrop
Chris T wrote:
Well, thanks, RG - you've come up with the most co... (
I said in my first post "Don't use a higher resolution than you actually need". One of the determinants would be how large you intended to print. But if you could see beyond the loss of micro-detail, upsizing software would allow you to print large from a low res camera.
I do mostly landscapes, and it's widely recognised that high res is desirable, probably because it allows the camera to render things like distant foliage, grass etc with more detail, so I'm not completely dismissive of the desirability of high resolution. But I'm also aware of the desirability of strong, accurate colours and good noise performance at something other than base ISO, and I'd be reluctant to sacrifice any of those just for some extra micro-detail. A while back somebody posted a pic from a D3s taken at ISO 16000 and it was impressive how robust it looked. I would choose that kind of solidity over micro-detail if there had to be a choice (and if affordability wasn't an issue).
I don't know much about the Sonys that you mention, but I do know that the performance of some of the oldies-but-goldies is still impressive compared to more modern offerings. I'm thinking of cameras like the D3s, D4s, 5D mk1 and the like - which can be had at a reasonable price second hand. If you don't intend to clock up tens of thousands of shutter releases, second hand pro cameras seem like a good choice to me. I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing what the new Sony A7S iii is going to be like, but the price will keep it out of my reach.
RG (from the land of mint Aeros).