P7280021.ORF.dop (14.6 KB)
swmurray
2 Likes
Hi Alan
Here is my version for processing. Each as you will see above has looked at it slightly differently, so it really comes down to personal preference. To me one needs to darken the foreground slightly to get separation and I also don’t push clarity much on the sky unless there is real drama such as a storm.
Hope you like this.
Andre
P7280021.ORF.dop (132.6 KB)
P7280021.ORF (39.5 MB)
2 Likes
Apologies but forgot to add that a lot comes down to local adjustments. This is where you can create depth and “pop”. Global adjustments only get you partway.
As I noted before, try using a polarizer during the day and watch out for motion blur as Wolfgang also pointed out.
2 Likes
To me it looks like a typical atmospheric blur, you often get on landscapes.
It was probably shot in OM-5 “HiRes” mode, so the RAW has 50mpx derived from a 20mpx, 17.3 x 13 mm sensor. Diffraction at f/11 also played some role.
2 Likes
Actually, if you have FilmPack the 4 Fine Contrast sliders can add a significant amount of “pop”.
Mark
2 Likes
Yes, I was wondering about the reported file size
Maybe the OP can enlighten us and if so
is the result of multiple exposures when using a handheld camera with a relatively slow shutter speed and/or in a windy area.
well, it actually would make it worse in this case
" … the result of multiple exposures when using a handheld camera with a relatively slow shutter speed and/or in a windy area. "
Similar to use ClearView+ globally, which only gives a quick impression of a sharp(er) contrasty pic, but does not really enhance the photo.
Agreed. here’s my version, with the colour temperature raised to where it should be at 5600°K, global Fine Contrast and mid-tone FC as well. Oh, and I changed the colour space to Wide Gamut.
And the DOP with @alan_m’s as master and mine second…
P7280021.ORF.dop (31,4 Ko)
2 Likes
I think to get an image which “pops”, first thing is to get very good focus/sharpness with controled depht of field choice when shooting.
Color “pop” comes in second position with controled sharpness and contrast when post processing.
1 Like
First, the photo must have some potential to pop. If it’s blurry, it’s hard to make the image “pop”. To some extent this is also true if only “colour pop” is expected. There seem to be the following reasons for the OP photo to be unsharp:
- Diffraction – aperture was set to f/11, which corresponds to f/22 on full frame sensor. For four-thirds sensor, try f/5.6, maybe f/6.3 would also be usable.
- High-Res mode (Olympus pixel shifting), which is very demanding. From exiftool: StackedImage : Hand-held high resolution (11 12). Check optimal recommended stabilization settings for this camera/lens combination (Olympus is outside my competence to help). Use rock solid tripod. Take a spare photo without HighRes mode – it might look better.
- Wind combined with HiRes mode, as pointed out by @Wolfgang. Pixel shifting is good for static images only (unless there is software to combine “intelligently”).
- Haze causing image blur. Not enough to make it moody, too much to make it sharp. Try another day, if possible.
There is some green cast in your version, at least as I see it, so maybe use also something like Tint=+10 ? Camera AWB Temp=5691K, Tint=+12 looks good to me, but that’s just personal opinion.
BTW, the Tone Curve used in OP is probably equivalent to using the Contrast slider.
1 Like
Thanks.
I need to work out what I do with your .dop file to have a look at your adjustments (presumably download it to a folder with a copy of the original RAW file but the not the original folder).
Thanks Wolfgang. I’ll try having a look at your changes in the next few days (once I’ve worked out what to do with the .dop files).
It’s probably not motion blur, I was trying out a Hi-res function of the camera for the first time where it merges several shots.
Thanks swmurray.
Spot-on. I was trying hi-res mode out for the first time with a particular lens and a couple of different apertures.
I’ve seen someone else mention Fine Contrast to me before. Unfortunately I don’t have Film Pack.
Umm, I can’t agree with your assertion it should be at 5600 K. Looking at the original I strongly suspect the day was much more grey than your version, making your version ‘wrong’. Still, it does give the image a bit more ‘pop’, which is what @alan_m wanted.
PS as a scientist I have to correct your units, it’s not ‘°K’, it’s just ‘K’:
Yes, it was hi-res mode, taking some test shots. Shutter time was 1/160 the EXIF says.
It looks WB was 5691K “as shot”.
The rocks looked too green to my eye so I dropped a colour picker on the rock and changed the temp globally. I probably should have done that with a local adjustment.
Thanks.
With respect to the colour space, I’d noticed I got a lot of out of gamut warnings on other pics I’d processed in DxO last week when on Wide Gamut. I did some reading here on many threads about colour space, but it was mostly above my head and I came away little the wiser, hence decided to keep things simple going forward.
I use TrueDoF-Pro to calculate things like hyperfocal distance, taking into account diffraction.
As a rule of thumb, the blur spot diameter should be twice the pixel pitch, which would make it 7µm. And that is regardless of sensor size ratio.
Entering 7µm into TrueDoF-Pro, for a focal length of 19mm, gives a hyperfocal distance of 19.7 metres with a closest sharp distance of 9.86 metres and a minimum aperture of f/3.5. To my mind, this is impractical.
Setting the blur dot size to 10µm really doesn’t help that much, giving a closest distance of 4.85m at an aperture of f/5.
For my 46Mpx Nikon D850, I tend to calculate for 20µm, which gives a closest distance of 1.22m at 19mm with an aperture of f/10 without diffraction.
Personally, I think f/5.6 would be too restrictive on DoF and so, I would try f/10, although, I can’t really see enough diffraction to worry about f/11.
I could agree with that. I had simply “neutralised” it to 0 along with the temperature to 5600.
Correct.
Well, to put it bluntly - get it! You’ll be amazed at the difference it can make and it is so much more controlled and refined than ClearViewPlus, which I would never use, or micro-contrast.
Yes, but your version changed that to 4940K, which was definitely a tad on the “hazy” side.
Which profile were you proofing to?
1 Like