Part 2 - Off-Topic - advice, experiences, and examples for images being processed in DxO Photolab

DxO PhotoLab
165

@rsp

I remembered how professional he seemed to be there in the workshop and when I saw these pictures developed, I remember I thought they looked really unreal and very perfect and as something I had never been able to accomplish by myself.

In some ways it really was a lesson for life. It was like he had inverted the process photographers used to do in the darkroom these days. Instead of shading some areas of the picture in the darkroom he was adding light by painting the shadows with light. It is really fascinating to look at a guy who really is on top of that kind of process. He just made two or three exposures and seemed totally confident with that.

166

I had a 3-hour phone call with a friend of mine who specializes in bird photography. I might go with him on a bird-watching trip next weekend. His photos are awesome - unbelievably good, sharp, detailed, colorful, taken at the perfect moment.

I learned a lot about bird photography in India, but I don’t know if I’m ready for this. Not sure if I should use my D780-DSLR or my D780-LiveView. He uses a Nikon Z8, so I may try to copy what he does at first. I feel so ignorant about any of this.

167

Yes, it has always been a pleasure to see him working. And the result was perfect, absolutely no shadows, everything evenly lit. It was just for technical documents.

168

@Stenis, my family history is pedestrian and mundane compared to yours :upside_down_face:. I will be checking out the link you gave for more history and, of course, pictures!

This is a great example of why I look forward to reading this thread every day: it’s where anything goes, and there’s no telling what direction it will veer off to. One day there’s a useful tip or two about the technique(s) of taking or processing photos, the next day there’s something like this ongoing story that is both entertaining and informative, at least to some people. Thanks, @mikemyers, for creating it!

169

I enjoy this discussion for many reasons, and enjoy both the “off-topic” posts, and those that enable me to get the most out of PhotoLab.

I opened one of my old images in Lightroom yesterday, and couldn’t remember what to do next - I used to be quite familiar with it. Now, most of the time, PhotoLab seems so much better “organized”, so I can figure out what to do. And if I get lost, which happens to me far too frequently, there is always a quick answer, explaining things in detail.

I was thinking about something along these lines this morning - PhotoLab is just as useful for “photojournalists” as it is for “artists”. I also realized that an image that should be tossed into the garbage because of how poorly the scene was recorded, could simultaneously become famous for “what” it captured. They’re not the same things. I’m mostly concerned about what my images show, than I am in how well they were taken. If 90% of my image shows what I want to pass on to the world, and 10% of that image is horribly under or over exposed, to me, it’s the “meaning”, the “story”, that is my goal. Just the same, I don’t want to do things that “ruin” my images. To me, a “blurry” or “poorly exposed” or “insert anything bad here”, may or may not be a reason to delete the image. I most enjoy images that “tell a story”, but others are far more concerned with the technical details.

Lightroom worked great for me for many years, but was too expensive. Of course, pirated copies worked just as well. Lots of other choices available, both legally and copies. PhotoLab started to feel like a yearly expense to me, as it continued to grow and expand. Nowadays I feel version 6 is enough for anything I need to do, and my previous copies of PL4 and PL5 are still useable on my older computers that I rarely use. PL6 pushed me too far beyond my own limitations - I probably sounded like an idiot, failing to understand things like “control lines”. Then there is “DarkTable” which I haven’t yet figured out how to install the latest version on MacOS. But I see no reason to use anything more than PhotoLab (for editing) and PhotoShop (for its amazing ability to manipulate my images, way beyond simply making them “better”. I’ve also still got my “Luminar”, but replacing a sky is something I can’t accept - yet. Then there’s my cameras - Nikon has as many controls and settings as PhotoLab. Leica M cameras are much more basic, as if I was shooting on film.

In addition to everything else in this thread, in this forum, and with this software, I find myself constantly finding out about new things to try. There are such wonderful photographers here, and some of that wonderfulness wears off on me, over time, and I find myself thinking about things I never even considered long ago.

(One “negative” aspect, is that when I export an image nowadays, with the best settings, I feel like I’m waiting forever for that to complete. Then I tried with my MacBook Pro (Apple M2 chip) rather than my Mac mini (Intel chip) and the upload was just seconds, not minutes. I guess I need to do something about this.)

The computers, and the forum software, and the editing software are not what makes this particular discussion so fascinating though - that’s due to all the wonderful people here, sharing advice. That is the most important thing.

1 Like
170

The ship has been sailing at the least suitable time I can think of - all I get is back lighting, but I have found another place to shoot from, as the ship is coming in to the Port of Miami, rather than leaving.

Once Daylight Savings Time starts, (March 10 through November 3) things will be different - I will find out soon.

One of my things to get over: “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!” …I’m always wishing I was someplace I’m not.

I’m getting a little better at trolley photos, but nothing to write home about. I know how to get what I used to want, but now I want a beautiful scene looking out the windows too! Also, a more obvious tool to tell me if the camera is level. I flunked my course in multi-tasking 101. I get wrapped up in something, and don’t pay attention to other things. In this case, the driver was wondering what the heck I was up to?? Which was fine by me. Click!

780_2063 2024-02-24_DxO
780_2063 2024-02-24_DxO1920×1364 189 KB

171

Thanks for that lovely link Joanna!
I will save it so I have something nice and inspiring to look at a rainy day.

Here is a link to 1x.com • In Pursuit of the Sublime that is a curated Swedish quality site with pictures from photographers from all over the world.

I just love this picture of some old Russian cameras from your link and Helmut Hess.

image
image1835×1459 186 KB

172

I always wanted to buy one of those Russian cameras, the “Kiev IV”. After WW II, the Russians took the Zeiss factory that made the Contax II, and set it up again in Russia, renaming the cameras. Spoils of war, I guess.

Here’s the original, which was my first real camera (took it away from my dad!!)…

I still have my Contax IIa, which replaced the model II, and I just tested - it still works!!!

IMG_8303
IMG_83031920×1281 213 KB

…and I do have some 35mm film lying around…
Gosh, more ideas, to get me even more distracted.

@stenis, the original (German) cameras were awesome, high-tech, precision, and had good lenses. The Russian “copies” lost all that. Nikon took the old Contax and made a long line of rangefinder cameras based on it, finally making the SP (which I also still have). Have you ever had a chance to use one of those old cameras? I have an old copy of the Modern Photography Buyer’s Guide, a yearly issue. So many names I remember, but have never seen, let alone used. My Leica cameras came from that history, along with all the world’s 35mm cameras.

Back to reality - if I’m serious about doing some bird photography this coming weekend, I think I need to learn some of the focusing features available in “Live View” for my D780.

Starting here:

1 Like
173

Can you understand the confidence these old product photographs had in their skill when they went around their product and “painted” it slowly. No EVF or bloody preview screen and “No fucking sensors, no batteries and no goddam pixels” either, or what it was the Analog Photo Society or whatever it was called in the Brittish TV-series “Midsommer” or what it was called, had as their “motto”.

… and as I said, just two or three expusures and then he started to pack his gear and left.

174

Kiev is my favourit too :slight_smile:

175

Well, you might try looking up how to do what you want to do but, the more you read, beyond that, the more confused you are likely to become. Even I have trouble getting to grips with auto-focus modes.

So, you really think that holding your camera at arm’s length to see the rear screen is easier than having it firmly clamped to your head when looking through the viewfinder? Not for me. Far too much opportunity for unintentional movement.

Based on your problems understanding the viewfinder settings, I would definitely say to leave well alone.

The difference between our viewfinder cameras and the Z series is that, on the Z series, the EVF is in the viewfinder and you don’t need to hold the camera away from your body to see it like you do with the rear screen.

Having just had to reject a friend’s images of birds as being unsuitable for a competition, I would say that, if you don’t have, at least, a 600mm lens, don’t even bother trying. Her photos were taken at 300mm and the bird only occupied about a sixth of the image area. Even by using Topaz to enlarge the extreme crop, there was no way I could recover the feather detail and the eye was not at all sharp. Think about it - would you really want to take shots that are essentially less than 4Mpx?

If you are not totally accomplished at why and how to use Live View and if you are not comfortable and steady shooting at arm’s length, forget LiveView.

Even if those areas distract the viewer from the subject? As an experienced photographer there is absolutely no excuse for either over or under-exposure.

It has nothing to do with technical details and everything to do with allowing the viewer to see the detail that the image contains. They should be able to walk around the image in the same way as you were able to look around before taking the shot. If there are blurred areas, they should be there intentionally, to guide the viewer to the main subject.

For me, it’s a matter of pride in my work and not showing anything that others might see technical flaws in.

Possibly beyond what you then knew, but that doesn’t stop you from learning. After all, that is what these forums are meant to be about.

Do yourself a favour - even I can’t get to grips with DarkTable. It is just so complex and disorganised.

Back to reality - that means learning a whole load more stuff to get confused about, whilst struggling to hold your camera steady at arm’s length.

1 Like
176

LiveView on a DSLR is nothing else than what you practice with your beloved large format camera. Which, btw., you also would not dare to handhold. It’s pretty good to be used on a tripod though, and with a camera strap around the neck it can be far more stable than handholding a LF camera in front of you. Also, as it’s comparatively slow on old DinosaurSLRs, real LV cameras will get an always in focus image. And be still quicker than inserting a film cassette, open the slider, release the shutter and close the slider again.

Joanna, just because you don’t want to try the goodness of modern non-DSLRs, it doesn’t mean modern camera developments have to hide behind cumbersome mirror flaps :grin: I reckon, Mike’s friend with his Z8 will bring home more keepers than you or Mike could get with your DSLRs… :wink:

177

Oh yes it is, the LF camera screen shows the image inverted and reversed :sunglasses:

And I’m never going to be able to follow a flying bird with it. Heck, with average shutter speeds not much faster than ¼ sec, I can get movement blur on a snail :rofl:

178

I wonder how people like Cartier-Bresson, Weston, Herzog, Bischoff et al. ever managed to sell a single print… :grin:

1 Like
179

There’s a lot more to this discussion, but you are lumping my D780 into the DSLR category (which is how I thought of it too, to be honest. But it’s not - Live View on the D780 is the same as “Mirrorless View” on the Z6. The D780 body is two cameras in one.

I still find this rather confusing, but Nikon combined the “mirrorless” and “DSLR” technologies into one body. With the viewfinder, it’s a DSLR. With Live View, it’s mirrorless.

That is silly. DSLR has its place, and Mirrorless has its place. I would not give up my D780 for a Z9 or whatever the best mirrorless camera is, for several reasons. I can’t afford to buy one of each either, nor do I want a Z9 (but a Z8 is tempting).

All these cameras, DSLR, SLR, Mirrorless, LF, 2 1/4, and so on have their place, things they are more good at, and things they are less good at. When I bought the D780 I thought I was buying a D750 but improved. It’s only recently that I’ve learned the tricks that Nikon used to make the D780 into a combination camera, mirrorless AND DSLR. I can shoot birds either way, using DSLR or Mirrorless technology.

I would not give up my DSLR to get Mirrorless, but I’m very intrigued by the idea of now having both, in one camera. …and I do NOT want to be viewing a television image of what I’m taking a photo of, instead of using my eyes - but for some types of photography, the mirrorless cameras can do things with the image on the sensor that a DSLR cannot. I’m just learning how to do these things properly.

180

There was a time in my life, when I found that easy to use. Just like other cameras, every camera had its own “techniques”. But I was never fully comfortable with inverted and reversed.

What I bought was a used 4x5 Graflex, as in a single-lens reflex with a 4x5 film holder on the back, and lots of adjustments on the lens mount. I didn’t own it long, but I did learn it t pass the course - after which I took the course again, and raised my grade from “D” to “A” - simply by doing exactly what the instructor said to do, even if it made no sense to me. I really wanted to put all that stuff away, and use my “real” camera, a Leica M2. Eventually I grew up.

The single most important thing I learned was to do what the instructor wanted, and NOT what I wanted. Hey, back then I enjoyed film processing, and especially making prints.

When I read what you write, I need to figure out what you mean, and what YOU are thinking about, which might have nothing to do with what I’ve been trying to do. I’m usually thinking with my photojournalist’s hat on, and you are almost always thinking with your photographer’s hat on, and I need to put myself into your place, understand what you are trying to accomplish, and why.

I guess I need to do the same thing when talking to @JoJu and I need to learn how he thinks. I am just now learning how mirrorless technologies can do some things differently than my DSLR thoughts, and I am starting to discover how they work - which explains how those cameras can do focus tracking on an eye. By “looking” directly at the sensor, I see now how it can be very useful, and how not having a mirror flipping up and down can allow it to do things better/differently. Sometimes. I’m also aware of what it prevents, the direct contact between my eye and the subject.

181

For sure - the key word, to me, is “learning”. Trial and error. Lots of practice.

182

How many people in this forum configure your camera to “follow focus”, meaning as something moves around in the frame, the camera “follows” it? One step better, in both DSLR and Live View mode, I can set the camera to follow either one of a person’s eyes - according to the videos I have been playing. I may have it set that way now.

Maybe I’m wrong, but as long as I use a high enough shutter speed, let’s say 1/2000th of a second, even if I’m not holding the camera completely steady, can the image still be acceptably sharp? Now that I know I can use astronomical ISO speeds and still get a good image, I can trade off using a very high ISO which enables me to use a very high shutter speed. I think.

Also, a question for @Joanna - most of your shots are “static”. Do you also shoot subjects that move a lot? Sports, or race cars, or similar shots come to mind.

On the flip side, with my 300mm lens, I may find it impossible to even keep a bird within the viewfinder, let alone hold the camera steady. I’ll find out soon enough.

I suspect I’ll need to use some of PhotoLab’s controls to keep my birds looking sharp. I would prefer not to send the images off to Topaz. Maybe some day PL will include the sharpening tools from Topaz - that would be enough to make me want to update.

183

I wonder how many if any photographers use liveview when shooting outside?

George

184

I’m not aware of any bird-in-flight-image of any of these celebrities. I mean, a recognizable bird, focus on the eye, rests of his wood-worm supper on his cheeks. Oh, and what birders also love: counting the feathers :partying_face: :laughing:

EDIT: But I’m sure all of them were convinced DxO Photolab users :roll_eyes: :grin: