Enough's Enough - Page 3

BigRed450 · 29 Jun 2004, 13:40 (Ref:1020139)

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulSands
OK so where do we sign up for the BigRed450 course in motorsport photography and image manipulation

Hi Paul

If you need help with something just give me a shout and I'll see what I can do. However, KennyG is more of an authority on motosports than I.

As far as the post processing (not manipulation, just simple image cleaning) goes it is very simple.

For 10D post process as follows:

For print..

10D WORKFLOW

1- open original image and make Duplicate copy to protect the original.

2- On the copy adjust your Levels,
Saturation - +15-20
Contrast - +5

3- Now make duplicate layer and name "Dark Sharpen"

4- Make another duplicate layer and name "Light Sharpen"

5- Select the Dark Sharpen layer and add USM
Amount - 500
Radius - 0.6
Threshold - 2

6- In the layers palette set the Blend mode to Darken and set the opacity to 20 %

7- Select the Light Sharpen layer and add USM
Amount - 500
Radius - 0.6
Threshold - 2

8- In the layers palette set the Blend mode to Lighten and set the opacity to 5 %

9- Flatten image

10- Make duplicate layer and name Luminosity Sharpen

11- Select Luminosity Sharpen layer and add USM
Amount - 500
Radius - 0.2
Threshold- 0

12- In the layers palette set the Blend mode to Luminosity and set the opacity to 60%

13- Flatten Image

14- Done

For web ..

Resize for web
Levels
Saturation +20
Contrast +5
USM Amount- 500 Radius - 0.2 Threshold - 0

PaulSands · 29 Jun 2004, 13:43 (Ref:1020140)

I think I need to print this thread and digest what's been going on

Pete Fenelon · 29 Jun 2004, 16:16 (Ref:1020264)

Looking at the fullsize pics, the Paragon Porker and Andy Priaulx' BMW both look damn fine. Whatever you did with them, keep doing it.

The ETCC field looks a bit soft - are you using a tripod (or is the lens stabilised?) - looks like there was a little camera shake there, which tends to show up at high zoom...

Maisie · 29 Jun 2004, 16:18 (Ref:1020268)

Yeah, me too. A thousand thanks, Jeff

Pete, I wasn't using a tripod, and I was on a bit of a hill, so maybe I had a wiggle

neil_davidson2 · 29 Jun 2004, 16:23 (Ref:1020276)

Quote:

Originally posted by BigRed450
Neil, Baz

It seems it was found that 95%+ of 10D focus issues were actually user error attributed to either using all seven AF points in auto or trying to focus on something too small...

...Many who have ventured from the Point and Shoot world to the world of DSLR have the same question about Saturation and Contrast all of which, like sharpening, are turned down in camera to allow the Photographer to tweak them in Post Process...

Thanks Jeff, I'm actually generally pleased with the results I'm getting from my 10D and am happy to put the duff ones down to camera shake/user error/IS kicking in unexpectedly etc. And the vaguaries of USM are still being tweaked/mastered to find the best results.

I was really intrigued by accomplished snappers such as Paul and Baz hitting problems and wanted to do some research to see if there was anything else out there...if as you say 95% of the problems are user error, that still leaves 5% that weren't.

I think that most (if not all) of us went from SLR to DSLR rather than from a pocket instamatic, so it's even more interesting to see the difference in performance.

neil_davidson2 · 29 Jun 2004, 16:27 (Ref:1020286)

Maisie - the Priaulx shot especially looks really good, it might actually be worth slowing the shutter speed down a little for shots like that to see if you can blur the background/wheels. Of course the down side is that you have to make sure your panning is spot on but looking at those two shots I don't think that's going to be a problem for you!

BigRed450 · 30 Jun 2004, 00:43 (Ref:1020867)

Quote:

Originally posted by neil_davidson2
And the vaguaries of USM are still being tweaked/mastered to find the best results.

USM is certainly an art in itself and as you go along you will find that every image, in every situation, from every different camera, and for every different final output, all require different settings. There just is NO optimum setting for everything.

Quote:

Originally posted by neil_davidson2
I was really intrigued by accomplished snappers such as Paul and Baz hitting problems and wanted to do some research to see if there was anything else out there...if as you say 95% of the problems are user error, that still leaves 5% that weren't.

Neil, I'm glad you are hapy with your 10D. That 5% of which I spoke is a very vague 5% at best, undetermined due to the fact it could go either way. The 95% on the otherhand were definite without a doubt. Yes there were a few that needed calibration, however there were quite a few that were calibrated which did not need to be.
For those interested there are a wide variety of focus check charts now available for download off the net.. Since Nikons D70 seems to have a high average of backfocusing issues, alot more of these charts and procedures have been made available..

I hope I was of some assistance to all...

PaulSands · 30 Jun 2004, 08:05 (Ref:1021073)

Quote:

Originally posted by neil_davidson2

I was really intrigued by accomplished snappers such as Paul...

That would be a different Paul obviously

neil_davidson2 · 30 Jun 2004, 08:18 (Ref:1021087)

Quote:

Originally posted by BigRed450
USM is certainly an art in itself...

I hope I was of some assistance to all...

You can count on that last bit, Jeff!

Your workflow for PS7 was a real insight, especially around the dark art of USM. I've always started with settings of Amount:100; Radius: 2.0 Threshold: 2. Probably because I saw it in a book somewhere.

The thought of using big numbers like 500 generally left me cold! But I'll be trying it out on some of the shots I've already processed and see what the results are like.

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulSands
That would be a different Paul obviously

Ok - So I made that bit up!!!

**Snapper Baz** · 30 Jun 2004, 09:19 (Ref:1021141)

Might try and use the camera witout the IS on this weekend coming-anybody else noticed any difference? Must admit camera shake has never been a problem for me so not sure why I payed all that extra dosh for IS on the lens!

BigRed450 · 30 Jun 2004, 14:21 (Ref:1021499)

Baz
I have found that more then anything the IS actually helps the camera achieve more accurate AF quicker. It doesn't seem to hunt as much especially in low light conditions...

neil_davidson2 · 30 Jun 2004, 14:48 (Ref:1021534)

I think the IS is one of those things that's really tough to judge. When it's working properly you're not really aware that it's there at all. You only really notice it when it causes problems.

I know that I've missed shots when the IS has kicked in, especially if I've shifted views quickly and it read that as shake.

Likewise I'm convinced that it's helped out in other situations such as a couple of weekends ago when it was so cold and wet that I could hardly hold the camera steady!