-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute
Razorbill
- Thread starter John2
- Start date
There you go Steve. Edges softened. The background is what it is. It hasn't been processed. Its's the sea a couple of hundred feet below and I was using a 400mm + 1.4 x so it is completely OOF. The slightly lighter area at the bottom of both images is actually an OOF Gannet colony on a rock in the sea.
If I may - you are still getting overshoot on high contrast edges. This is usually caused by excessive unsharp masking.
Here is an attempt to reduce the effect…
… but it would be easier if you could just try reducing the USM radius when you are creating smaller sized copies for this forum.
Sharpening should always be relative to output size. If, as I suspect, you are using the same sharpening as for the full sized image, this is the likely cause.
Here is an attempt to reduce the effect…
… but it would be easier if you could just try reducing the USM radius when you are creating smaller sized copies for this forum.
Sharpening should always be relative to output size. If, as I suspect, you are using the same sharpening as for the full sized image, this is the likely cause.
Thanks Joanna. I must admit that I don't usually adjust the radius slider (smart Sharpen rather than USM) but I will try that in future. Also, Topaz have been kind enough to give me a free copy of Topaz Photo. The sharpening and noise reduction in that plugin seems to be quite good. I think you once said you have a copy. How does it compare. Any thoughts on the subject matter itself?
If you wouldn't mind making a copy of the original available to me, either by mail or something like WeTransfer, I could do a comparison with Topaz for you. It would be interesting to see what a difference it makes.
I only tend to use Topaz for finally print sharpening and enlargement, not for denoising. PhotoLab is far superior to anything else on the market for that.
What disturbs me, especially in this image, is not just the oversharpening, but also the texture reduction in the feathers, which can be caused by inappropriate noise reduction. It looks like the bird has been carved from a solid material. If you would send me this image because it is a good example, I would be happy to see what exactly is causing this disquieting effect.
Here's a screenshot of part of an image that demonstrates the results I can get with PhotoLab, without any other software and with minimal adjustments…
There is more feather detail in a larger version (screenshot at 120% zoom)…
Last edited:
Thanks Joanna. That's interesting. I have had a critical look at the original and there is no noise to speak off (sunny day , low ISO) and the problem looks to be that the focus is slghtly off. I don't tend to use a tripod because it is a bit restricting. However, I've hunted out an image of a Gannet pair taken under similar conditions where there is some noise present and feather detail. If you want to have a go at that, let me know how to get it to you. It's a 137 Mb Tif but I could crop it to reduce that slightly.
Is that from a scan? Just send the full sized original file. WeTransfer can cope
It's very easy. Just follow the instructions on this page… https://help.wetransfer.com/hc/en-us/articles/202702233-How-do-I-send-a-transfer
It would be better to stick to your larger files as I am guessing that you are scanning film. Working with RAW camera files requires a totally different procedure.
What camera did you take it with? Film or digital? If digital, then the RAW would be best as this requires denoising on import.
Last edited:
No not scanning. Totally digital camera, sometimes Nikon for earlier images but the one I will try to send is taken on a Fuji film XT4 with a 100-400mm zoom + a 1.4x converter. Learning something from what you have said above. I normally denoise the TIFF rather than the RAW. I willl try the RAW in future. Incidentally, the RAW image I'm sending is only 45Mb. Don't know where the 137 Mb came from in the TIFF??
Last edited: