Out and about in the lake district

[thereyougo!]

Some shots this morning while on my way to meet a local photographer friend and while shooting with him:

Sony A7RII Batis 18 f/2.8

1.

Lowhouse tarn copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

2.

The Struggle in the snow copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

3.

High street from The Struggle copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

4.

Lowhouse Tarn 2 copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

These two Panos won't have the best justice at 1024px so on flickr there is an 8000px wide version of these: the first is 277mp and the second 185mp in their original form

A7RII FE 70 - 200

5.

Lakeland Pano copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

6.

Lakeland Pano-2 copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[tirediron]

Very nice, simple scenes executed really well!

 

[limr]

I like #3 the best. I find the processing in #1 and #4 to be distracting.

 

[thereyougo!]

I like #3 the best. I find the processing in #1 and #4 to be distracting.

In what way?

 

[thereyougo!]

A few more from yesterday afternoon this time:

A7RII Batis 18 f/2.8

1.

Head of Langdale copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

2.

Langdale at Dungeon Ghyll copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

3.

Miss Cumbria at Waterhead copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[Rick50]

Love the back light in #1.

 

[limr]

I like #3 the best. I find the processing in #1 and #4 to be distracting.

In what way?

I'm just not a big fan of the hyper-real, sharp-as-nails kind of processing. To my eyes, the 3rd one in the OP managed a nice clean look without looking crunchy, but the first and fourth went too far. But like I said, because it's not my favorite kind of processing, my line between "just enough" and "too much" is crossed pretty quickly, and others will likely disagree with me about if any of the pictures crossed any lines at all.

Edit: I do think all the compositions are lovely in both sets.

 

[thereyougo!]

I like #3 the best. I find the processing in #1 and #4 to be distracting.

In what way?

I'm just not a big fan of the hyper-real, sharp-as-nails kind of processing. To my eyes, the 3rd one in the OP managed a nice clean look without looking crunchy, but the first and fourth went too far. But like I said, because it's not my favorite kind of processing, my line between "just enough" and "too much" is crossed pretty quickly, and others will likely disagree with me about if any of the pictures crossed any lines at all.

Edit: I do think all the compositions are lovely in both sets.

Thanks for the feedback. I've only just received the Batis 18 and it may be that I've just touched the sharpening dial a tad too far for that particular lens which early indications demonstrate it is already very sharp with nice contrast. On Flickr it looks sharper than it does on my hard drive.

I also took a photo with my iPhone (6s) before I took this one something I frequently do before I shoot with my main camera note I haven't processed this one at all so it's straight from my camera roll

 

[limr]

I like #3 the best. I find the processing in #1 and #4 to be distracting.

In what way?

I'm just not a big fan of the hyper-real, sharp-as-nails kind of processing. To my eyes, the 3rd one in the OP managed a nice clean look without looking crunchy, but the first and fourth went too far. But like I said, because it's not my favorite kind of processing, my line between "just enough" and "too much" is crossed pretty quickly, and others will likely disagree with me about if any of the pictures crossed any lines at all.

Edit: I do think all the compositions are lovely in both sets.

Thanks for the feedback. I've only just received the Batis 18 and it may be that I've just touched the sharpening dial a tad too far for that particular lens which early indications demonstrate it is already very sharp with nice contrast. On Flickr it looks sharper than it does on my hard drive.

I also took a photo with my iPhone (6s) before I took this one something I frequently do before I shoot with my main camera note I haven't processed this one at all so it's straight from my camera roll

I like that version! I can see why you'd want to bring the shadows up a bit, but overall, I prefer the more gentle feeling of this version.

 

[bulldurham]

I'd say you've touched those sliders more than just a wee bit when I see significant haloing.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I'm finding that the raised shadows and sharpening make these look a little unreal.

I'll try and explain what I see...

When I look out of my window at the landscape I find that in normal atmospheric conditions that detail and contrast diminish with distance, though it would be more accurate to say that the black point raises with distance. Now though sharpness does not nessecairily decrease with distance, because the black point diminishes so does acutance.
I see these things so often that I not only automatically understand it as correct (normal) but also these visual clues are part of how my eye, when looking at a scene, makes sense of the order and determine depth and distance.

When you render a scene into 2D you take away the aspect of bi-nocular vision so my eye subconsciously reads these clues. When I look at a landscape I naturally see deeper shadows in the foreground and softer acutance in the distance. When I look at a photo my eye looks for the same clues to re-inforce the perception of depth.

The trouble with raising the shadows to show every bit of detail is that you raise the black point of the foreground, and make it consistent with objects that are further away. When you apply global sharpening you give distant objects a higher acutance that's consistent with nearer objects. You diminish this visual clue.

The first thing I notice when I look at the photos is that this diminishing of the black point is out of scale with the perspective of the image, (not incorrect but consistent with a far flatter scene). It's inconsistent with my memory of looking at similar landscapes, there's something slightly wrong.

I do not suggest that every landscape has to be a literal and exact representation as this is not realistic or indeed possible. For a start your photo is much smaller than the actual landscape. Now just as you scale the size down keeping relative scale intact (relative scale - A is bigger than B which is bigger than C etc, you can change their absolute relationship of size with different focal lengths and camera positions), so this relative scale also applies to colour, contrast, brightness, etc. You don't have to keep this relative scale, it's just that in doing so you present something that's more in keeping with how your eye sees it, it becomes more convincing even if it is not correct. When you stretch it too far the image becomes less convincing and more unreal.

For my eye the below is what I find more "realistic" but is not correct or even the image you may wish to present, just an alternative. You could just as easily raise the foreground shadows without sharpening the distant hills, the relative scale of contrast would be more intact and the image would still appear more convincing.

 

[bulldurham]

You might want to explain to him how you process selective sharpening, or suggest he post one processed sans the sharpening aspect then demonstrate the process, or even one straight from the camera. Just a teaching thought.