Is Clarity the new HDR: Overdone and Abused?

<p>I was just looking at some wildlife photos posted by a professional on a blog about a travel seminar. It seemed like the clarity slider had been turned up to the point where feathers looked brittle, fur looked like wire and skin looked like sandpaper. I've even seen it overdone in news photos. Yeah, I can see enhancing micro-contrast a tad but it appears a lot of photographers are just automatically cranking it up. Feathers should look soft. Shadows should hide some detail. What do you think?<br>

Al</p>

<p>I am seeing this on landscape work as well. On Facebook, I subscribe to various of bodies of work by local photographers, a lot of it being landscape. What I see are increasingly HDR and overtly sharpened images. Sometimes, it could be Jpeg artefacts but the guys whose work I see are excellent postprocessors in terms of using lightroom and photoshop.</p>

<p>I am not sure that I would use the word "clarity." (Is there a "clarity" slider on PS?)</p>

<p>I think that you are referring to "over-sharpening," which predates HDR and in any case is definitely not a new tendency. I think that the key to avoiding over-sharpening is not to use sharpening at all, including unsharp mask. If one must use unsharp mask, at least also reduce the radius and not merely the quantity.</p>

<p>My default sharpening using unsharp mask has settings of quantity = 50, radius = 0.3, and threshold 0. If I have to turn it up more in terms of quantity, I can get away with it at radius = 0.3 better than I can with radius set at 1.</p>

<p>I have seen good results where people use very different settings; but, if I can tell it's been sharpened, then it is too sharp for me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>There <em>is</em> a 'clarity' slider in ACR<br>

The same old rule applies, as to <em>every</em> adjustment, unless you are <em>trying</em> for excess:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can tell it's been done, it's been done too much.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>(Is there a "clarity" slider on PS?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a clarity slider in LightRoom and I believe that is what the OP is making reference to.<br>

edit- I typed this at the same time JDM was posting.</p>

<p>We belong to a local photo club that has become well known for amazing wild bird photography, and I've noticed over the past few months that the sharpness meter on many of the photos is hard-pegged to the right - I agree with the "brittle" adjective from the OP. And if the photos aren't like that, the phrase "well its not quite tack-sharp" is an automatic criticism. Apparently it's now a requirement in wildlife photography if you want to be noticed.</p>

<p>It's overdone, badly, on a lot of portraits also. Especially poor old men with wrinkles and gray beards. Adds to a pathetic quality people assume they need to provide to pictures of older folks.</p>

<p>It appears to me that some people are trying to make up for inadequate quality lens that's or their technique has not been up to snuff. It sort of creates a dilemma, since it's pretty much impossible to re-create the shot....as one can with a landscape or architecture, etc....so folks resort to pp.</p>

<p>If I recall Ron Gaubert (sp) from <em>SmugMug...</em>his wildlife shots were always on-target and without too much tweaking. One would think that we learn from others....their successes or failures. Hmmm, maybe not.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Of course it's often overdone. It is really a local contrast boost that is sometimes effective in increasing the impact of the image, but of course too much of anything is probably bad.</p>

<p>Perhaps the problem is that it is just too easy these days to make these kinds of adjustments, and therefore it is equallly easy to overuse them. It is our eye that is important, not our ability to move a slider. The endeavour has always been the same, the tools only make it possible. </p>

<p>If it's someone's preference, then why not? I don't think there are rules on how spicy food should be. </p>

<p>Clarity is an attempt to have something look better than it really is. Americans are obsessed with breast enlargement/reduction, tummy-tucks, Botox, butt-lifts and hair transplants. You expect them to not hop onto Clarity? </p>

>>> Clarity is an attempt to have something look better than it really is.

 

You mean like dodging and burning?

<p>My clarity amplifier goes to 11. It's one clearer. Other blokes, their clarity goes to 10, and the viewers see 10, 10, 10, ho hum, all the same. So I give mine that little extra push over the cliff. Eleven.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clarity is an attempt to have something look better than it really is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

A photo is an entity. It can "look better than it really is" because it is the entity. It can't look better than itself.</p>

<p>It's not easy to tweak pictures objectively.</p>

<p>The process is often to crank it up then back off until it looks right, but the problem is in the desensitization when it gets cranked up making our final decision look preferable when in reality it's overdone. </p>

<p>Often letting it sit for a next-day review will change our mind, but sometimes the excess is just a phase some of us need to go through. </p>

<p>This is why we have a critique forum. </p>

<p>Ahhh, careful now. I like my "clarity" slider. It has been a welcome addition to the tools in the ACR shed. Not too much, of course.</p>

<p>I crank the clarity to 11 in my <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1059915">Eartha Kitty pix</a>, so the viewer can feel my pain. It's one sharper than yours.<br /><br /><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17563492-lg.jpg" alt="Why do we call these monsters " width="1000" height="1000" border="0" /><br /> <br />BTW, she's calmed down a bit now that she's nearly a year old. The skin grafts have taken nicely.</p>

Lex, can one contract cat-pox if bitten by a cat (unless the cat has been de-poxed before hand, I suppose)?

<p>Cats are a pox. A pox on cats and all their boxes.</p>

<p>Semi-seriously, I'm very prone to cellulitis from cat bites and scratches. Had to go to the urgent care clinic several weeks ago after a different cat bit the crap out of me while I was trying to put her in a cat carrier. Infected both thumb joints. They billed me for $550. Most expensive meat I've ever eaten. Stringy and tough too. Boiled dog is better.</p>

Everything is overdone because it's so

easy to so. It's easy to eat junk food so

people do it.

 

 

Have you noticed that some magazine

covers have models who look like

they're suffering from lead poisoning?

Some people just want to fiddle with

software filters because it makes them

feel 'professional' and 'creative'.

 

 

Another example: NR works best when

the image has only a little noise. The

more noise there is, the less you

should use NR (unless you like yucky,

plasticky results).

 

 

The trick is thinking a bit before doing

something. Buddhists talk about

practising awareness. Let's practise

awareness.

<blockquote>

<p>Another example: NR works best when the image has only a little noise. The more noise there is, the less you should use NR (unless you like yucky, plasticky results).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have one up on PN right now like that, except that it went beyond plasticky to Full Cartoon quality. I liked the light, and so I left it up, but others might need Dramamine before viewing. (Safe viewing distance > 1.5m)</p>

<p>You've been warned: <a href="/photo/17765423&size=md"><strong>[link]</strong></a><br /> <br /> --Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you noticed that some magazine covers have models who look like they're suffering from lead poisoning? Some people just want to fiddle with software filters because it makes them feel 'professional' and 'creative'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That has no connection to why the magazine cover photos look that way. It's not clear how anyone would get an idea like that. The retouch shops do exactly what they are told to do. I realize to an amateur, it may sound funny to say that, but the quote above is not the way it works.</p>

<p>Jeff is right--and I seldom say that. :)</p>

 

<p>yup. guilty as charged. I do like the clarity slider. I try to be conscious of how much I tweak clarity and vibrance... but sometimes it just looks good :)</p>