Yes, AGAIN the question arises..... Why Aren't My Images Crisp??

[JRCrowe]

<p>Hi Kim, try watching some of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=using+a+speedlite+softbox">these</a> videos to get an idea of what I am talking about with the soft box. I will post some links tomorrow to the equipment you will need. Don't be afraid to play with the sliders in lightroom. For portraits I usually avoid the vibrance and saturation sliders. You should be able to use up to ISO 800 with the D7200 and them use the luminance and color noise sliders to reduce any noise. What looks bad on your computer screen may not be a factor when having prints made so there is some latitude there. </p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>I strongly advise not to edit your original RAW file, duplicate it or convert to TIFF. You may want to revisit the image at a later date and edit it differently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps you have some software with which I am not familiar. The raw file itself cannot be altered by any of the raw processing software commonly in use (LR, PS, camera makers software). Once edited the result must be saved in a file format other than raw. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>RAW files saved will remain unchanged regardless how many times you open and close them unless you edit them and save the edit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong again. No "unless". Editing software makes no changes to the data in the raw file. See above.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>HI Kim, I thought I would post two more of your photos and I will give you the Lightroom settings which should be a good starting point for you and one of mine taken with an on camera flash to use as fill light to light up the eyes and reduce shadows.</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>In addition to what you see above I set dehaze slider to +7 Post Crop Vignetting to -17</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>This one I set dehaze to +21 and vignetting to -19. I also used a gradient in the top right corner to balance the vignette and a radial filter on the little girl with an increase in exposure. Lightroom default sharpening is +25 and that's all I used. So your photos are not all that bad. I used the adjustment brush to lighten her eyes.</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Here is one of mine shot with an on camera flash with a diffuser on it. The trick is to balance the light by taking some test shots. I use my camera in Manual mode where I can set the shutter speed and aperture with the flash unit also in manual mode and then adjust my flash output power to get the right amount of fill. Once you do it a few times you will be able to accurately judge what settings you need to get you in the ballpark.</p><div></div>

[klt]

<p><strong>Charles Monday -- </strong>Thank you for trying to prevent me from making a huge mistake with my RAW files. I just want to clarify my thinking process and the way I have tinkered up until now in LR for post-processing. In agreement with Mike Blume, what little I have been taught about LR is that I should use my RAW files right out of the camera and upload them into LR. Then I am able to post-process them there. After I am finished, I have saved the changed images (don't know how else to describe them) in a different format (I chose JPEG because as that was what was required by FB or the local Walgreens). I am still able to clear out all of my changes that I made in LR and it can return me straight back to my original RAW file without any harm. However, if I do make changes and I want to keep them. I must save them as a separate file. Otherwise, my changes won't be permanent. LR directs your RAW files to a folder in the cloud or hard drive or wherever the user determines the folder to be stored. This has been my understanding of LR all along. So, I am not permanently changing my RAW file.<br>

<strong>Mike Blume -- </strong>Is what I stated above correct or did I miss something along the way? Like I said, I am still learning the lingo, the programs, and most importantly how to take sharp, clear images. And, if I am misinformed I definitely appreciate feedback. Thank you for helping me!<br>

<strong>John Crowe -- </strong>You have been extremely helpful. I love how you showed me the settings and the effects. It has put things into perspective. I was worried about using the sharpening tool at all. Thank you for the encouragement to give this all a try and let me know that I'm totally not going in the wrong direction:)</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>Back to you Kim - The resources as to optimal apertures for various lenses are spotty at best, sometimes the mfr accompanies the lens with an MTF chart, sometimes a serious reviewer has run a series of controlled tests. I personally use 5 copies of Bob Adkins' test chart pasted to a styrofoam posterboard - one in each corner and one in the center....the posterboard is set up with a 4x3 aspect ratio. Camera on a tripod with the chart parallel to the sensor (vertically & horizontally)...camera distance from chart sufficient for all 5 charts to fill the frame. Then a simple process of focus, take shots at progressive apertures...post process each picture the same. Takes less time than my explanation.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jpeg files will change each time you close them however minuscule and that will show up after multiple open and close cycles. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is not correct. You can open and close your jpeg as many times as you want. It's the act of opening and re-saving that can make changes in the file. That doesn't happen from opening and closing.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Lightroom is a non-destructive photo editing program so you don't have to worry about any changes you make while in Lightroom as you can always use the reset button to go back to the original file or set your sliders back to neutral position. You can use the create virtual copy function (right click menu) to make different versions of a photo. You always have to export as a JPEG or Tiff for printing or digital use, but you still retain the raw file which can be returned to its original unaltered state. Lightroom has evolved and improved over the years so I have spent a fair amount of time reprocessing old images with no problem as they are still in the RAW format. That's why you should be shooting in RAW. If you try to do to a JPEG what you do to a raw file you will find that you introduce all kinds of artifacts to the image and that you are very limited on changes like white balance and shadow recovery.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>>> Kim Kacher<br>

What you wrote in your last post is correct. No post-processing software (to my knowledge) can make any changes to the data in the RAW file itself. Consequently, to retain the edits, you <strong>must</strong> save the edited image in another format; jpeg is fine if it suits your needs. Additionally, most software (ACR, PS) will automatically save your editing instructions in a separate metadata file. I am not familiar with LR, but assume it does the same.</p>

<p>You may wish to consider an additional option; save the edited image as a tiff or psd (adobe) file. The advantage with this approach is that you can reopen these files and continue editing from where you left off (fine tune, adjust for output/print size, etc.). </p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Kim, I did not mean to confuse you. My workflow is to copy the raw files from the memory card to a folder then convert them to Tiff in NX-D. After that I edit if desired. Thanks to Mike and Jeff for the corrections. You've got a lot of useful information in this thread.</p>

<p>I use my D300 mainly to photograph camera mechanisms as I disassemble then for CLA and repair, if the drought ends I'll go back to flowers and insects.</p>

<div></div>

[blumesan]

<p>?? John Crowe<br /> Your first edit of one of Kim's images was exceptionally well done. I believe you used only ACR. Your subsequent edits (done using LR), on my monitor, have a very unpleasing garish color (resembling badly done HDR process; though I know you did not use this software).</p>

<p>The photo of the very lovely lady which you posted also shows rather over red-orange skin tones.<br>

<br /> I wonder if this may be caused by bad color management on my end.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> Consequently, to retain the edits, you <strong>must</strong> save the edited image in another format</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Not required in Lightroom. Edits are retained in the catalog, and in XMP files if you choose. Absolutely no need to save to retain edits.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Mike Blume, I noticed I kind of overcooked the photos of the two boys with too much vibrance and saturation in Lightroom, never a good idea for portraits. It was meant to be a starting point for Kim and for her to use her own discretion as she should have the raw files and all I had were her JPEG's. The photo of the lovely young lady is about 6 to 7 years old and I just quickly pulled a JPEG off my hard drive to demonstrate on camera flash I may have not had a calibrated monitor at the time. She actually was much more garishly orange a couple of years after I took this when she was in a body building competition with multiple coats of spray tan on her.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Lots of excellent advice here and only a tiny bit of bad advice (don't change software). I think Charles Monday's first post nailed it, with specific advice on each shot. In general, your DOF was very shallow, due to too large an aperture, requiring perfect focus. Don't get too caught up in the bokeh craze. Getting your subjects sharp comes first, IMO. For those types of shots, I'd be at f/8 for most.</p>

<p>I looked for signs of motion blur, but didn't really see any. Don't be scared to raise your ISO to enable both smaller aperture and faster shutter speed, particularly if that lens does not have stabilization. A tripod can help, but you still have to consider movement by the subject. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The photo of the lovely young lady is about 6 to 7 years old and I just quickly pulled a JPEG off my hard drive to demonstrate on camera flash I may have not had a calibrated monitor at the time. She actually was much more garishly orange a couple of years after I took this when she was in a body building competition with multiple coats of spray tan on her.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am on a calibrated display viewing through color managed software and browser. The only way you could've over cranked the skin tone was if you edited an AdobeRGB data image on an sRGB color gamut display (making image appear under saturated) and editing software was referencing a display profile that didn't tell the software the display's true color gamut boundaries.</p>

<p>I don't know what you're seeing on your browser, John, but Lab readings of skin tone whose a/b readouts go way above 30 in either channel is an indication that you are not being told the truth about how color should look. Xrite color checker chart skin tone swatches has a/b around 20 in either channel when lit by flash or full spectrum lighting.</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Tim, her skin tone is quite accurate. The body builders have varying levels of spray tan on. It looks like Willy Wonka's chocolate factory with all the orange people running around. Here is photo shot at the same time with some normal colored people. These were under tungsten light. I use a calibrated Dell Ultrasharp monitor that seems pretty accurate. Its about 7 years old now though and I sometimes wonder if its wearing out. I don't even know if that's possible. The two men in this look to have pretty normal skin tone by my monitor. I think the color checker will be my next purchase.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>John, what I'm seeing in that second photo is over cranked definition, sharpness and saturation that gives an unreal painterly rendering similar to Rich Corben graphic novel cover illustration. http://www.google.com/search?q=Rich+Corben+illustrator&newwindow=1&biw=1552&bih=954&tbm=isch&imgil=W571NXhg78w4BM%253A%253BV8rxL1BDwE036M%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.pinterest.com%25252Fpin%25252F556194622707328431%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=W571NXhg78w4BM%253A%252CV8rxL1BDwE036M%252C_&usg=__OhN_0VnCYoOzzkYUXIS9yJZPBPk%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjVi7TZv5_QAhVD3GMKHSzqD8UQyjcIhwE&ei=lhclWNXoIcO4jwOs1L-oDA#imgrc=W571NXhg78w4BM%3A </p>

<p>It does not look like a photo of a real scene.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Cool! It was a tough event to shoot for me. Couldn't use flash and all I had at the time was an old Olympus 100-200 f/5 and a Olympus 75-150 f/4 manual focus zooms on my Canon 5D MK II at ISO 3200 for the longer shots. I had to shoot wide open most of the time and had to keep an eye my shutter speed. It was all for fun and I was happy with the result. It made me realize that I needed a 2.8 zoom. It would be fun to go back with the equipment I have now. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>The EXIF data on that last shot, John, was taken with a Canon 7D, not 5D. </p>

<p>Besides, gear is not the cause for the look I described. My 2006 Pentax K100D with kit lens could never produce results like that unless I edited the image to look that way.</p>

<p>Can you post the unedited version? I suspect you either have an issue with display calibration/profiling and/or visual adaptation from long edits skewing perception of definition and clarity.</p>

<p>I've experienced the same thing especially applying too much Fill or Shadow slider in combination with too much Contrast, Clarity and Sharpening. Sometimes I lift the middle point in the Point Curve tool that adds a lot of "pop". I go away from the computer for an hour and return and find it looks cartoonish and very unnatural. </p>

 

[JRCrowe]

<p>Tim, here is an unedited version of that photo. See what you can do. I think most of these were done in Lightroom 3 and 4 and things have changed a lot since then in both the software and the way I process photos. </p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Oh good lord! That's the image from hell. Now I see why you've had so much trouble with it. It was a challenge in both CS5 PV2010 and LR4.4 PV2012.</p>

<p>Did you work off a jpeg or Raw? Raw would've made things easier.</p>

<p>There's a lot of noise in the dark curtains that I suspect you were trying to hide in those shadows by just crushing them to black with either contrast or negative Shadow. The Fill slider in CS5 ACR of course boosted saturation and barely made a dent reducing contrast so I applied -50 Contrast which did most of the work but boosted noise in the shadows. LR4.4 helped more but I still had to apply a curve tweak in the shadows to hide the noise in the curtains. </p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's LR4.4 PV2012 settings I used. They won't work on the Raw version if you shot in that format, but it will give you an idea what sliders to twiddle. Stay away from any brightening slider that increases saturation. I had to reduce the Exposure slider on the jpeg, but it might give different results on the Raw.</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>This thread has wandered a bit but here is a link to where you can download the raw file. https://1drv.ms/u/s!AhiSzt4ew4vppD4qfyuQBdthQ3Z4<br>

I learned from this that the Canon 7D generated a lot of noise at high ISO. I have been reprocessing some of them with Lightroom CC and I have found that I need a less noise reduction which helps with sharpness which is another problem I was having. Many of these I submitted to a stock agency and today I am shocked that they passed their QC process. White balance around 3000 seems more pleasing to the eye though I re calibrated my monitor and updated my video card driver colors are still strange. Here is a different one that I just started from scratch on with Lightroom CC. I will post the LR settings too.</p><div></div>