bill_fouche

I have found that DPP gives (generally speaking) superior color rendition on

Canon raw files, compared to Lightroom. Lightroom's interface and features are

brilliant and I much prefer them to those in DPP. But maximizing image quality

is foremost. And I've been unsuccessful in tweaking Lightroom calibration or

presets to achieve "best" results that seem rather easy to get in DPP

using "picture styles" in particular. Has anyone else who has had this

experience figured out a way to achieve this in Lightroom?

Oops. I'll try again.

Here's a family snapshot handled in the comic-book manner.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6593547

One suggestion, Anna, might be to try different blurring methods on the LucisArt layer in PS. Perhaps smart-blur?

 

Also, as you're playing around, try to crank up the saturation quite a bit. I think the LucisArt effect is often more appealing with a big boost in saturation. I've heard that referred to as the "comic book" look. I prefer to think of it as Norman Rockwell look. I'll try to find an example and post.

Here's an example of a not-so-subtle use of it I made recently:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5387049

I like the LucisArt plug-in, but mainly for artistic effects. It works fullsize, but only in 8-bit mode. I suspect that it is possible to use it as an exposure tweak, but curves and shadow/highlight features seem better suited for doing that with subtlty.

 

As to "what it is doing," it's a tone-mapping application, using algorithms not unlike photoshop CS2's HDR function, but using a single image instead of combining multiple versions of the same shot.

To me this looks like an example of tone-mapping cranked up too high. I'm guessing it was done with LucisArt's 8-bit photoshop plug-in (or similar). LucisArt pretends to be HDR, but uses one image instead of several. It can be a nice effect on the right image, if not overdone. To my eyes, this is not an ideal use of it.

Note to Geoff: There is no forum called "Digital Darkroom > Monitors." That's a grouping for older questions - no way to access it with an initial question. The question was posted to the correct forum.

"Wrong forum" - really? which one is better for monitor questions?

Walter, you are describing fraud. It is a tort for which you can typically recover damages (or at least your money back), and there are probably consumer protection statutes in NY that provide for payment of your attorneys fees if you win. I'm as skeptical of junk lawsuits as anyone, but that is not what you are describing. And a good NY lawyer could probably convince them to give you your money back over the phone. Just my two cents.

While there is a degree to which "you get what you pay for" with a flat-panel monitor, buying a top-tier brand is less important than paying close attention to the specs and technical reviews. For example, LaCie buys key hardware for its monitors from NEC, which sells very similar monitors for less. LCD technology changes quickly. And the anecdotal recommendations from last year's happy customers don't tell you much about what to buy TODAY. If this is a big splurge for you, as it would be for me, you owe it to yourself to do some careful reading. The following, modestly famous, thread is an excellent starting place:

 

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

And in those situations where low-light make a high ISO essential, there are lots of post-processing strategies to minimize noise after the fact. "Noise Ninja" is an excellent photoshop plug-in for this. It's often unnecessary, though. For example, it's helpful to sharpen judiciously (only the subject's eyes, for example - masking out the rest). Another strategy is to slightly blur only the blue channel, where dark artifacts tend to be concentrated.

The people are so tiny compared to the scale of the trees, sky, shadows, etc, that I cannot imagine anyone "getting it" from the photo, as presently edited. I think most who examine it will see a nicely composed, albeit very typical, park landscape.

See if the "filter" is engaged. If so, turn it off.

Here's my crack at it. Uses a number of layers, including a shadow/highlight correction, several masked curves layers, saturation adjustments, and a warming filter. Not sure what you're looking for, but if this is it, I'd be happy to email you the layered file so you can play with it.<div></div>

Both are high dynamic range images (HDR) - made by combining multiple tripod-made exposures of the same scene taken at different shutter speeds - so as to capture all the highlight detail and all the shadow detail - and then merged into a single image using either Photoshop CS2 or third-party software such as Photomatix.

 

(If you have an earlier version of photoshop, this effect can be simulated on a single 8-bit image using an overpriced plug-in from LucisArt.)

 

I should mention that the HDR software settings were tweaked to darken the highlight detail more than is typical - that gives the ominous spooky atmosphere to the forest scene.

Roger says: "Experience, probably tens of years experience are behind such pictures. Dont think that such results can be achieved just with a bit post processing."

 

Experience in setting up the photo and the lighting can do a lot. But post-processing can do a great deal too. And I think Roger underestimates it. For example, compare the two versions of the photo above. The natural one is a beautiful portrait by Roger from his website. The other-worldly one is the same image with "a bit of post-processing" (10 minutes worth).

 

Dragan is very coy these days about how he achieves the "look" that bears his name. I find that the key is to duplicate the blue channel, paste it into a new layer, and then set its blending-mode to "luminosity." This greatly increases the contrast in facial textures. The rest is layers of levels, curves, selective dodging/burning, and color manipulation. (This quick 10-minute adjustment is far from ideal, but does show that "a bit of post-processing" can completely change the mood and emotional impact of a photo.)<div></div>

I have the Canon 10-22mm, which I like a lot. Images it captures do have a certain characteristic look to them, but nothing like the image you linked to, which seems to suffer from lots of problems that have nothing to do with the lens. The distinctive "look" mentioned probably has to do with the relatively large number of elements the 10-22 contains and the aggressive light bending that is necessary to producing relatively distortion-free images at angles this wide. But, to my eye, the images it produces look nothing like those from a point-and-shoot, nothing like any other EF-S lens I own, including the 60mm or the 18-55.

 

If you want fewer elements and less aggressive bending, go for a prime. In that regard, I hope you will consider the Canon 24mm/2.8. It's much wider and slightly better optically (IMHO) than the 28/2.8.

I am familiar with the Russell Brown video linked to above. It is exactly what you seek. It is, however, only method.

There are lots of styles of watercolor, lots of photoshop strategies to approximate it. The following image was created by doing the following things in this order: color balancing the photo, increasing contrast in the subjects, using the dust/noise- removal filter to smooth out speckles and decrease detail. Then use an old third-party "impressionist" filter made by Microsoft (believe it or not).<div></div>

To answer your specific question, the 60/2.8 on either camera will serve that purpose very well.

 

You could improve your sample image a lot by simply turning down the saturation and contrast. They are garishly overdone. If your monitor is not a good one and is not properly color-calibrated, you have little chance of achieving color fidelity. That is where the extra money should go. Also - if you are not already proficient with colorspace issues, be sure you are using SRGB colorspace throughout your processing for internet work.

And this forum is now described as the "digital camera shopping" forum. If that remains, it will change this forum quite considerably.

Phillip, this is a perfect opportunity for me to say thank you for your wonderful contributions in building this site in the early days. Photo.net - and your articles in particular - are what fanned my spark for photography into a flame not so long ago. I will be forever grateful.

 

On the topic at hand, I vote "no." What I like about photo.net, and what separates this site from DPR, for example, is the high percentage of experienced photographers who offer input. And the high percentage of interesting questions that this generates. Monkeying with this by encouraging "what camera should I buy" questions seems unwise to me.

I often underexpose a half-stop and correct in post-processing. Reichman's advice - "expose to the right of the histogram" - may be good in a studio. It may be good outdoors when the subject or model is stationary, or when one can take several trial shots, compare histograms, modify the camera settings, try again, etc. This is not my world and it is not how I use my camera.

 

"Exposing to the right" also assumes an excellent histogram display that shows all three colors. Some histograms (my XT for example) show only the green channel as a proxy for luminance. This will not warn you when the red channel is blown, which often happens with highlights on caucasian skin photographed outdoors. To my eye, blown highlights are a worse sin than shadows having insufficient detail. One can imagine moody darkish images where the opposite is true, but they are not typically what I photograph.

 

So I'd say it's wise to understand the reasons that Reichman recommends exposing to the right. But it is not a risk-free strategy, it is not always wise, and it is harder to employ safely on cheaper cameras than on pro cameras. It is not generally necessary at all when one can shoot RAW at ISO 100 and post-process a bit.

The Canon 28/2.8 is a fine lens. Though a tad slower, it's worth a close look. I have the lens and do not find the corner sharpness issues many 28/1.8 owners complain about.