marco_landini

<p>Peter, I' ve seen your pictures in your photo.net folders. Congratulations, I like them very much. They have exactly the "photographic" 3d, crispy clear and clean look I like and I try to achieve...I think I have a lot to work on, and the first important step in my way is tryng to understand what I' missing in my worflow.</p>

<p>And please, take another look to this picture. I hate the rendering of the walls, bricks and rocks, expecialy in the white area I indicated. The edges look harsh, unnatural borders. The columns seem pasted to the back walls, Averything flat and unnatural, not photographic, not clear nor trasparent. I wish to solve this issue and understand what was the mistake. Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This one is not underexposed and has a "neutral" contast. Anyway I like it, is clear, clean, trasparent, smooth transations, no harsh edges. Very photographic as I mean.</p>

 

<p>And this one too, I like it. Trasparent, photographic, clear.</p>

 

<p>I know you are all great photographers, I am the apprentice.<br>

To try to express what I mean, I post this one. This one lokks exactly what I mean "photographic". This picture looks trasparent, photographic, "glassy clear"...I don' t know how to say to decribe in beter words...This is the look and rendering I like</p>

 

<p>The overall image looks like a painting or a cartoon. Not photographic at all</p>

 

<p>The overall image looks like a painting or a cartoon. Not photographic at all</p>

 

<p>Completely unreal, fake, cartoon or painting-like</p>

 

<p>The columns seem to be pasted or stitched to the wall in the background. And the walls in the background look weird, strange edges in the rocks and bricks.</p>

 

<p>I pubblish the pics. In the white areas I find issues. Very strange edges, the rocks of the wall and steps are very plastic looking, very weird.</p>

<p>Wouter, thank you. Please, can you tell me where are you from ? Do you speak italian ? If you speak italian, I would like to explain you in my language the issues of my pics. I don't know exactly the technical therms to explain correctly what I mean...</p>

<p>Peter, in general, I' ve noticed that if I expose to the highlights ( as I did in my slide film era), I tend to achieve more natural and pleasant rendering than exposing to the right. I generaly expose to the right to capture the largest range of tonality as possible. But the pictures I take exposing to the lights ,"slide stile" , look much better to my eyes. This appens, and maybe could be just a casuality. I really don' t know...Anyway, I can' t recover the issues discussed here just tweaking the exposition in post production ( whether in nx2 or in ps). So I guess it' s all about the exposition when you take the picture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To me, the problem is not about global saturation or contrast. I can fix global saturation and contrast very quickly, it's not a problem. What I don' t like is that "cartoonish" structure, those strong edges, they remind me to an over mid-tone contrast. Look at the wall's bricks in the pictures, look at the rocks...they look very baked, fake, with strange and strong and flat edges, absolutely unnatural.</p>

<p>How can I prevent this issue ? It really hurts me</p>

<p>We have news ! I've found this picture taken with a nikon 28 2.8 ai-s ( one of my favourite lens) in manual mode on the D90. Here I find the same issues : the rendering of the building walls, the bricks, look very painting-like, very hdr tonemapped. I hate this effect. So, maybe the problem is not about the tamron or other lenses, maybe is about the sensor in capturing walls, bricks or these kind of patterns.<br>

Don't you think the rendering of the walls, bricks of the building is very unnatural ? This is the focus of my question.</p>

 

<p>Look at the buildings in the background...where they come from ??? absolutely fake. I hate this rendering.</p>

 

<p>Peter, I see the same issues in the printed version of these images. My monitor is ok.</p>

<p>This looks like a painting. I really hate this effect.<br>

@50 mm. f 6.3. 1/400. iso 200. NO active d-lighting. Image control : neutral. Sharpness : 4. Contrast -1.<br>

All these in-camera settings are turned off in capture nx2.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This looks like a painting. I really hate this effect.</p>

 

<p>Look at the walls in the background to the left...<br>

17mm. f 6.3. 1/500. iso 200. d-lighting : auto. image control : standard. sharpness : 9. saturation : +1. Once again, I turned off all these in-camera settings on nx2.</p>

 

<p>and what about this one ? cartoonish, plastic, or what ?<br>

Taken at 42mm, f 5.6, 1/25 sec, iso 400. Image control : standard. Sharpness : 9. Saturation : +1. D-lighting : normal. But, as I said, all these settings were in camera, and I turned all them off on nx2, so this file is without any tweaking.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>ok, here we try...<br>

This one looks very odd. It looks like a painting, not a photograph. Taken @17mm, f 5.6, 1/800 sec. All the in-camera settings turned off by capture nx2. No editing, no sharpening. Resized and converted to jpg.</p>

 

<p>I confirm, no sharpening applied</p>

<p>Anyway, I try to explain and make you undarstand what I don't like in those pics. In my taste, they look as I said "cartoonish", I mean something as too much mid-tone contrast. The details look baked, as a hdr over tonemapped image. Instead, I like the trasparent and smooth look, very "optical" of the last 3 picures and not cartoonish or mid-tone too boosted as I find in the previous pictures</p>