Jump to content

MDM

Verified
  • Posts

    5,764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MDM

  1. 3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

    I’m sure he knows what to look for now.

     

     I'm not so sure at all what he did here. He would need to re-post the image with the EXIF data included, preferably with an explanation of how he took and procesed (if at all) the picture. 

    • Like 3
  2. 26 minutes ago, DDoug said:

    I’m no stranger to tripods. However, I wanted to test Ichikawa’s claim that their software could align hand-held images well enough to do focus stacking. The set below was shot hand-held with a telephoto zoom set at 70mm. I haven’t sent it through QC yet, so the jury’s still out on whether it would pass.

     

     

    It's not clear what we are seeing here (what is being compared to what?) and the image is way to small to make sensible judgement. The picture on the left is way out of focus even at the very low resolution posted here - one for the bin. It's impossiuble to judge the image of the right at that size tiny size although it does not look sharp to me on my laptop screen which tends to exaggerate sharpenss. Can you post a full size image instead and explain how it was taken? 

  3. On 04/03/2024 at 00:34, wiskerke said:

    And may you stay forever young!

     

    Thank you for reminding me of Helicon. It's ages ago since I've used it. And Zerene and PTGui among others. Somewhere in between all those was one that allowed aligning layers by hand with *pins* you stuck through the most important points. I have never found it again.

    Helicon does not support lens corrections in RAW afaik. Which for my use case is an absolute must have. Now you could go around that by saving DNGs first and feeding those to Helicon of course.

    Anyway, it's early days and I am still waiting for a thinner adapter to arrive to connect my new Makro Symmar to a body. The one I have is about 0.3mm to thick. Yes I know how to shave that off. However it belongs to some other setup so I needed wanted a second one anyway.

    My primary and real use case involves RX100 images btw and those are worthless without the baked-in lens profile, which may very well be specific for the individual lens.

    No lens profile for the Symmar, and I expect it to be one of the few that can do without.

    The Symmar will occasionally be used for focus stacking and maybe copying some old color negative film. The RX100 images are huge stacks (100+) of high ISO hand held shots that need to become high resolution and noise free single images. And some may even some day end up on Alamy.

     

    wim

     

    Thank you wim. And the same to you. 

     

    I export raw files from Lightroom using the Helicon  plugin and I generally leave the files alone completely until they arrive back in Lightroom. I never do anything to them in Helicon - I just render and save as DNG. Helicon requires downloading of the DNG converter rather than using Lightroom/ACR. I've experimented with the three main render settings and just let it do its thing.

     

    I have never been too concerned about the lens profiles but I'll check it out after reading this. I no longer have an RX100VA - I sold it a few months back as it was getting zero use but I expect it should be the same for the baked-in lens profiles in a lot of the Nikon Z lenses.  I wonder if it is possible to add a similar profile back to the DNG file if the original is stripped in exporting to Helicon. Adobe used to have and presumably still have that lens profile creator so maybe you could create your own.  

     

    Of course I am talking Lightroom and I think you are an ACR guy which doesn't appear to have the same facility as the LR plugin. I don't know if there is any difference just opening raw files into Helicon as against exporting them from Lightroom.

     

    Anyway happy stacking. 

     

     

  4. 51 minutes ago, DDoug said:

    Although I’m not new to digital imaging, I am very much so to focus stacking. So any comments I can make are newbie comments.

     

    As to the time for making a sequence of photos automatically with focus bracketing, I’m using the electronic shutter and nine brackets take about a second. There’s no flipping mirror to slow things down. The initial focus is on the nearest point and the camera focuses on progressively farther points. The complaint I’ve heard about Fujifilm cameras in this regard is that the intervals are too close. I’ll probably have to use a tripod and manual focusing to get a more appropriate spread. Otherwise, the way it works automatically is probably good for getting both ends of a bug. It seems to me that there is some loss in overall sharpness, but on the plus side, high-ISO noise is smoothed out.

     

    P.S., The images were what one would expect from hand-held shots, but the software aligned them perfectly.

     

    Fair enough. If it works for you then that's fine. I would suggest experimenting with the camera on a tripod, stabilisation off, different apertures, as well as the interval and number of shots but I don't know how that works on your camera. If you use manual focusing, you lose the benefit of the fixed step sizes  in AF (presuming that is how it works). If wim can get 100+ stacks on the little Sony RX100 handheld, then it must be possible but he has not said what subject matter he is shooting - small or large scale.

     

    I am not an expert in focus bracketing (in the Nikon world it is called Focus Shift) but I've experimented enough to have a reasonable idea of how it works. I have never considered doing it handheld at all and would not do so for subjects where the longitudinal movement (towards and back from the subject) of the camera could be similar to or greater than the size of the step interval. I might consider it for larger scale features such as landscapes but I've never tried that yet. It is really a matter of trial and error. 

  5. 2 hours ago, DDoug said:

    As a matter of fact, I’m a risk-averse person and was not shooting for upload here or other publication. I’ve only had a couple of images rejected by QC and would like to keep it that way. Having read their claim, however, I decided to test it and was surprised to see how well the software did.

     

    OK this could drag on a bit. Me I don’t see how you can test a feature that requires a completely or nearly completely still camera over the time that would be needed to capture a subject like a bush using focus bracketing (several seconds minimum I would guess) using a handheld camera, using a wide aperture and a tele lens.  The camera has to refocus for each shot so you can’t just fire a burst. If it is not perfectly sharp, you won’t know if the app or the camera is messing up. If it is perfectly sharp then it’s a miracle or maybe it’s some form of advanced AI that can perfectly interpolate areas that are out of focus and bring them into focus but that seems far-fetched even for 2024. In other words, to properly test the app, you need to use a tripod. Then you can rule out the camera if there are areas out of focus or artefacts etc. Of course if it works perfectly handheld then why not show if off - preferably at full size?

     

  6. 12 minutes ago, DDoug said:

    https://silkypix.isl.co.jp/en/how-to/function/compositing-function/

     

    “Since this function automatically aligns images according to our image coincidence detection technology (patent No. 4689758), it is possible to combine them without any shift even with hand-held shooting.”

     

    Works for me. I was using an XF 70-300mm with OIS.

     

    Whatever does the job I guess. I know you have been a SILKYPIX advocate over the years. I don't think I've come across anyone else who uses it in fact but nothing wrong with being different. What really intrigues me is how you do focus bracketing handheld, moreover with a telephoto zoom.and get sharp images. Goodonya. I'll stick with a tripod for that.  

  7. 2 hours ago, DDoug said:

    I'm using focus bracketing on a Fujifilm X-T2, so there wouldn't be blurred images that need to be removed. In one of their YouTube videos, they recommend shooting with at least f/5.6 to avoid the problem. I shot a rose bush hand held with hands that are pushing 80 and none too steady. It wasn't a problem.

     

    Last time I tried stacking in Photoshop it is indeed wanting in that department. For anyone serious about focus stacking, a dedicated program is highly advisablle. Helicon Focus is excellent, works on raw images (not sure what about Fuji which seem to be in a world of their own), has a Lightroom plugin which exports directly to Helicon Focus, exports a DNG file back which can be further processed in Lightroom (or whatever raw converter you like) and is also on a perpetual licence which is a good thing. I've never tried the other dedicated stacking apps but most reviews I've read rate Helicon Focus as the  best. 

     

    As for trying to focus bracketing handheld, especially a subject like a rose bush or closer, I am amazed that you are successful. I would have thought a tripod is essential. I tend to shoot 20-40 images for a close-up or mid-distance shot and I wouldn't dream of doing it without a tripod. But I am shooting at ISO 64, f8 and shutter speeds of around 1/5s to 1/15s You must have very steady hands. Good luck and may your hands continue to remain steady. 

     

     

  8. 6 hours ago, IKuzmin said:

    Hi Gen.

    I do not know your system.

    And perhaps missed something in the thread above, sorry if so.

    On Windows, after saving all settings in the PS, I would try and use the CC Cleaning Tool.

    And, if it start eventually after the cleaning and the clean install, add setting and see what happens?..

    Good luck.

     

    PS: assuming that as you googled extensively you have already cleaned the cash. This Adobe Ecosystem forum is actually the first and usually the last place where I solve my Adobe-related problems. There are great people over there.

     

    Not heard of the Cleaning Tool before but it sounds like a good idea for Gen. As you say, the Adobe forums are probably the best place to solve anything like this. That should be cleaning the cache by the way. Cleaning the cash sounds like money laundering 🤣 - you might come up with some very strange things searching for that on Google. 

  9. Let's know how you get on Gen. I hope that uninstalling both and reinstalling the latest version will work but it won't be surprising if you have to reset your prefs which is not a big deal as long as you have saved all the customised bits which you can add back afterwards. There are so many different user customisations nowadays it is difficult to know what is where but you should be fine.

    • Like 1
  10. I don't really know but what I would do is back up any presets, brushes, templates etc first. You can see how to do this on the Adobe help. I'm a Mac user and I think you are on Windows so I can't be specific. This is nothing to fear. You should do it anyway if you value them in case of a disk failure etc. Given that it is a mess, if it was me, I would go for Option 3 and reset the prefs when starting up if that doesn't work first time. Resetting the prefs often works when nothing else does but you would lose stuff unless you back it up. Again check the Adobe help for how to do that. It's very simple. I mainly use Lightroom for most stuff these days and use Photoshop less and less. I don't know about plugins. I would guess they might survive the process. This is why I never use beta software. Last time I did I had to wipe the computer and reinstall macOS.  Best of luck. 

    • Like 1
  11. 52 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

    Thanks for the link. One thing you may be able to answer, I believe your monitor can swap between sRGB and AdobeRGB colour spaces? If you do this whilst connected to your Mac, does the Mac realise that the monitor has been swapped and automatically select the right display profile? (Settings>Display>Color profile).

     

    Mark

    Yes of course. I use Eizo's Color Navigator app to control the monitor. It can also be done with the buttons on the monitor.  Switching color mode which is what Eizo call the LUT in the monitor  shows the corresponding ICC profile in the Display settinga. I'm on Sonoma. 

  12. 1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

    If all combinations (laptop + internal display, laptop + external monitor, desktop + external monitor) are separately profiled (with X-rite etc.) and the correct generated profile selected for colour management on each system then matching images can achieved without needing a monitor to have inbuilt "hardware calibration". The Mac laptop will switch between its inbuilt and external monitor profile automatically.

     

    Mark

     

    I was just trying to answer Sung's request to elaborate on what hardware calibration is all about. Most decent modern monitors have hardware calibration as far as I can see anyway, so It can also be a sign of a quality monitor. Anyway this is the BenQ take on it. I'm convinced about the advantages.  

  13. 14 hours ago, Gervais Montacute said:

    I would consider getting a 27 inch retina 2019 iMac Pro on Ebay checking out the sellers thoroughly. 

     

    In that case, you would be buying into 5 year old Intel Mac technology that will probably not be supported by Apple for more than a few more years. Already there are features emerging even in Apple's own apps that require the new silicon technology to work properly, if at all. The graphics card may not be capable of supporting the latest developments in Photoshop, Lightroom and other photo editing apps. You would also have no idea how long the monitor itself might last as well as the fact that monitors deteriorate over time with usage. Overall a terrible idea for photographers. 

    • Like 2
  14. 27 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:
     
     
    after "boasting" of my improved high ISO slider results, a fail... 😒
    first in 1-2 years;
    noise is lower left over metal chair frame...?
    is it blatant or borderline?
    using just ACR sliders, not layers, how to eliminate?
    in PS 2024 ACR Details > Luminance
    was set at +70 for this ISO 6400 image:
    advice-comments appreciated...
     

    Rejection reason

    MX231124001.jpg

    Soft or lacking definition

    Noise

     
    27MB JPG:
     

     

     

    I wouldn't submit that myself. Colour and luminance noise are evident at 100% view in the chair backs, hair etc. Eliminate - easy - Adobe Denoise would most likely eat that noise and it would very likely be sharp enough for QC as Denoise sharpens beautifully as well with the help of Raw Details (automaticlly applied with Denoise).  How long can you hold out?

     

    • Like 1
  15. 59 minutes ago, SFL said:

     

    My main reason was connectivity.  After you comment, I had another look, now at the Mac Mini Pro.  Yes it has the same number of port/connections at the back.  

    The Mini Pro with 32GB & 1TB SSD is £2,299 and the M2 Max with 32GB & 1TB SSD is also £2,299.  Is there something I am missing?

     

     

     

    It's surprising but I can't see any difference in specs for the same price. All else being equal, I'd definitely go for the Studio Max, as it is far better endowed with graphics cores (effectively a much more powerful GPU) at the same price as the Mini. The more powerful GPU will allow it to handle new stuff that relies on graphics power with greater ease. This would easily handle high spec video as well. 

    • Thanks 1
  16. 1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

    You mentioned the Mac Studio. When I changed from my 27" iMac late 2013 edition I looked at the alternatives and opted for the Mac Mini Pro as it has more connections as well as 32GB memory and bigger storage to order.

     

    The Studio model was too much in specs for what I do.

     

    Just saying.

     

    Allan

     

     

    Sure - the 32GB  Mac Minis are excellent from what I read. As I advised you at the time, I wouldn't buy any Mac now with less than 32GB for future proofing for image editing, because none of these Macs are upgradeable. The other thing worth thinking about is a MacBook Pro with XDR screen which opens up a whole new world of HDR image editing as I've mentioned in other threads. These MacBook Pros are immensely powerful but again there is that minimum memory thing to consider (24GB would be the absolute minimum I think). 

  17. 1 hour ago, SFL said:

    Great, @MDM, and thank you for your suggestion.  That might be it!

    BTW you said 'a monitor that has hardware calibration', can you elaborate a bit more?

    I think I saw somewhere some Eizo have built-in self calibration censor.

     

    Sung 

     

    Hardware calibration as I understand the term is where a monitor can hold a calibration or set of calibrations in its own software as LUTs (Look Up Tables), independent of a computer. There will be a number of factory calibration presets such as AbobeRGB, sRGB, Rec709, Rec2020 and so on. There will also be the facility to hold user calibrations which the user performs with a calibrator. The one I linked to has hardware calibration.

     

    It is not the same as having an in-built calibrator which some of the Eizos have but these monitors tend to be more expensive. The more recent ones are really accurate but this would probably add quite a bit more to the price.  It is generally best to do your own calibration rather than rely on factory presets. An external device such as a Calibrite (was X-Rite) would be a cheaper option if your Spyder is not compatible. 

     

    EDIT - a big advantage of hardware calibration is if you are using the same monitor for a desktop and a laptop. As long as you have the computers set up correctly,  the same image should look the same on both computers. I think most high end monitors nowadays will have hardware calibration. 

     

    • Love 1
  18. 9 minutes ago, SFL said:

     

    Thank you, MDM.  As always, you give good advice.  I suppose I need to revise the budget.

     

     

    Sung

     

    No worries and happy to help when you narrow things down. I was looking at the Wex website and there is not a lot of BenQ about at Wex but lots of Eizos. This Eizo is probably what I would suggest for photography if you are happy to spend a couple of hundred extra over the £700. 

    • Thanks 1
  19. 52 minutes ago, Double_R said:

    Thank you all for your replies. My camera settings are Raw+Jpegfine . I also have a nikon 3100, 5200 and the 7500 and from what I can gather I should be ok with any one of these.

    I haven't submitted any files yet but here goes!

    How can I save raw as jpegs the only option in NX Studio is to export as Jpeg, but it is only a small size. I am not very good with editing software, but I do have Affinity 2, just can't seem to get to grips with it.

     

    Thanks again

    Double_R

     

     

    NX Studio is fine for your purpose  - I never thought I would say that but it has improved massively in recent times. You don't need Affinity. 

     

    There is no problem exporting a JPEG at full size from a raw image from NX Studio. In the latest version when you export, you get a dialog where there is an option to change image size but it is off by default. Don't change it and you will get a file that is plenty large for Alamy.

     

    However, if you are serious about uploading images to Alamy, you do need to learn how to edit raw images in software. Saying you are not very good sounds a bit weak. There are loads of tutorials to help you. NX Studio is very logical in its layout once you get used to the basics. 

    • Like 3
  20. A lot of questions Sung and some depend on the answer to others but here are a few tips.

     

    Flexscan are Eizio's office range and ColorEdge the creative professional range - see the Eizo website. Get a ColorEdge for photography.

     

    Get a 27' if you can. BenQ is a decent alternative make. Not as good as Eizo but good generally.

     

    Get a monitor that has hardware calibration if possilbe so that it holds the calibration settings in the monitor. It doesn't have to have an inbuilt calibrator.

     

    Whether your existing calibrator works will depend on whether it is compatible with the latest macOS. Similarly for your scanner. 

     

    Wex  is always a good place to buy anything for photography. They have a big range of monitors and a lot of local stores now so you can probably go and see for yourself.

     

    Best of luck. 

     

    • Thanks 1
  21. 44 minutes ago, Bryan said:

     

    I have just looked up the Pentax K-1 Mark II and note that it is a full frame 36.4 M pixel camera. Strikes me as massive overkill for Alamy shooting and just maybe that huge pixel density reveals flaws in your technique and/or lenses that wouldn't be apparent with a less densely packed sensor. I suspect that you may need some pretty special glass to get the best out of your camera.

     

    As Normspics has suggested, a reduction in image size prior to uploading might help, followed by an actual pixels scrutiny of the images.

     

    +1.  

     

    You need quality lenses for a high MP camera. When Nikon introduced the first 36MP DSLR back in 2012 (the D800), it was a whole new learning experience and those of us who jumped in soon learned to use only top quality lenses and to focus very carefully. The ancient Ozunon lens is very unlikely to be suitable. I don't know about the 50-200 but care is needed. As well as the lens used, that camera has a form in-body image stabilisation, so that needs to be turned off when using a tripod, as it may contribute to softening if left on. Downsizing is very sensible unless you are sure the image is perfectly sharp. The monitor used to judge sharpness is also very important. Judging on a laptop is very difficult. 

     

    I love using high MP cameras but I do a lot more than stock where I take advantage of the big sensors. 

     

     

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.