Jump to content

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Wonderfully sharp (even into the corners - very good lens), and there's minimal noise. But, do you have any concerns about the "edge/effects artefacts" in the sky around the chimneys, aerials, weather vanes? Maybe they are introduced by jpeg compression? They are barely noticeable, but they do extend for quite a few pixels into the sky.

 

I think the edge effect is very very minor here - a very tiny light line in areas where the building meets the sky and certainly nothing to be concerned about unless you are going to make an enormous print (even then nothing to worry about). I notice Wim has applied a small amount of clarity, a small amount of LR sharpening and a small amount of color noise reduction. The sky is very very clean. Good ad for the Sony camera and its low light abilities.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the edge effect: this I'm pretty sure is what Jeff Schewe (master photographer and digital expert) refers to as the blue edge and is due to the way the lens blends complementary colours into white. According to Jeff this is not just a digital problem but can be made worse due to edge sharpening. The same problem existed with film. The only fix is the clone tool or similar. In the case of Wim's shot, the effect is extremely minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "mottling" of the blue sky next to the edges is what I'm referring to.

 

Screen_Shot_2017-06-24_at_20.15.23.jpg

 

I've tried to post a 300% crop here so it's clearer. It looks like either the noise has been increased (or not removed) when close to high contrast edges to me. I used to see this effect a lot when using DXO software on noisy images. I agree it's minor, but it is something I try to avoid. Maybe I'm being too careful??

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I see what you mean now. I don't know what is causing that. I was viewing at 100% and I wouldn't worry too much about what I would see above that really as nobody is ever going to see that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MDM said:

OK I see what you mean now. I don't know what is causing that. I was viewing at 100% and I wouldn't worry too much about what I would see above that really as nobody is ever going to see that anyway.

 

Oh... I've spent a lot of time avoiding such things since, to my eyes, it appears as an edge "defect" which is visible at 100%. I've either turned down the sharpening, downsized, or even occasionally used the clone brush to remove such edge effects. I've only ever seen it in blue skies next to fine elements like aerials, weather-vanes etc.

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probable cause: jpg artifacts. I had seen it also (at 200%) and will try to check if my copy at Alamy has the same defects. If that's the case I have no idea where it comes from, because I always save as tiff or jpg 12. The only other unknown step in pp: I had to convert to dng first. Could there have been a 8 bit step in there somewhere?

Anyway it's not too difficult to remedy, but it should not have happened. And yes it has passed QC with only 1 other image in that batch.

 

Because of what M Chapman just wrote ( only ever seen it in blue skies next to fine elements ) it could also have been a heavy handed auto CA correction somewhere.

 

OK false alarm: can anyone confirm the download from Dropbox is actually a 5Mb jpg file?

The one on Alamy is 35Mb. So severe jpg artifacts. I had no idea Dropbox did this. Probably because the simple download of the actual file is prohibited with this sort of link. (Clients get a shared folder.)

 

In the original there is some structure visible on and around the ornament on the left most chimney. It could be chicken wire or even spiderwebs with insects. Maybe both. The others don't have it. The 55mm is almost, but not completely perfect: it is more difficult to see such fine detail near the borders.

 

PP is all Photoshop. At 100 ISO every sky should be even. There is some noise where shadows have been lifted. I have not used the bracketed images that I have also taken. But I may have had to repair something, but cannot remember what it was. May have been another

Dutch viewers would be able to recognize (at 100%) some political figures who are debating the elections on the evening of the next day when the official results have been announced.

 

wim

 

edit:

New link to dropbox original tiff file -watermarked-

However it's still a jpg file when downloaded.

The original Tif is 122Mb; the downloadable Jpg is 11Mb. At 11Mb it has less artifacts, could be because the original is a tiff.

Make sure you view at Fullscreen. Click on the percentage number. A small tag will display View actual size. You can wait some time for the image to become visible, or right click and use Save Image As or View Image. (Or whatever your browser calls it.) Then view offline.

 

Edited by wiskerke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I posted one the other day that did pass QC.

 

Here are some more, all hand-held BTW:

 

Restaurant and bar 'Tattershall Castle' moored on the Thames at Victoria Embankment, London Stock Photo

 

Carousel reflected in the windows of a building, South Bank, London Stock Photo

 

 

Restaurant and bar 'Tattershall Castle' moored on the Thames at Victoria Embankment, London Stock Photo

Alan

 

Impressive! Would you be able to tell which body and lens was used to capture these images? Looking at the water this doesn't look like long exposure which means the lens must be really good to let in that much of light. Plus you say they were hand held which is very surprising or may be I just suck at it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Probable cause: jpg artifacts. I had seen it also (at 200%) and will try to check if my copy at Alamy has the same defects. If that's the case I have no idea where it comes from, because I always save as tiff or jpg 12. The only other unknown step in pp: I had to convert to dng first. Could there have been a 8 bit step in there somewhere?

Anyway it's not too difficult to remedy, but it should not have happened. And yes it has passed QC with only 1 other image in that batch.

 

Because of what M Chapman just wrote ( only ever seen it in blue skies next to fine elements ) it could also have been a heavy handed auto CA correction somewhere.

 

OK false alarm: can anyone confirm the download from Dropbox is actually a 5Mb jpg file?

The one on Alamy is 35Mb. So severe jpg artifacts. I had no idea Dropbox did this. Probably because the simple download of the actual file is prohibited with this sort of link. (Clients get a shared folder.)

 

In the original there is some structure visible on and around the ornament on the left most chimney. It could be chicken wire or even spiderwebs with insects. Maybe both. The others don't have it. The 55mm is almost, but not completely perfect: it is more difficult to see such fine detail near the borders.

 

PP is all Photoshop. At 100 ISO every sky should be even. There is some noise where shadows have been lifted. I have not used the bracketed images that I have also taken. But I may have had to repair something, but cannot remember what it was. May have been another

Dutch viewers would be able to recognize (at 100%) some political figures who are debating the elections on the evening of the next day when the official results have been announced.

 

wim

 

edit:

New link to dropbox original tiff file -watermarked-

However it's still a jpg file when downloaded.

The original Tif is 122Mb; the downloadable Jpg is 11Mb. At 11Mb it has less artifacts, could be because the original is a tiff.

Make sure you view at Fullscreen. Click on the percentage number. A small tag will display View actual size. You can wait some time for the image to become visible, or right click and use Save Image As or View Image. (Or whatever your browser calls it.) Then view offline.

 

 

The JPEG I downloaded earlier was 35.1 MB so not sure why you are saying 11 MB. I just redownloaded it and it is still 35.1 so Dropbox has not done anything to it. I also downloaded the TIFF. I used the Direct Download menu at the right hand side, not a right click so that probably explains discrepancy.

 

That weird speckly stuff inside the metal above the very left chimney is present in the TIFF but is more visible in the JPEG so is probably exaggerated by JPEG artefacting but it is present already in the TIFF. I didn't notice this when I originally commented and have no idea what it is. It is visible at 100% though so needs investigation.

 

I'm not seeing the stuff (for want of a better late night word) visible in Mark's 300% crop and am thinking that this is JPEG artefacting due to Mark taking a screenshot and saving it as a JPEG. It's definitely not there in the 35MB JPEG or the TIFF which are both very similar in this part of the picture. I still don't think it is worth worrying too much about what is visible above 100%.

 

There is as you say distinct noise in the darker areas of the image - e.g. roof tiles and unlit windows - due to your lightening the shadows. A little luminance NR would improve this.

 

It would be interesting to see the raw image.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

The JPEG I downloaded earlier was 35.1 MB so not sure why you are saying 11 MB. I just redownloaded it and it is still 35.1 so Dropbox has not done anything to it. I also downloaded the TIFF. I used the Direct Download menu at the right hand side, not a right click so that probably explains discrepancy.

 

That weird speckly stuff inside the metal above the very left chimney is present in the TIFF but is more visible in the JPEG so is probably exaggerated by JPEG artefacting but it is present already in the TIFF. I didn't notice this when I originally commented and have no idea what it is. It is visible at 100% though so needs investigation.

 

I'm not seeing the stuff (for want of a better late night word) visible in Mark's 300% crop and am thinking that this is JPEG artefacting due to Mark taking a screenshot and saving it as a JPEG. It's definitely not there in the 35MB JPEG or the TIFF which are both very similar in this part of the picture. I still don't think it is worth worrying too much about what is visible above 100%.

 

There is as you say distinct noise in the darker areas of the image - e.g. roof tiles and unlit windows - due to your lightening the shadows. A little luminance NR would improve this.

 

It would be interesting to see the raw image.

 

The structure on the chimney top turns out to be purely a pp fault and should not have been there.

There have indeed been repairs: moving ducks in the water ;-)

I am not seeing the direct download menu anymore. Recently dropbox has been changing a lot. Maybe I should have paid more attention to all their emails about the changes (rtfm).

 

PMs are verboten in this new forum it seems:

You are only allowed to send 0 messages per minute. Please try again later.

Facepalm.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wiskerke said:

OK false alarm: can anyone confirm the download from Dropbox is actually a 5Mb jpg file?

 

New link to dropbox original tiff file -watermarked-

However it's still a jpg file when downloaded.

The original Tif is 122Mb; the downloadable Jpg is 11Mb. At 11Mb it has less artifacts, could be because the original is a tiff.

Make sure you view at Fullscreen. Click on the percentage number. A small tag will display View actual size. You can wait some time for the image to become visible, or right click and use Save Image As or View Image. (Or whatever your browser calls it.) Then view offline.

 

Hi Wim,

 

Original jpeg that contained the "artefacts" (that I showed in the 300% crop above) was a 35Mb file which was downloaded using the download button and viewed in PS.

 

I just downloaded the original TIFF using your link and the download button at top right of the Dropbox page. I received a 122Mb TIFF file (not a jpg). I opened it in PS, and it's virtually perfect (even at 300%). No artefacts along the roof lines, aerials etc, and the vast majority of the pigeon defence wires and spikes are all clearly visible. Superb shot (and lens)!

 

As mentioned by MDM, I can also see some tiny speckles inside the left most chimney wire structure, but that's way below anything I'd worry about for Alamy QC. In fact looking again, I think it may actually be fine netting or chicken wire stretched over the metal frame to stop birds going down the chimney, the joins in the netting are the darker speckles, and I think I can just about make out the connections between them (or is my eyes/brain" simply joining the dots"?).

 

And aren't those the eyebrows of that gnat I can see? ;) What a superb shot and lens.

 

PS. I also find I can't send PMs (0 messages per minute restriction). Hopefully that's just a bug and not a new restriction. 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wiskerke said:

PMs are verboten in this new forum it seems:

You are only allowed to send 0 messages per minute. Please try again later.

Facepalm.

 

wim

 

Auntie Alamy has gone paranoid right now. I'm being hit by the silly captcha thing all the time right now as well as the no private message message. I wasn't bothered by the captcha before yesterday. Now it's happening for the forum and main Alamy site every time I close the browser window. Perhaps it's the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inspired by Wim, I signed up for a basic Dropbox account and have posted a night shot taken on my D800E with a 50mm f1.4D Nikkor lens shortly after I bought the camera in 2012. At the time it was the only camera without an AA filter and I thought (and still think) the sharpness to be absolutely amazing. The original passed Alamy QC completely unsharpened although I have added default LR sharpening to this version when I exported direct from the raw to full size JPEG. There is so much detail in this image for a night shot that I figured it was also worth showing what can be done with a quality FF DSLR and a cheap prime lens.

 

It's a 20 second exposure @f11.

 

Best viewed downloaded and opened in PS or the like rather than in a browser. Not sure why WIm is not seeing the download menu - I'm seeing it in Safari and Firefox.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6vlnsau0sl9akiz/LosCristianosOct21129.jpg?dl=0

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a photo that passed QC taken with the Canon 7D and the Sigma 17-50 2.8.  It was shot at ISO 3200 1/100 f/2.8 handheld.  Its not that sharp zoomed in but it seems that Alamy QC has  slightly different standard for night photography. Here is a crop from this photo https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhiSzt4ew4vppXWBHpFogL0KE9tP

 

mimis-cafe-in-chatsworth-california-DNAKN6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Johnnie5 said:

Here is a photo that passed QC taken with the Canon 7D and the Sigma 17-50 2.8.  It was shot at ISO 3200 1/100 f/2.8 handheld.  Its not that sharp zoomed in but it seems that Alamy QC has  slightly different standard for night photography. Here is a crop from this photo https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhiSzt4ew4vppXWBHpFogL0KE9tP

 

 

The fact it passed QC doesn't mean it was actually examined unless it was a single file submission so it may not mean a different standard - you may just have been lucky. But I expect that knowledegable buyers would have lower expectations of night shots in any case although that doesn't mean qc would treat them differently. The quality is not great (the polite version) in this at 100% for sure - the noise is quite awful in fact.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDM said:

Inspired by Wim, I signed up for a basic Dropbox account and have posted a night shot taken on my D800E with a 50mm f1.4D Nikkor lens shortly after I bought the camera in 2012. At the time it was the only camera without an AA filter and I thought (and still think) the sharpness to be absolutely amazing. The original passed Alamy QC completely unsharpened although I have added default LR sharpening to this version when I exported direct from the raw to full size JPEG. There is so much detail in this image for a night shot that I figured it was also worth showing what can be done with a quality FF DSLR and a cheap prime lens.

 

Best viewed downloaded and opened in PS or the like rather than in a browser. Not sure why WIm is not seeing the download menu - I'm seeing it in Safari and Firefox.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6vlnsau0sl9akiz/LosCristianosOct21129.jpg?dl=0

 

Dropbox is ok again. It now shows 100% again in a snap and the download button is back too.

I had posted mine in a different thread about the choice between the Sony zoom lenses. The image taken with the 55mm showed the difference between an acceptable and a good image. The 42Mp Sony is at the other end of the scale from the 70D, which has a quality in the region of my RX100 point and shoot, which needs very careful post processing. And it's not an all purpose camera to begin with. The 42Mp Sony however needs very careful shooting technique or it will show all your faults and your lenses' faults mercilessly. Even more than the D800E, which I now regard as somewhat forgiving ;-)

So yes quality can be bought, but technique not so much. Most forgiving are the ff camera's in the 24Mp region with a good lens and a Sony sensor. That pano from Wikipedia was made with the original Canon 5d (12.7Mp - 2005), probably in vertical position or maybe even in 2 rows.

 

A good source for a quick assessment of the relative quality of bodies and lenses is DXO.

(Set the order of the lenses to sharpness.)

The Canon 70D is somewhere in the middle; the Sigma lens in the bottom quarter. So they will need both good shooting and good pp technique.

 

With dusk and night shots I always have to bracket my Canon (1Ds2 and 1Ds3) shots.

I always have to use either mirror lock up or live view and electronic 1st shutter (aka silent shooting) to counter mirror and shutter vibration. Well not at 30 seconds, but I do use it anyway.

I have to focus with the aperture closed using live view. Now even more with the Sony 42Mp. I tape my lens. (No use with fly-by-wire lenses.)

When I use my extremely lightweight travel tripod, I weigh my camera and lens down with my camera bag, the strap over where the body and lens connect. A hook or anything underneath the tripod is useless.

With long lenses and a heavy tripod I often weigh the Canons down with a small bag with sand or pellets.

A sand or bean bag trumps any tripod btw. Even then I use a smaller bag on top of the camera as well.

 

The good thing with night shots is that there's plenty time to set everything up. So in that respect it is not extremely difficult. Technically the difficulty lies in the contrasts that the sensor has to bridge.

For a good image, the balance of lights and colors must be good and pleasing. For a really good image on top of that there must be an interesting subject and a really good composition at a perfect moment.

 

wim

 

edit: link to efsc in a 70d

Edited by wiskerke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

The fact it passed QC doesn't mean it was actually examined unless it was a single file submission so it may not mean a different standard - you may just have been lucky. But I expect that knowledegable buyers would have lower expectations of night shots in any case although that doesn't mean qc would treat them differently. The quality is not great (the polite version) in this at 100% for sure - the noise is quite awful in fact.

+1. That one got in under the radar. I wouldn't have submitted that as-is. My 3200s need a lot of NR but this has camera shake as well. Maybe the type is sharp and it got tthrough on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2017 at 03:05, MDM said:

It would be interesting to see the raw image.

PM sent.

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

PM sent.

wim

 

Good too see PM's are working again.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 15:13, M.Chapman said:

The "mottling" of the blue sky next to the edges is what I'm referring to.

 

Screen_Shot_2017-06-24_at_20.15.23.jpg

 

I've tried to post a 300% crop here so it's clearer. It looks like either the noise has been increased (or not removed) when close to high contrast edges to me. I used to see this effect a lot when using DXO software on noisy images. I agree it's minor, but it is something I try to avoid. Maybe I'm being too careful??

 

I use DNG. JPG artifact edge effect. Not sharpening artifact

I get this edge effect at jpg compression level 9 but not at 10,11,12 so I use level 10 for jpg output.

To prove this to yourself, output two same dimension jpg from the same image with sharp light/dark transitions between solid sky and detailed objects, one at level 9 and one at level 10. Your example image is ideal.

Load both jpg into a single photoshop file as layers one above the other. Change the blend mode of the top layer to difference. You get what seems to be an all black image. If the image is completely black then there is no difference between the layers.

BUT in a darkened room, with your eyes used to the dark, look at the almost black image on an otherwise black screen and you will see fuzzy slightly lighter areas caused by the mottling.

Now do the same thing with one jpg at level 10 and another at level 11. No lighter fuzziness because there is no difference between 10 and 11. Artifacts caused when you compress at 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I use DNG. JPG artifact edge effect. Not sharpening artifact

I get this edge effect at jpg compression level 9 but not at 10,11,12 so I use level 10 for jpg output.

To prove this to yourself, output two same dimension jpg from the same image with sharp light/dark transitions between solid sky and detailed objects, one at level 9 and one at level 10. Your example image is ideal.

Load both jpg into a single photoshop file as layers one above the other. Change the blend mode of the top layer to difference. You get what seems to be an all black image. If the image is completely black then there is no difference between the layers.

BUT in a darkened room, with your eyes used to the dark, look at the almost black image on an otherwise black screen and you will see fuzzy slightly lighter areas caused by the mottling.

Now do the same thing with one jpg at level 10 and another at level 11. No lighter fuzziness because there is no difference between 10 and 11. Artifacts caused when you compress at 9.

 

Yes it is the dropbox preview. The original seems to be better. The structure on the left chimney is an artefact/artifact and shouldn't be there.

I probably thought at the time I was seeing an actual thing, like chicken wire or netting.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this zombie thread woken up because of Halloween?

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad it has reappeared as I missed it when it was current and it contains some gems like " I admit my images are not razor sharp" and " if I ever manage to get a crisp image". Did the OP ever communicate again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

Has this zombie thread woken up because of Halloween?

 

wim

Hajes,  you're posting all over the forum, sometimes with information of marginal relevance. If you're under the impression that it was advantageous in some way a la Instagram, it isn't. This isn't that sort of forum and it's not usually helpful to resurrect an old thread because the OP is unlikely to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.