- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hum, the colors look to me to be tending a bit on the white side. I don’t know how you can edit warmer colors on Lightroom, but here is a try with my program to explain what I mean.
- This reply was modified 54 years, 11 months ago by .
I think what @Mr-Quebec is trying to say is that he thinks the image white balance needs “warmed” a bit. I guess I agree with him, but I don’t think it needs quite as much as his example shows.
Wow, that is a sharp picture! However, when ‘pixel peeping’ at your image, I notice that the sharpening method could have been improved. It looks to me like the sharpening was applied globally to the whole image, instead of just to the edges where it’s really needed. I don’t have your original to give an example, so I’ll use an image of my own! (From this post)
The Lightroom sharpening tool has a very powerful option which can make all the difference between “good” sharpening and “bad” sharpening. I never used to use it until I watched a tutorial video which explained how it worked. Ever since then, I have used it on every one of my picures. Let me just give you a visual representation…
If you scroll through the attached images and watch the sliders, you can see what settings changed between screenshots. (The file-names might help you identify them also.) The ‘black-and-white’ one is the mask which basically lets you tell Lightroom which parts of the image to sharpen, and which parts to leave alone. The black parts will not be sharpened at all, and the white will be sharpened at the amount you specify. (I would recommend that you download and view them fullscreen so you can see the real details.)
To show the mask, hold down the ‘Alt’ key, (or Option key for a Mac) while moving the ‘Masking’ slider, so you can get a visual representation of what sharpening is happening.
Here’s a video tutorial that shows how all the Sharpening sliders in Lightroom work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_xVvTIJyvM (Make sure to select HD, so you can actually see what is happening in the tutorial)
To be honest, this video taught me too! I had forgotten that the ‘Radius’ and ‘Detail’ sliders could also be “previewed” with the ‘Alt’ key, I never mess with them, so I didn’t really worry about it. I guess I should study up on them and learn how to use them also!
Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to put attachments in any kind of order. Perhaps that could go on James’s “forum improvement” list? 🙂
I notice that the exif data shows 270mm at f/6.3, that’s not the Tamron 18-270mm is it? I’ve heard about it, but this is the first time I’ve seen some pictures taken with it.
Attachments:
It is the Tamron 18-270! I like it. It is a great generalist/walkaround lens, but doesn’t do anything incredibly well. It meets my needs. 🙂 I would recommend that anyone interested in one try the 16-300 by Tamron as well. IMHO, if you want an all-in-one, get the most range you can. I haven’t tried it yet, but would love to!
Yeah, I guess the 16-300 just came out, I would love to have it, the FLR (Focal Length Range) is amazing! But for now, my Pentax 18-135 Weather Sealed will work just fine!
Very nice. For some reason, even though the main part of the flower in focus is cropped, and the bee is facing out the edge, it’s still very appealing. Perhaps it’s the triangular shape that points to the right, counterbalancing the energy created by the bee looking to the left. There’s a lot of good contrasts here, in visual flow, shape, brightness values, and focus.
About focus, I’m assuming you added the blur effect in Photoshop? The mini-halos around many of the flower peddles indicates to me that there’s some processing going on. I would doubt your average viewer would pick up on this though.
Zooms are great, but here’s a good article that explains the reasons why I agree with @tjons that zoom lenses as dramatic as the 16-300mm “don’t do anything well”. 9 Things You Should Know About Using Prime Lenses There’s a lot at stake. Sharpness, distortion, lens flare, and chromatic abrasion are all important factors to me in a lens.
And @buddingphotographer I’ll look into a more organized way to attach pictures. 🙂
- This reply was modified 54 years, 11 months ago by .
@JamesStaddon, I would guess that the “mini-halos” that you mention are just one more thing that super-zooms don’t do well with. I don’t know for certain, but I’m guessing that’s just the best ‘bokeh’ you get in certain circumstances. Here’s an example that might show what I mean.
Tamron 18-270 Bokeh Example(Taken from this review of the lens….)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.