Author Topic: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska  (Read 2162 times)

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2017, 02:31:34 »
Here is the image at a larger file size. I also changed the radius for sharpening to 1.2. Your thoughts?

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2017, 02:47:32 »
Same thing with the blue saturation reduced to 24 from 42.

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2017, 03:00:00 »
This is with blue saturation set at 12.

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2017, 03:54:49 »
After reading my new reference's section on sharpening, I was able to adjust for further sharpness and also made a further downward adjustment in the blue saturation, I was able to obtain this image with which I am much more satisfied:

beryllium10

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 269
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2017, 07:23:14 »
Too many versions now for me to be able to compare at once, but this final one, post #18, looks close to me also.  Light scattered from ice and snow is inherently enriched in the blue end of the spectrum, and cameras I've used seem to reproduce this faithfully.  However, my eyes/brain compensate for this to some degree, and blue-tinted snow and ice in photos often looks wrong to me. More so if under-exposed, which is easy to do when photographing bright snow.  In this final version the sunlit snow on the distant mountain, and in the upper right corner, looks crisply white, which is what I'd aim for.  A good trick when trying to decide the white balance for scenes like this is to equalize the R and B channels at the right hand (bright) end of the histogram.  Assuming the snow is the brightest part of the image, this will make it white.  After doing this, snow in shadowed areas often retains a blue tint, and may even appear to glow blue.  There's a bit of this in the top left of your photo, where snow crosses the very dark band of rock.  I sometimes select and desaturate these areas a bit to make the "glow" less prominent - not sure if/how this can be done in Lightroom (I use Photoshop). A final thought on this image - I would try to lighten the very deep shadows slightly.  I like to be able to see into the shadows a bit.  Others may disagree, perhaps strongly, it's just a personal preference.

Cheers, John

Jakov Minić

  • Jakov Minic
  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5341
  • The Hague, The Netherlands
    • Jakov Minić
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2017, 15:29:05 »
Did you play with the blacks?
The amount of blue on the snow in the shadows on the left hand side is unnatural to me.
Free your mind and your ass will follow. - George Clinton
Before I jump like monkey give me banana. - Fela Kuti
Confidence is what you have before you understand the problem. - Woody Allen

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2017, 19:55:53 »
Did you play with the blacks?
The amount of blue on the snow in the shadows on the left hand side is unnatural to me.
In the final image, blue saturation is set at +6. It was +42 in the first image I posted.  So there is a little "playing" going on, but not much compared to the first image. Do you find it objectionable? When I was watching the face of the glacier, the light and color was ever changing and that particular shade of blue was often in evidence. So, I think it is within the range of what is possible, although it was not present at the instant I took the photograph.

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2017, 20:29:05 »
John- Thank you for your comment. The shadows were opened up to +93 in the last image I posted. I've since opened them up to 100 (as far as the slider goes). I can't really see a difference, but perhaps others will. Thanks for your suggestion. As to the red blue balance in the histogram, not sure how to do that in Lightroom. If you have a free moment please explain how to go about it. Seems like it would be a useful trick to have available.
Thanks,
AD

Jack Dahlgren

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Calving an Iceberg, Glacier Bay Alaska
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2017, 01:33:04 »
Thank you MFloyd for your criticism. The NEF appears to be sharp to my eye. The image was shot using my D500 with 28-105mm f/3.5- 4.5 lens at 28mm. Exposure was 1/800 sec @f/14 and ISO was 100.  Bjorn says the lens should be good up to f/16, but perhaps that data applies more to earlier cameras? In any event, in Lightroom I set sharpening to 72 and noise reduction to 40. I did not adjust the radius at all. I would appreciate any guidance which you, or any of the others on the forum, might offer as to how to go about adjusting for maximum sharpness. It has been a common criticism of my images posted on the forum that they are "not sharp," so obviously I am missing something. Any guidance , suggestions or tips as to how to adjust for maximum sharpness would be appreciated.
Another thought, since I have been using Lightroom, I have been posting at 72 ppi based on a suggestion I saw on YouTube. Should I be using a higher resolution?

For sharpness, you might find that the lens is sharper at f/8 than f/14 and since the subject is effectively at infinity, you should not have to worry much about depth of field. Test it out with a distant subject and see at which settings the lens performs best.

Ppi should not make a difference in sharpness unless you are printing. Most browsers use display settings on the device.

Are you using a tripod or anything to steady your camera? It will help.