9 replies to this topic

[Tony]

Admittedly I am in quandary with this photograph. I am aware that my Nikon D70 has issues with blown colors, thereby losing any detail. Also, there is what appears to be sharpening artifacts, which is odd because I use Photo Editor 10 which came with Windows 10, but does not have a sharpening tool. Perhaps artificial light, I do not know.
It is a very pretty flower, however I could use a few pointers. 

Many thanks,

Tony

Focal Length @70mm, no flash and used Pattern Metering.

 

Nikon D70 with AFNikkor 35~70mm non D Lens, ISO 200, 1/50s, F/4.5, Focal Length@70mm and used Pattern Metering.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[nbanjogal]

Wow--it almost looks like you used a painting filter on it. What post-processing did you do on it in Photo Editor? Is that pretty much straight out of camera?

 

It looks almost like old digital files--with really low resolution or something. I'm sure Peter will know what's going on, so I hope he will chime in here.

 

PS: Yes, it IS  a beautiful flower!

[Ron]

Yep, it looks like an over sharpened image that had a glamor glow filter applied.

 

It's not a bad looking image ... if that's what you had in mind when you took the photograph.

 

--Ron

[Merco_61]

How many times have you saved the .jpg? I suspect that the software applies sharpening for screen on every save without telling the user, which quickly stacks up so you get sharpening artifacts. Saving again and again with recompressing the .jpg will soon produce the posterizing seen in this example as well.

[Tony]

Wow--it almost looks like you used a painting filter on it. What post-processing did you do on it in Photo Editor? Is that pretty much straight out of camera?

 

It looks almost like old digital files--with really low resolution or something. I'm sure Peter will know what's going on, so I hope he will chime in here.

 

PS: Yes, it IS  a beautiful flower!

Would you believe I do not even know what a painting filter is?  True story.  The only post processing I did was to downsize the image, added some contrast, vignetting and diffused highlights.  The Nikon lens I used typically is much sharper than what appears here.  Thanks a bunch.  Tony

Yep, it looks like an over sharpened image that had a glamor glow filter applied.

 

It's not a bad looking image ... if that's what you had in mind when you took the photograph.

 

--Ron

 

Yep, it looks like an over sharpened image that had a glamor glow filter applied.

 

It's not a bad looking image ... if that's what you had in mind when you took the photograph.

 

--Ron

It is not at sharp at all.  In thinking back I wonder if perhaps I did not have the subject in proper focus.  This place has its flower gardens indoors, with glass ceilings with harsh sunlight coming through and artificial light.  The plot thickens. "))  Thanks Ron.  tony 

How many times have you saved the .jpg? I suspect that the software applies sharpening for screen on every save without telling the user, which quickly stacks up so you get sharpening artifacts. Saving again and again with recompressing the .jpg will soon produce the posterizing seen in this example as well.

I see what you are saying.  I am curious as to why the software would be programmed to apply sharpening on every save.  Or, is this a fluke that was a result of low quality control?  I have switched over to shooting in Raw and downloaded Nikon's software.  I am looking forward to getting some issues resolved and then moving ahead.  Many thanks Peter.

 

Tony

[Merco_61]

Photo Editor isn't made for extensive edits, the idea is that the user should open the file, do whatever is necessary and save as a new file name to preserve the original file untouched. With this approach, the bit-rot introduced by saving over previous saves and recompressing every time won't be a problem. The automatic sharpening is meant to give the user less to worry about and works well if all you want to do is some tweaks without editing much. The problem is that you want to use the software in a way the engineers in Redmond haven't planned for.

[Ron]

 

It is not at sharp at all.  In thinking back I wonder if perhaps I did not have the subject in proper focus.  This place has its flower gardens indoors, with glass ceilings with harsh sunlight coming through and artificial light.  The plot thickens. "))  Thanks Ron.  tony

 

Look at the edges. They are sharp to the point of being slightly aliased. Then look at the inside of the flower and leaves... see how soft the image is? That's the way glamor glow filters work. You can do the same thing in Lightroom by dialing in negative clarity and get the same effect.

 

Without knowing your workflow it's impossible to tell for sure. Next time perhaps you could try writing down each change you make to an image and then posting that "recipe" with the image. Before and after images would also help.

 

--Ron

[Tony]

Photo Editor isn't made for extensive edits, the idea is that the user should open the file, do whatever is necessary and save as a new file name to preserve the original file untouched. With this approach, the bit-rot introduced by saving over previous saves and recompressing every time won't be a problem. The automatic sharpening is meant to give the user less to worry about and works well if all you want to do is some tweaks without editing much. The problem is that you want to use the software in a way the engineers in Redmond haven't planned for.

Well your comment now opens up a curious issue.  In Photo Editor 10, when I go to click on Save, it will not allow me to save the image.  Instead, it tells me I am not authorized to save the file, and please click on "Save a Copy."  I later discovered that what happens when I click on "Save a Copy" it actually creates another copy.  Is this possibly a way of preventing me from over saving my images and then thereby avoiding damage to the image?

 

Thnx,

 

Tony

[TBonz]

Perhaps you have the image saved as read only...or the folder you have them stored in...or you don't have write access to the folder...I've never used the most recent version so perhaps there is a setting that prevents over-writing of images...But, a setting or protection on the file / folder are about the only ways Windows won't let you over-write...

[Brian]

Are you shooting the original in .NEF or in Jpeg? If the latter- check the jpeg shooting setup, make sure it's not compressing too much. Same with the photo-editor, looks like some sort of "save for Web" compression scheme.

 

Can you upload the original to Dropbox or some other site that allows access to the original out-of-camera image?