Mother Nature's Graphic Arts : a personal project

K

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,285
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
•


As I was always eager to increase the reach
of my gear (now up to 840mm / D800E) for so
many years, I happened to realize that having
a closer look is cool but not enough.

The next step could be to have a look closer at
the subject using the same gear reach. So I got
started at aiming these 600+ mm at much nearer
targets and was seduced by what I discovered.

In this thread, I will explore the unexpected ways
Mother Nature expresses her talents through some
quite exquisite graphic art forms. Here we go.


B3218%20XDpp.jpg


B3338%20XDpp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi Kodiak,

The 1st white feather is lovely, the water looks so smooth. Great idea for a project!
 
I got a lot of pleasure from viewing this set, just as much from the concept through to the execution.
 
Great idea Daniel and I really like the photos, but as is often the case with your photos, they never seem to look sharp :confused: Am I missing something? Do you need new glasses? ;)

Given the gear you're using and the distances, they should always be as sharp as sharp can be.
 
htid said:
…as is often the case with your photos, they never seem to look sharp :confused: Am I missing something? Do you need new glasses?
Click to expand...
•

In this country, because of the classes of my driver's licence,
I have to have my eyes, among others, checked by one of the
listed optometrists every second year.

I just renewed my licence with an eye examination of 20/20 and
the sweet compliment that I have very nice green eyes.

TBH, I don't know what you are missing, Chris and I don't need
glasses to shoot!

I would not publish a flawed picture… not intentionally anyways.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

In this country, because of the classes of my driver's licence,
I have to have my eyes, among others, checked by one of the
listed optometrists every second year.

I just renewed my licence with an eye examination of 20/20 and
the sweet compliment that I have very nice green eyes.

TBH, I don't know what you are missing, Chris and I don't need
glasses to shoot!

I would not publish a flawed picture… not intentionally anyways.
Click to expand...

No offence meant, sorry if it sounded like that. But there's no denying that as far as I can remember, every photo you've posted (at least in the birds section) has been slightly soft. With just about the sharpest lens in Nikons lineup, with a high MP body at relatively close range, there's no reason they shouldn't be pin sharp. The only reason I can see is that it may be the website compression since you embed them here at very low size rather than have them hosted from Flickr.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

In this country, because of the classes of my driver's licence,
I have to have my eyes, among others, checked by one of the
listed optometrists every second year.

I just renewed my licence with an eye examination of 20/20 and
the sweet compliment that I have very nice green eyes.

TBH, I don't know what you are missing, Chris and I don't need
glasses to shoot!

I would not publish a flawed picture… not intentionally anyways.
Click to expand...

htid said:
No offence meant, sorry if it sounded like that. But there's no denying that as far as I can remember, every photo you've posted (at least in the birds section) has been slightly soft. With just about the sharpest lens in Nikons lineup, with a high MP body at relatively close range, there's no reason they shouldn't be pin sharp. The only reason I can see is that it may be the website compression since you embed them here at very low size rather than have them hosted from Flickr.
Click to expand...

Chris, these photos look sharp to me on my Monitor. I have noticed you mentioning this a few times over the last few weeks on photos in this section (nature) and sometimes IIRC you have mentioned you view on your phone. Is this the case for these?

Sometimes we can get obsessed with sharpness and with these, as they are meant to be an Artistic approach I feel that sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a photo. Am I right there Daniel with your intentions?
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Chris, these photos look sharp to me on my Monitor. I have noticed you mentioning this a few times over the last few weeks on photos in this section (nature) and sometimes IIRC you have mentioned you view on your phone. Is this the case for these?

Sometimes we can get obsessed with sharpness and with these, as they are meant to be an Artistic approach I feel that sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a photo. Am I right there Daniel with your intentions?
Click to expand...

Nah I'm viewing on a good monitor. Maybe our definitions of sharp are different but if you look at what Dennis gets (with I believe the same lens as Daniel's), this is what I'd class as sharp (view on Flickr to see how sharp it is):

Lo March (1 of 1)-2 by dennis greenwood, on Flickr

If you look at the first feather of Daniel's, it's nowhere near the same level of sharpness. If Daniel doesn't care, that's fair enough. If sharpness is a limitation of the lens, I'm totally fine with that because you can only work with what you can afford, but Daniel has the creme of the crop with regards to lens so if he's not getting it as sharp as Dennis' shots, then either his technique needs working on, his body/lens needs calibration or it's just the compression of TP.

Maybe I am obssesed with sharpness though. To me, it's what differs a good photo from an excellent photo and if it's not as sharp as Dennis's (there are many others on here who also produce amazingly sharp images) then it can never be excellent imo. It's just my opinion though.
 
I agree with @htid none are sharp but web compression may be the issue as there is detail in the first shot birds eye.

The 1st feather shot has a film feel to it though not sharp it certainly the best composition of the 2 of that type. it has lovely tones too.

In fact the first 3 look like phone shots and the detail you expect from those.

The second feather shot has more sharpness but wonder if you have exported it differently from the others to suit web??
 
htid said:
Nah I'm viewing on a good monitor. Maybe our definitions of sharp are different but if you look at what Dennis gets (with I believe the same lens as Daniel's), this is what I'd class as sharp (view on Flickr to see how sharp it is):

Lo March (1 of 1)-2 by dennis greenwood, on Flickr

If you look at the first feather of Daniel's, it's nowhere near the same level of sharpness. If Daniel doesn't care, that's fair enough. If sharpness is a limitation of the lens, I'm totally fine with that because you can only work with what you can afford, but Daniel has the creme of the crop with regards to lens so if he's not getting it as sharp as Dennis' shots, then either his technique needs working on, his body/lens needs calibration or it's just the compression of TP.

Maybe I am obssesed with sharpness though. To me, it's what differs a good photo from an excellent photo and if it's not as sharp as Dennis's (there are many others on here who also produce amazingly sharp images) then it can never be excellent imo. It's just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

I think Daniel uses Nikon and Dennis Canon. I think you have missed the point about Artistic merit, providing I'm reading Daniels intentions correctly.

Dennis does produce some wonderful images, but if you look at the photo you posted the eye's are razor sharp due to the contrast, as expected with a Owl, in a brighter, different lighting situation. But.........when you look closer there's a lot of noise and very little fine feather detail.

I don't want to derail his thread anymore, so we have different opinions and were both fine with that.(y)
 
htid said:
every photo you've posted (at least in the birds section) has been slightly soft.
Click to expand...
Swanseajack said:
…these photos look sharp to me on my Monitor…
Click to expand...
Good to read Jack! As good it was to read similar observations
from PM's, emails and some live conversations on Skype (that
went until 02:00) all expressing their appreciations on sharpness.
Swanseajack said:
Am I right there Daniel with your intentions?
Click to expand...
What ever the final rendition will be, prior to SR, I will always shoot
to publish, i.e. best quality and resolution as any artistic intent may
be applied later in PP.

In this thread, Jack, noting has changed or will, as I don't even claim
the right to interpret Mother Nature's ART. My only artistic intent is to
capture hers as @markblake said: "with an eye for it" and render her
Art in the strict way it was seen!

In the beginning, here on TP, I used to post with watermarks and,
since some expressed their preference for none, I do not publish
at 108 ppi but at 72 ppi this may be a reason for Chris's and Bryn's
comments!

Thanks for commenting too, Jack!
———————————————

I have never used extra sharpening in my workflow nor any other
tweak to render my work but the normal optimal read of the recor-
ded data and WB. The only tweaks I use are those that will render
"mineral" recorded data in a more "organic" pleasureable experience.
 
Good thread to start Daniel, encourage other to post their artistic impressions ....... make it Communal maybe ...... that usually keeps the thread "alive"

I'm not much of an "artist" but I'll try to find a shot

Edit: just noticed from the title that it is a personal project
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
Good to read Jack! As good it was to read similar observations
from PM's, emails and some live conversations on Skype (that
went until 02:00) all expressing their appreciations on sharpness.

What ever the final rendition will be, prior to SR, I will always shoot
to publish, i.e. best quality and resolution as any artistic intent may
be applied later in PP.

In the beginning, here on TP, I used to post with watermarks and,
since some expressed their preference for none, I do not publish
at 108 ppi but at 72 ppi this may be a reason for Chris's and Bryn's
comments!
Click to expand...

Swanseajack said:
Chris, these photos look sharp to me on my Monitor. I have noticed you mentioning this a few times over the last few weeks on photos in this section (nature) and sometimes IIRC you have mentioned you view on your phone. Is this the case for these?

Sometimes we can get obsessed with sharpness and with these, as they are meant to be an Artistic approach I feel that sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a photo. Am I right there Daniel with your intentions?
Click to expand...

I've just realised something that could explain my constant comments on sharpness. My monitor is 2560 x 1440. I was just going to try and prove that the feather photo wasn't sharp and saved it to take into photoshop. I noticed it looked sharp there! I compared and have noticed that the original shot (when I save it) is 1100px wide. I then took a screenshot of the image and took that into photoshop and lo and behold, it's 1376px wide! Firefox is set at 100% scaling, so clearly the browser is upscaling the images and making them look soft! I've never in all these years realised that and it definitely be causing the problem. Anybody else ever noticed this?

*edit* this is how the image shows within the browser on my screen..this is embedded at original size (assuming this displays correctly on everybody else's monitors):

Soft Feather by Chris Cotton, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
•

…more on the theme:


B3266%20XDpp.jpg



B3253%20XDpp.jpg

​
 
htid said:
*edit* this is how the image shows within the browser on my screen
Click to expand...

Horrible! …how could any picture look sharp in these
conditions …and I do not mean only ALL mine?
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Horrible! …how could any picture look sharp in these
conditions …and I do not mean only ALL mine?
Click to expand...

Well most of the time people host on flickr and I view on there. Yours always seem to be embedded into this site, which I guess causes them to display differently. I apologise for criticising your image sharpness, it's clearly an issue with either my browser or the TP website. I'll have to do some testing! Sorry to derail your thread :)

*edit* Actually what the heck is going on? When I did a screenshot of your photo, it was 1376px. I uploaded it to Flickr at that size, I embedded 'original size' and yet when I then take a screenshot of the image I uploaded and take it into PS, it's 1769px!! So it's gone from 1100 to 1769 just by the browser resizing.
 
Last edited:
htid said:
people host on flickr and …
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't "social media" my work!
htid said:
Yours always seem to be embedded into this site,
Click to expand...
My work is hosted on my website and I imbed the liked here.

On my screen, I can enjoy everyone's contributions.
 
It sounds like your browser is upscaling to cope with your (retina?) monitor as you suspected.
 
•

another go!


B3180%20XDpp.jpg
 
I have trouble understanding why the posts of one individual (Kodiak) are claimed to look soft and the others shown by htid for comparison look tack sharp on the same monitor, just asking.;)
 
Richard C. Jones said:
I have trouble understanding why the posts of one individual (Kodiak) are claimed to look soft and the others shown by htid for comparison look tack sharp on the same monitor, just asking.;)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Daniel's (Kodiak's) photos are soft or not? I've realised the issue, I have WIndows 7 set to 125% view because I'm on a high resolution monitor. This made the photos larger too. I changed a setting in Firefox and now it displays images at their correct size.
 
htid said:
Are you saying that Daniel's (Kodiak's) photos are soft or not? I've realised the issue, I have WIndows 7 set to 125% view because I'm on a high resolution monitor. This made the photos larger too. I changed a setting in Firefox and now it displays images at their correct size.
Click to expand...
I came back to TP to close out my membership as this is not for me. I will not be continuing to watch or post,
 
•

…one from the afternoon…

C2933%20EDpp.jpg
 
•

This shot illustrates a human made environment
in a natural valley, where the slopes are occupied
by vineyards belonging to different wine growers.

Interesting here is the lines composition and, most
intriguing, the "sharp unsharpness" fell to it. Windy
conditions made all the leaves blur a bit as things
more rigid stayed immobile and so tack sharp.

Weinstrasse%2035%20SDpp.jpg
​

 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

This shot illustrates a human made environment
in a natural valley, where the slopes are occupied
by vineyards belonging to different wine growers.

Interesting here is the lines composition and, most
intriguing, the "sharp unsharpness" fell to it. Windy
conditions made all the leaves blur a bit as things
more rigid stayed immobile and so tack sharp.

Weinstrasse%2035%20SDpp.jpg
​
Click to expand...

Love this one Daniel...
 
If you still welcome my comments, that's a great one! I thought it was a peacock's feather until I read what you'd said. I tried a similar thing in the tea plantations when I was in India, but I didn't have a wide enough angle lens to get anything worth keeping.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

This shot illustrates a human made environment
in a natural valley, where the slopes are occupied
by vineyards belonging to different wine growers.

Interesting here is the lines composition and, most
intriguing, the "sharp unsharpness" fell to it. Windy
conditions made all the leaves blur a bit as things
more rigid stayed immobile and so tack sharp.

Weinstrasse%2035%20SDpp.jpg
​
Click to expand...
Yep agree with Bryn, this one is excellent.... and looks sharp ;)

Note on sharpness...
It's just an upscaling problem imo which is a shame, but doesn't really matter as this thread is more about an artistic vision.
 
Neil Burnell said:
but doesn't really matter as this thread is more about an artistic vision.
Click to expand...
•


Do you mean, Neil, that the shots are not showing
as sharp as they should?
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
•


Do you mean, Neil, that the shot sare not showing
as sharp as they should?
Click to expand...
Sorry yes, they aren't quite as sharp on my monitor as people who use flickr to post. Does not matter though, but would be good if you could find out why this is the case.

The shots are great as I said.
 
Last edited:
Neil Burnell said:
Sorry yes, they aren't quite as sharp on my monitor as people who use flickr to post. Does not matter though, but would be good if you could find out why this is the case.

The shots are great as I said.
Click to expand...

It's been known for a long time that images hosted here are a lot less sharp than flickr but I don't think anybody has ever discovered why :confused:
 
Love the latest one, it's great looking at patterns from a wider perspective as opposed to zooming in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top