Nemesia

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Some of the plants in our garden seem to be getting a bit confused by the unseasonable weather. Several still have/already have just one or a very few flowers. These were the only two flowers on a Nemesia a few days ago.

They were a bit difficult to photograph because of the breeze, and I also couldn't get both of the flowers in focus while simultaneously getting the background to look like I preferred. However, while doing PP it turned out that I had two images I could combine.

The images were captured with an FZ200 bridge camera at 1/100 sec, f/5.6 (equivalent to about f/16 on a crop camera in terms of dof and loss of detail from diffraction), using ISO 200 (which in this case was rather noisy, so having combined the two images I then used a two-layer approach to selectively reduce noise in the background).

(for an 1100 pixel high version click on the image then right click and select "Original")


0518 01 2014_01_19 P1160971Edit+8Edit PS1 2LNR CrExPSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Thanks Mandy, especially for the useful feedback (which is difficult to come by).

You are right of course about the softness, but unfortunately that's the best I could manage. I'm not sure what I could have done to improve the captures (because of the interactions between subject movement in the breeze, dof issues, noisy sensor, and shutter speed - the camera was on a tripod and I used a remote release btw). As for the PP I gave it rather more sharpening than I usually give flowers - an amount that I normally use only for (some) invertebrates. I'd be happy to discuss any thoughts/suggestions for improvement in either capture technique or processing. I can make the original RAW images available if you would like to have a go at them.
 
Pinkbikerbabe said:
they are a little on the soft side.
Click to expand...

Ah, there is a complication, at least on my PC.

At the moment I process my images for best viewing unresized at 1100 pixels high - that is the size I post to Flickr, and in my posts I write "(for an 1100 pixel high version click on the image then right click and select "Original") "

However, I just did that for this image, using Firefox as my browser. It turns out that the image I see in Firefox is not 1100 pixels high, it is 1200 pixels high, and it looks softer compared to the image seen at 1100 pixels high. Here is a comparison of the sizes, with a screen capture on the left of the image as shown "full size" from Flickr in Firefox (1200 pixels high), and on the right the image viewed directly off my PC (1100 pixels high).

You can compare the versions at "full size" by clicking on this image and then right clicking and selecting "Original". However there doesn't appear to be much difference in sharpness, but because of Flickr's resizing (again!) what we are now looking at is the 1200 pixel high screen capture now displayed 1300 pixels high and the 1100 pixel high original now displayed 1200 pixels high, so the de-sharpening effect of resizing has been applied to both versions (twice on the screen capture).


0518 01 compare screen grab with posted version by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

If you are using Firefox I think a better comparison would be to download the 1100 pixel high version - that looks as I would expect it to on my PC. Then use an image viewer, PP program or some such to compare that downloaded version with a screen capture of what you see from Flickr.

But, when I look at the "Original" from Flickr in Internet Explorer, it is as it should be, 1100 pixels high. Here is a comparison of screen captures from Internet Explorer, on the left, and Firefox, on the right, both displaying an "Original" size (1100 pixel high) version of another image which makes it easier to see differences in sharpness and microcontrast.


0518 53 compare IE and Firefox screen capture of Flickr Original size by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

So what you see depends on which browser you are using. Grrrrrrr! Why does this stuff have to be so complicated!!!
 
GardenersHelper said:
Ah, there is a complication, at least on my PC.

At the moment I process my images for best viewing unresized at 1100 pixels high - that is the size I post to Flickr, and in my posts I write "(for an 1100 pixel high version click on the image then right click and select "Original") "

However, I just did that for this image, using Firefox as my browser. It turns out that the image I see in Firefox is not 1100 pixels high, it is 1200 pixels high, and it looks softer compared to the image seen at 1100 pixels high. Here is a comparison of the sizes, with a screen capture on the left of the image as shown "full size" from Flickr in Firefox (1200 pixels high), and on the right the image viewed directly off my PC (1100 pixels high).

You can compare the versions at "full size" by clicking on this image and then right clicking and selecting "Original". However there doesn't appear to be much difference in sharpness, but because of Flickr's resizing (again!) what we are now looking at is the 1200 pixel high screen capture now displayed 1300 pixels high and the 1100 pixel high original now displayed 1200 pixels high, so the de-sharpening effect of resizing has been applied to both versions (twice on the screen capture).


0518 01 compare screen grab with posted version by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

If you are using Firefox I think a better comparison would be to download the 1100 pixel high version - that looks as I would expect it to on my PC. Then use an image viewer, PP program or some such to compare that downloaded version with a screen capture of what you see from Flickr.

But, when I look at the "Original" from Flickr in Internet Explorer, it is as it should be, 1100 pixels high. Here is a comparison of screen captures from Internet Explorer, on the left, and Firefox, on the right, both displaying an "Original" size (1100 pixel high) version of another image which makes it easier to see differences in sharpness and microcontrast.


0518 53 compare IE and Firefox screen capture of Flickr Original size by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

So what you see depends on which browser you are using. Grrrrrrr! Why does this stuff have to be so complicated!!!
Click to expand...

If you want to email the raw files over to me address is on my profile I will have a look at them for you, and see if I can give them a better feel
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Good. Chrome displays it the correct size.

The RAW files are at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/30oxd3e84tp65o0/KS_59zrtFM

I'll be interested to see what you make of them. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hows this for and edit done in LR 5


P1160971 by pinkbikerbabe 1, on Flickr

Here is a screen shot of the settings i have put in, i have also individually tweaked the colours of the flowers as on your image they look very pale which is why i feel they look soft. I hope you like my edit my skills are not fantastic but i do hope it makes your image look better.


Screenshot 2014-02-02 02.31.07 by pinkbikerbabe 1, on Flickr

This image shows the colour tweaks


Screenshot 2014-02-02 02.37.11 by pinkbikerbabe 1, on Flickr
 
Thanks for taking the time on this Mandy. I think it is an interesting take on the subject and you have given me pause to reflect on your and my versions and some wider issues.

The flowers are a very pale, delicate lilac in colour with a washed out, almost greyish look to them. They have very much less blue in them than in your version. My wife tells me that most Nemisia have much stronger colours, which may one reason be why these strike you as needing a colour boost. Apparently these self-seeded four years ago and have progressively lost colour since then, to the point that she is now thinking of getting rid of them and starting again.

I am interested in your perception that the flowers look soft because they are very pale. I think of softness as lack of micro-detail and edge sharpness, and not related to colour. In that sense, in your version I see the middle and left hand flowers on the left-hand stem as soft, the spikey bits behind those flowers as sharper, the flowers on the right hand stem as sharper and the spikey bits behind them as softer. Something like this was I think inevitable as you used only one of the images. The difference in sharpness/softness in the flowers on the two stems in the two images is of course why I combined the images, to avoid one or other of the heads of flowers looking much softer than the other in the sense I'm using the term.

I think what you have done is to ramp up the overall visual impact of the image by giving much more colour "substance" to the flowers. I that sense your version is indeed less soft, stronger, more contrasty, punchier. I think we get into a taste issue here - my images are often rather low key in terms of colour and contrast, and make more of the, sometimes quite subtle, play of light. I believe a higher contrast, punchier approach is much the more popular.

To my eye the background is rather dark in your version, losing the light and airy feel of the scene as it was in the overcast but moderately bright light when the images were captured. Again, that is a matter of taste/preference I think. In your version the combination of dark and relatively featureless background and stronger colours in the subject make the flowers stand out stronger against the background as compared to my version where the subject and background are more evenly matched in intensity of colour and brightness.

I think my version is much more like the scene actually appeared, but in this context (photograph as appealing image rather than photograph as record) I'm not sure that matters particularly. So more relevantly perhaps, which is the more appealing image? I think that is a matter of taste/preference.* I can enjoy looking at both, but I understand that others may have a rather stronger preference for one or the other. :)

*There is, possibly, a related issue. It is possible that screens and viewing conditions may make more of a difference for one type of image than another. I suspect that images like yours with stronger colours and contrasts may retain their impact better on a wide variety of screens and ambient lighting. Images whose interest depends on more subtle variations in light and colour may look decidedly better on screens which are capable of rendering the whole of the target colour space (sRGB in this case) and calibrated so as to render it correctly, and viewed in subdued lighting to allow subtle variations of light and colour to be perceived.

Very interesting. Thanks again Mandy.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks for taking the time on this Mandy. I think it is an interesting take on the subject and you have given me pause to reflect on your and my versions and some wider issues.

The flowers are a very pale, delicate lilac in colour with a washed out, almost greyish look to them. They have very much less blue in them than in your version. My wife tells me that most Nemisia have much stronger colours, which may one reason be why these strike you as needing a colour boost. Apparently these self-seeded four years ago and have progressively lost colour since then, to the point that she is now thinking of getting rid of them and starting again.

I am interested in your perception that the flowers look soft because they are very pale. I think of softness as lack of micro-detail and edge sharpness, and not related to colour. In that sense, in your version I see the middle and left hand flowers on the left-hand stem as soft, the spikey bits behind those flowers as sharper, the flowers on the right hand stem as sharper and the spikey bits behind them as softer. Something like this was I think inevitable as you used only one of the images. The difference in sharpness/softness in the flowers on the two stems in the two images is of course why I combined the images, to avoid one or other of the heads of flowers looking much softer than the other in the sense I'm using the term.

I think what you have done is to ramp up the overall visual impact of the image by giving much more colour "substance" to the flowers. I that sense your version is indeed less soft, stronger, more contrasty, punchier. I think we get into a taste issue here - my images are often rather low key in terms of colour and contrast, and make more of the, sometimes quite subtle, play of light. I believe a higher contrast, punchier approach is much the more popular.

To my eye the background is rather dark in your version, losing the light and airy feel of the scene as it was in the overcast but moderately bright light when the images were captured. Again, that is a matter of taste/preference I think. In your version the combination of dark and relatively featureless background and stronger colours in the subject make the flowers stand out stronger against the background as compared to my version where the subject and background are more evenly matched in intensity of colour and brightness.

I think my version is much more like the scene actually appeared, but in this context (photograph as appealing image rather than photograph as record) I'm not sure that matters particularly. So more relevantly perhaps, which is the more appealing image? I think that is a matter of taste/preference.* I can enjoy looking at both, but I understand that others may have a rather stronger preference for one or the other. :)

*There is, possibly, a related issue. It is possible that screens and viewing conditions may make more of a difference for one type of image than another. I suspect that images like yours with stronger colours and contrasts may retain their impact better on a wide variety of screens and ambient lighting. Images whose interest depends on more subtle variations in light and colour may look decidedly better on screens which are capable of rendering the whole of the target colour space (sRGB in this case) and calibrated so as to render it correctly, and viewed in subdued lighting to allow subtle variations of light and colour to be perceived.

Very interesting. Thanks again Mandy.
Click to expand...

You have some interesting views, I forgot to mention my monitor is calibrated. And I also looked on google, and the flowers do seem to have a bit more colour in them. I picked one image as I was feeling tired by the time I did the first image, and yes you are correct some people may like both images others may like one or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top