Tiny Flower Post Processed - 2 Choices - Which Do You Prefer?

Which rendition do you prefer?

  • 1

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • 2

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • Total voters
    8
THIRTYFIVEMILL

THIRTYFIVEMILL

Messages
4,645
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
No


I did this before but offered 4 choices with very subtle differences. Here I'm offering two quite different options and here's why: I’m currently working on my post processing and trying to establish my own “signature” PP using Photoshop, Iridient Developer, Zerene Stacker and a few others along with various plugin PS software. With regard to small things such as tiny flowers, insects etc.. my personal preference is generally for a searingly sharp final image. I want to see as much detail as possible! However, for the mass population viewing the images, probably only a small percentage have my exact same tastes. Many, instead, prefer the images to be as natural as possible, showing something near to what the eye sees. Others prefer a soft-focus approach giving a more “dreamy” rendition. There’s no right or wrong here, it’s all personal taste and at the end of the day, whatever the photographer intended is how the final image should look. Above and below are two images “developed” almost identically but the first one has been deliberately rendered “soft” as a final edit using Topaz Soft Focus 1. The question is: which do you prefer?



I'm normally not too worried about what people think of my PP style but the reason I'm asking is that our local church have asked me to display (on large canvas) some of my work in their coffee shop and those canvasses will be for sale in order to raise money for various good and local causes. As such, I'm trying to gauge an idea of what final processing appeals to the masses.
 
First one got my vote Dunc. As you have said it;s all down to personal taste and for me the second looks over sharpened.

Funny thing is though that if I had managed to take such a good shot in the first place I would probably over sharpen it myself after spending the best part of an hour in LR/PS.
 
Barrysprout said:
First one got my vote Dunc. As you have said it;s all down to personal taste and for me the second looks over sharpened.

Funny thing is though that if I had managed to take such a good shot in the first place I would probably over sharpen it myself after spending the best part of an hour in LR/PS.
Click to expand...

LOL! Think that's where I'm at, too. :D
 
If you want to know what appeals to the masses then bung these on Facebook, because popular taste will be different compared to a bunch of careful toggers.

I like aspects of both equally, but neither quite does it for me. The greater contrast and depth of colour looks good in 2, but the smooth tonality and lesser fringing looks better in 1.
 
ancient_mariner said:
If you want to know what appeals to the masses then bung these on Facebook, because popular taste will be different compared to a bunch of careful toggers.

I like aspects of both equally, but neither quite does it for me. The greater contrast and depth of colour looks good in 2, but the smooth tonality and lesser fringing looks better in 1.
Click to expand...

Yep, same for me. This one needed a stack but I didn't get the shots I required before the plant began to wither so shot it quickly at f/16.
 
I prefer number two. My taste also is for crisp, sharp images with lots of detail but I also think I can be a bit heavy handed when sharpening.

Having looked at it again I can see what looks like an extra border around the edges. Is this the fringing that Toni is talking about?
 
sarah_mnstr said:
I prefer number two. My taste also is for crisp, sharp images with lots of detail but I also think I can be a bit heavy handed when sharpening.

Having looked at it again I can see what looks like an extra border around the edges. Is this the fringing that Toni is talking about?
Click to expand...

Thanks Sarah. I think that maybe CA which this lens can exhibit at this aperture. It's difficult to tell, I find, as some of these little flowers do have a slightly different colour along the edges of the petals.. I think.. :D
 
Last edited:
sarah_mnstr said:
Ahhh ok. Wasn't sure if that was something that had occurred during the sharpening process :)
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure, TBH. Because I can really only see this level of detail when photographed at nearly 2:1 it's tough to know whether the colouration along the edge is actually present on the petals or whether it's introduced during PP. That flower was only about 10mm across.
 
I prefer the second one.

The stamen looks rather undifferentiated in both to my eye. You may find that flowers respond better to microcontrast enhancement, clarity and suchlike than edge sharpening. Here is an illustrative comparison. (There is posterisation in the background because this is a GIF image which can only use 256 colours.) This is not in any way a recommendation for how I think it should look. I have used an unsubtle rendering to illustrate the sort of difference things like microcontrast enhancement can make to an image. How far to take it is obviously a matter of personal taste.


NOT MY IMAGE - WingTsun small flower - GH batch DXO+LR noadjust by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

That used a "one size fits all" batch process (using DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom) that I use to "pre-process" my invertebrate images. I often don't use it for flowers as it can take them too far for my taste.

Here is another version (this one not animated, so using more colours and avoiding the posterisation) which used a single, simple "defogging"/"microcontrast enhancement" operation - Unsharp mask with a small amount, a large radius and zero Threshold. On line you may see the values Amount 20%, Radius 60 pixels, Threshold 0 quoted most often. However, the Amount and Radius can be adjusted to taste. This used Amount 40% and Radius 50 pixels but I find it best to experiment on an image by image basis.


NOT MY IMAGE - WingTsun small flower defogged 40,50,0 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top