Still life

[Nina]

[quote=
1. The tulips were like that in real life, but Photoshop long ago dispensed with that sort of issue.
2. The non Bayer colour filter array on the sensor cannot cope with those particular hues.
3. The Photoshop CS3 Raw converter you are using was developed many years ago and has not been optimised for the Fuji X-Trans sensor, which requires different demosaicing algorithms.


Decades of research and investment of billions by the manufacturers amount to nought with those two little words. [/quote]

Oh well, as you probably know most of what you said goes totally over my head Mike!

All I know is that I am not happy with the result.

When you do have a moment perhaps you can illustrate the points you made by processing the image using the tools you have at your disposal.

[Mike Farley]

When you do have a moment perhaps you can illustrate the points you made by processing the image using the tools you have at your disposal.

I will do, but at present I am being overwhelmed with a backlog of my own work. Taking over 1,000 shots at Brands Hatch yesterday did not help, although I expect to bin most of those on the first pass when reviewing due to the subject either being out of focus or not complete within the frame.

In return, I would be interested to see your comments in response to David's question about some lenses being too sharp.

[Nina]

Why do you say it's too sharp?

Perhaps I don't know what I mean by that.

Clearly a lens can not be too sharp, but when it is set to a small aperture and the picture is sharp front to back, it doesn't always give me the result I am after, not even for landscape work. A bit of softness in the right places can be pleasing I think.

Not sure if that makes sense to you.

I hope Mike is happy with the above clarification and will now stop taking the Michael.

[davidb]

Why do you say it's too sharp?

I hope Mike is happy with the above clarification and will now stop taking the Michael.

No, Mike will want the last word

[davidc]

[Mike Farley]

No, Mike will want the last word

I am not sure that I know what you mean.

[davidc]

Uh huh...

[Mike Farley]

Why do you say it's too sharp?

Perhaps I don't know what I mean by that.

Clearly a lens can not be too sharp, but when it is set to a small aperture and the picture is sharp front to back, it doesn't always give me the result I am after, not even for landscape work. A bit of softness in the right places can be pleasing I think.

Not sure if that makes sense to you.

I hope Mike is happy with the above clarification and will now stop taking the Michael.

I totally agree that a lens cannot be too sharp, but sometimes that does not always suit the subject. Fortunately there are various ways to reduce sharpness, but no way to increase it.* Modern lenses can also sometimes be quite clinical in the way that they render, which is why some people prefer to use older lenses on occasion. Some "heritage" designs are actually increasing in value due to the ease which they can be used on mirrorless systems.

Like Nina, I do not always want extensive DOF, so I have a number of fast lenses which I can shoot at or near to maximum aperture when I need to. Most of my shots of the WWII re-enactment event at the Kent and East Sussex Railway earlier this month were taken with an Olympus m43 45 f/1.8 set to f/2 or f2.2, for example. The main reason was to blur the backgrounds, although there was still some occasional intrusion. That made me think that I might need the hugely expensive, but very capable, Panasonic 42.5 f/1.2 Noctitron. Yet another temptation to resist.

* With the possible exception of the Lytro light field cameras.

[davidc]

#lastword

[Mike Farley]

#lastword

You think?