Autumn colours

Here's a pic Neal snapped, with his fancy SLR, last week, slightly
tweaked by Howard
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nealchampion/5096004775/sizes/o/in/photostream/
And here's one from my crappy (or not, as the case may be) little
Lumix FT1, cropped to the same scene, with my inexpert hands adding a
very basic edit
http://acenet.ifrance.com/Alsace autumn 2010/p1000848c.jpg

I've often wondered how much better digi SLRs really were...

 

Oops! Google Chrome could not find acenet.ifrance.com

 

At least your picture hasn't blown out all the whites on the rocks.

 

It's slow (and free) so try again.

 

tweaked - needs a grad to improve the background but ICBA
http://www.zen202900.zen.co.uk/pics/p1000848c.jpg

 

Are you suggesting that the photo from your Lumix is "better" than the
one from Champs SLR?

 

I what now?

You just upped the colours, or what?

 

Is that the one you took just before leaping in the air shouting "ow
**** ow ow that's an electric fence"?

 

I'd darken the background with a graduated filter to make it more distant

Mostly, I only used Picassa to up the saturation, make the peak whites
and the greys a little brighter

 

My Google Chrome did!

 

Done.... and used some of the new CS6 beta plugin's for some startling
effects as well.

http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/8909044/1/Ooops?h=d0e7d5

 

Found it!

 

IMHO on that showing, 'lots' but I suspect YMV.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Don't look blown here, but wibble flip.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

It's at least a week since we've seen the shark.

 

That one has far more detail, and is generally better exposed apart from
the blown whites. It also has a bit too much sharpening applied (IMHO).

I wonder what format it was shot in, if it was Raw, then it could be
improved a lot in Raw processing I would suspect. A bit of levels or
curves adjustment could turn that into a really stunning shot.

One of the tricks I use with my DSLR with tricky shots is to set the
compensation to -0.3ev. That usually retains the detail in the whites,
and the DSLR will often have enough dynamic range to get the shadow and
highlight detail back.

I use Apple Aperture, and that has a brilliant highlight recovery
adjuster, which along with the black point setting, give you a good base
exposure setting before embarking on the rest of the adjustments.

Not bad. You can see the difference, the trees are a bit underexposed,
the cliffs have retained detail, but you can see the lower level of
detail though, which would be expected with the difference in sensors
here. Trouble is, if you try to bring up the underexposed parts from a
compact JPG image, you'll just end up with lots of digital noise.

A but of unsharp mask might really help.

In the right hands, they should be far far better. If you just shoot JPG
though, you won't see as much difference as if you shoot Raw then
post-process.

I would suspect that the two cameras here have metered on different
parts of the view. The DSLR might even have been on spot metering, and
exposed for the trees, the compact probably had auto metering, and
exposed for the cliffs.

This is a user issue really, not a camera issue. Both good pics, but
neither perfect.

BTW, I'm viewing on a monitor calibrated with a Pantone Huey, and setup
for photo editing.

 

The SLR pic has too much sharpening applied.

The Lumix pic has a rather noisy background and foliage looks like plastic.

 

^^^^^^^

This ^

....means you're not really comparing like with like, depending on how
much "tweaking" has been done.

The post-processed versions of yours show that there's not *that* much
difference.

Plus, as just a "snapper", I'll always use a compact rather than a DSLR
as I can keep it in my pocket.

 

Mine wasn't the only comment on the sharpening, but the whites are
blown. It's a lovely scene, but I think those two faults make a little
less than perfect.

I was only offering some constructive criticism. If it was me, I'd redo
the Raw processing and recover the white a bit more, and apply a little
less sharpening.

Make good use of the histogram while making the adjustments.

An hour on one photo just for corrections?

This only had a minute or two spent on it:

Nice stuff.