daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 31, 2010 11:27:17 GMT -5
This is not quite "my little town", but it is only about two hours away by car. In the background is Helvellyn, the second highest mountain in England, if I remember correctly. It is hardly the classic Matterhorn shape at the summit. In fact, with a little flattening off, you could have a football pitch marked out up there. Striding Edge is to the left, and Swirral Edge to the right. Looking back down Striding Edge. Just below the group of people is The Chimney, which needs a bit real climbing to descend (though you can avoid it by coming off the ridge slightly earlier). Close up of The Chimney, a sort of very mild El Kapitan. The photos were taken in May 1995. Praktica B200 with Prakticar 55-200 zoom lens and Kodacolor Gold 400. I didn't put too many rolls of film through this camera, which I only really bought to take on our walks. A few years I gave it to someone who needed it more than I. The first photo shows Dave, on the left, and Derek. They were both a little older than I: both were good fun to go walking with. The chilling thought is that I am the only one left. Derek died eight years ago of MND (Motor Neurone Disease). Dave died two years later of cancer. I suppose that's life: at least they both had a reasonable shot at it, which is more that many people mange. Sorry, I meant to add on that if I have anything factually wrong I am sure John, with living up that way, will sort the errors out.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Aug 1, 2010 0:29:01 GMT -5
daveh,
The top and bottom photos are slightly fuzzy. The middle one is razor sharp.
What caused the big difference?
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 1, 2010 4:03:07 GMT -5
Mickey, I sharpened the middle one with the software (other than that applied during scanning): it actually looked more muzzy than the other two after scanning, which was why I sharpened it. The original negatives are all reasonable.
It wasn't meant to be this, but it is another illustration of what digital manipulation can do, and how if can fail.
I bought a Canon7D last December. Most reports were happy about its capabilities. The was, however, someone in North America who was quite scathing about it when he compared it some of his other cameras. As someone else pointed out, though, just tweaking the result in the software differently produced the results.
I suppose in the darkroom the simple way of making something look a little sharper was to use a harder paper, which increased the contrast of the result. This is something which is only just coming back to me now I am thing about it. Happy hours in a room, with a diffuse red light and the smell of the chemicals, trying to assess the correct exposure and which of several grades of hardness was correct for any one shot. What it meant was that there was much time to be saved if the shot was right in camera. Now one can be much more sloppy and get away with it much more easily.
Well, you didn't expect a one word answer.....did you?
Dave. (modified to remove umpteen lines of space - I must have had space bar or return pressed just before I finished posting)
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Aug 1, 2010 5:21:06 GMT -5
Thanks, Dave.
I think it is remarkable what you have done with the photo.
I use sharpening in Photoshop Elements 4. It is rather limited and does strange things when carried too far.
I, too, did my time in the darkroom under first a ruby light and them a multigrade yukky brown/yellow light. The primary smell in my little dungeon was acetic acid, definitely not Chanel quality.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 1, 2010 5:45:43 GMT -5
Mickey, I have been using a combination of IrfanView and Gimp on my notebook: the full Photoshop package is too memory hungry for it. I wouldn't be sure which I used. Gimp has most of the features of photoshop at a fraction of the cost. I wouldn't be sure which I used for the above. I have just put the top photo through Gimp. 1) no further alteration applied 2) sharpen 20 units 3) unsharp mask, radius 5, amount 0.5, threshold 0 The trouble is I spend too much time trying different settings to see what is best.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Aug 1, 2010 6:43:39 GMT -5
Dave
I have found that when you work in digital land a bit of sharpening is almost always required, especially when the file is from scanned film or prints. I never shot in RAW with a digital camera until I got the D700 and am amazed at how little the NEFF files need to be sharpened. They still need some but not so much as with the hybrid work flow of film to digital. I have been playing with the High Pass method and I think I prefer to use it over USM. I know what you mean by spending too much time playing with different settings but it seems to be necessary to find a personal best way.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2010 9:13:44 GMT -5
Bob:
You are right. At least on the Nikons Raw is a different ballgame. The images have a lot more latitude, too.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Aug 1, 2010 9:32:37 GMT -5
Wayne
Thanks for confirming that the NEFFs are different. I sometimes think that I am imagining differences. I just had a hunch about this but no real proof.
Bob
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Aug 1, 2010 20:41:23 GMT -5
Thanks for these pictures of Helvellyn, Dave. I was there 50 years ago, after walking over the fells from Ambleside, ending near Striding Edge. When I reached the top I found it crowded with picnicing grannies and their families and prams. I've promised myself I'll go back again, when the legs have got a bit steadier ...
Reagarding sharpening, I do a little for copies intended for the screen to counteract losses in the monitor, and a little more for similar losses when printing. Never on archived versions, only on copies intended for specific purposes. I use unsharp mask, which was really tricky in the darkroom with sandwiched negative and copy. Never did it myself, only read about it.
Never let scanners do fancy stuff like sharpening and colour correction. Software does it better.
Sad about your friends. MND must be the worst way to go.
I still have to do Helvellyn again first.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 1, 2010 21:21:48 GMT -5
Sid, I always try to keep an untouched version of everything: normally I don't apply anything in the scanner. I always used to set original jpgs to read only and then save to a different file name after working on them, but I have lapsed a bit recently. Photax and Nikonbob have extolled the benefits of RAW files. One of the things I like about them is that, whatever is done (other than deletion) the original shot is retrievable.
We went up Helvellyn from the campsite above the Travellers Rest just up the hill from Glenridding. What I do remember is, on the way up, one of those awful ascents where you think you can see the top but the lie of the land is in a parabolic curve and you never seem to get there.
I have normally taken a camera with me - wherever, whenever. On the walking weekends I used a camcorder more often than a still camera. Maybe sometime I'll post a bit of video.
Get those legs going and we can meet John in Ambleside, and walk it again.
Dave.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Aug 2, 2010 16:10:03 GMT -5
Will do Dave. In two years I've progressed (without sticks) from 100 yards fully exhausted to 500 yards and mildly tired. I can do a few miles with hiking poles. 2020 maybe, dodging the chimney? With the chimney 2030.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 2, 2010 17:09:36 GMT -5
Sounds good to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 19:15:42 GMT -5
Bob:
I use Capture NX2 on raw images. You can modify it anyway you like but you always can revert back to the original. It's especially effective in dealing with deep shadows--and highlights. The detail is usually there in both extremes if you have the proper program to retrieve the information.
Wayne
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 2, 2010 19:44:27 GMT -5
Wayne, is NX-2 just for Nikon RAW files?
I had something of a problem when I got the Canon 7D. Although the RAW files are CR2, they were not the same as the older CR2.
A further problem is that the notebook only supports 1024x600 pixels, and many of the programmes need 1024x740. After much fiddling I found RAW Extractor from Safefolder.net. It is only 1.7 MB and converts RAW to jpg in a jiffy. Okay, so the quality of conversion isn't as good as the memory hungry big programmes, but it does all right.
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Aug 3, 2010 8:30:37 GMT -5
We went up Helvellyn from the campsite above the Travellers Rest just up the hill from Glenridding. What I do remember is, on the way up, one of those awful ascents where you think you can see the top but the lie of the land is in a parabolic curve and you never seem to get there. I have normally taken a camera with me - wherever, whenever. On the walking weekends I used a camcorder more often than a still camera. Maybe sometime I'll post a bit of video. Get those legs going and we can meet John in Ambleside, and walk it again. Dave. Ha - as I said to my son when he wanted me to accompany him on a fell run up Scafell - "Do you want me to die?" I used to hike as a teenager, but for some reason, the only time we went to the Lake District, Helvellyn was always the objective, and again, for some reason, always from the Ullswater end. I must have done that slog about a dozen times and I always wondered - "Where the hell's the fun in this?" When you got up to the edges it got better though. While it isn't Matterhorn standard Dave, the edges were formed by the ice in exactly the same way. I have a friend who used to go fishing in Red Tarn - he used to carry two massive tackle baskets and rods up for him and his young son. They did pretty well - they used "Wigan worms"! Regards - John
|
|