jb89
Member
So after a few years of having my M6, I finally dropped the money and got myself my dream digital Leica, and purchased a M-P 240, so far I am over the moon with the camera, but am having a slight issue when exporting images from LR CC, and I cant work out why...
Thanks in advanced.
Settings used:
final image:
Thanks in advanced.
Settings used:
final image:
bobbyrab
Well-known
You're not specific as to the issues, I assume from the title it's sharpening, as you're resizing to 1000 pix why not try out the sharpen for screen options, I find it maintains the sharpness I apply to the full size file, downsizing files I find generally look a bit soft without it.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Read up on output sharpening in LR - screen shot shows you haven't set it.
As a place to start for web use, set the size to long side 1000 pixels, resolution to 100, output sharpening to std or even high (since LR is conservative), and see what you get on your screen.
As a place to start for web use, set the size to long side 1000 pixels, resolution to 100, output sharpening to std or even high (since LR is conservative), and see what you get on your screen.
jb89
Member
Thanks guys, it is the issue of sharpenss, I have tried a few different options with the output sharpening for screen etc. and its still coming out a lot softer from the export than it is looking in LR, in LR the images look crisp, but once out they just look soft and dull.
I am pretty adobe proficient, but cant seem to work out what paramater is cauging it, have tried a few different options with the export, could this be an issue with preview on mac as opposed to LR, adding softening?
I am pretty adobe proficient, but cant seem to work out what paramater is cauging it, have tried a few different options with the export, could this be an issue with preview on mac as opposed to LR, adding softening?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Nothing "adds softening" unless you consider downsizing from 6000 to 1000 pixels itself to be a softening action (it is!). When you downsize that much (6:1), particularly in one step, you must add sharpening or the appearance of sharpness in the output will suffer.
For that large a pixel reduction step, and without touching the Detail panel in the Develop module, enable the Output Sharpening in the Export window to High in order to get the best results.
As a demonstration of the effectiveness of doing this, I set my M-D typ 262 (I was too lazy to pull out the M-P ... ;-) to ISO 1600, fitted a Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC lens (which is what I think you were using from the photo you posted), set it to ISO 1600 @ f/1.4 @ 1/60 sec (what I think you were using from the EXIF data) and made a similar exposure. I brought it into LR, set it to B&W in the Basic panel (with a Tone Curve adjustment to get the values in line with yours), and then exported with your settings at no output sharpening and with high output sharpening.
Examining the full resolution image where I focused on the lens, I know I was properly focused:
Test-screen capture-100%
Here's how the two exports look ...
Test-no sharpening-01
Test-sharpening HIGH-02
To get an overall image that looks perceptually sharper at 1000 pixels wide would take a bit of tweaking in the Detail panel to the (input) sharpening. I set Amount to 105, Radius to 2.0, and Masking to 56, then output sharpening to Standard, for this result:
Test-sharpened (105, 2.0, default, 56)-sharpening STD-03
If you look carefully, you can see that this latter tweaking improves the 1000 pixel wide rendering by a small amount. (But I wouldn't want those settings to make an 11x17 inch print ... it will look a bit grainier and coarser than necessary.)
So: getting what you want when you downsample to a small JPEG takes some work when you're looking at a photo at 100% resolution in its original resolution. You need to experiment and juggle settings until you find an acceptable balance that suits your eye, and understand that alternative settings for sharpening—both input and output sharpening—are needed for best results in print and on-screen renderings.
(Of course, if I wanted my face to be sharper as well, I'd need to stop down to f/4 or so ... DoF at this focus distance with f/1.4 is amazingly shallow even with a 40mm lens!)
G
(... and, my gosh, what a grumpy looking face I make when I'm squinting through the viewfinder ... ;-)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
BTW, I was curious how the Nokton 40 capture compared to a 1972 Summilux 35 v2 capture wide open like this so I switched lenses and shot a similar frame with the 'Lux, processed it identically.
Result: the FoV is slightly wider, as you'd expect, and the Nokton has slightly more contrast. The intimate structure of details and gray tones in the image at 100% on screen is ever so slightly different between the two lenses. The out of focus transition with the 'Lux is just a mite bit smoother and "more pleasing" but the differences are pretty small and subjective.
All in all, I'd say the Nokton achieves its design goal of giving the imaging feel of a classic fast lens very well, and its improved coatings over a thirty-year older design give it an edge in contrast, if that's what you're after. I imagine the Single Coated version of the Nokton would be even closer to the 'Lux in overall feel, wide open.
I'm happy to have my 'Lux, but am equally happy to see that one can obtain very similar character in a modern lens at a much much lower price!
G
Result: the FoV is slightly wider, as you'd expect, and the Nokton has slightly more contrast. The intimate structure of details and gray tones in the image at 100% on screen is ever so slightly different between the two lenses. The out of focus transition with the 'Lux is just a mite bit smoother and "more pleasing" but the differences are pretty small and subjective.
All in all, I'd say the Nokton achieves its design goal of giving the imaging feel of a classic fast lens very well, and its improved coatings over a thirty-year older design give it an edge in contrast, if that's what you're after. I imagine the Single Coated version of the Nokton would be even closer to the 'Lux in overall feel, wide open.
I'm happy to have my 'Lux, but am equally happy to see that one can obtain very similar character in a modern lens at a much much lower price!
G
segedi
RFicianado
As mentioned, set long edge to a fixed value. 1000px isn't very much these days as most displays are often 2-4 times that. Set a higher pixel width to see if that helps.
Also the apparent image quality difference between 80% and 100% jpegs when viewed on a screen is negligible. You will have a lot lower for size as well. Even when I print using a service, I compress to 85 or 90%.
Also the apparent image quality difference between 80% and 100% jpegs when viewed on a screen is negligible. You will have a lot lower for size as well. Even when I print using a service, I compress to 85 or 90%.
jb89
Member
Thank you so much! Incredibly detailed and informative reply, honestly feel like I learnt a lot from that, its a bit of a curve from shooting 100% film to digital, feel like once I know how to go through the steps the images will be great.
Lens was a 35 1.4 Nokton so essentially the same!
Goign to have a few more attempts at some exports and see what I end up with!
Thanks,
J
Lens was a 35 1.4 Nokton so essentially the same!
Goign to have a few more attempts at some exports and see what I end up with!
Thanks,
J
jb89
Member
Success, sharpish (well....when I get focus dead on) images... thank you!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Glad to help.
So much of work with any camera is how you treat the output, film or digital...
It's a learning curve no matter which recording medium you use, and how you treat the output will differ quite a lot between them to get the same results. Take your time and work with the M-P, it will all happen soon enough.
G
So much of work with any camera is how you treat the output, film or digital...
It's a learning curve no matter which recording medium you use, and how you treat the output will differ quite a lot between them to get the same results. Take your time and work with the M-P, it will all happen soon enough.
G
dfatty
Well-known
very helpful info and examples, godfrey, thanks!