Forum Replies Created
If it is not too complex, I would try regenerating the S2 TIFF and processing it again. I use a 9900 for work, and have not really had this problem. There are so many dialog boxes, settings and things to keep straight, however, that it is likely something is getting left out or set wrong. If that is the case, it might be easier to just start from 0.
The first things I would check, however, is that the paper size you are using (or custom size) is what you think it is. Then make sure that your photo is properly sized for that paper in photoshop, and that it is supposed to be centered on the paper. I have found that CS5 and the 9900 do not have perfect registration — you need a bit of a border, otherwise it is usually not quite perfect.
Basically, I think it is less likely that the S2 file is the culprit, much more likely that that particular S2 file has some settings incorrectly chosen or corrupted, that's why my recommendation would be to try to just regenerate the file. If that does not work, perhaps try printing from lightroom, which will take at least the photoshop part of it out of the question, and will be better to let you know if it is a problem with the file, rather than CS5.
There is actually no question here. It is 100% certain that they are star trails and not an error with the camera. This is just the behavior of the planet at night!
Take it from an aurora photographer…those are star trails. Your camera is perfect (well, at least in this way). We are on a spinning rock…if you want stars to be point sources (especially on 37.5mp), you need very short exposure times (just a few seconds) or a tracking tripod (don't even know what they are called) like the ones used in astronomy.
I am using a really right stuff TVC-33 and the BH-55. No complaints at all. That said, I tend to leave it at the studio and bring a gitzo 2 series and bh-40 unless it is a serious outing. I did some long exposures of the aurora from my balcony as a test, and they came out quite sharp, even with the 2 series. I have not tested extensively though. The TVC-33 is as solid a tripod as I have ever had…I don't think I will find anything better that is not so heavy and bulky as to make it impractical to tote around.
I have to agree with him. They can't even produce enough lenses to meet demand…the last thing they should be devoting resources to is something like a right angle finder, which will only appeal to a very small and specific set of users. I don't mean to offend either of you with that, but it is not an item that many people use on a regular basis…Autofocus and digital also greatly mitigate its importance in that you can now take test shots easily at the location.
Yes, of course, the focal plane shutter! Not sure how I could have overlooked that! It also opens up some other nice options, like barrel lenses. I can see things like aero-ektars and process lenses could be fun to play with. Are you thinking of a generic graflock adapter, or similar, or are you only make something that would fit this specific camera? Just having a generic adapter might make it quite useful for studio work as well…sort of makes the problem of not having a technical camera option not quite so bad.
Just some questions out of curiosity, David…what is the widest lens you can focus to infinity with using this kind of setup? I suppose it would support basically any 4×5 lens as long as it was not too huge…
How do you synchronise the shutters in the S2 and the view camera? Just with a flash sync or something similar? Or do you have to use a dual cable release, or even use bulb on the S2 and then trigger the lens shutter?Thanks very much! Glad you enjoyed them!
Thanks for the information David! That photo looks very well sharpened too. I will experiment with higher levels and see if I can't be won over. I will have to see how it works in big prints too, as that is my main criteria…I usually use photokit's output sharpener in tandem, so it may act differently if the capture sharpening technique is different…
Thanks David,
I read that bit. I still think his advice probably applies more to standard cameras. Did he mention specifically that he was recommending high levels of detail for non-AA filtered cameras? Because if he is, I would still disagree with him! I certainly am not saying you cannot get decent results by using high levels on the detail slider, but if you do want to go that way, you need tone the sharpening way back down into the lower levels (teens to 30s) otherwise things start looking freaky. Again, that's just my taste, and I am sure it differs. But, here is an example, just so I can demonstrate what I am talking about. I am including 3 screen shots. The first sharpened the way I normally would, using 0 detail in the sharpening, and then two with 100% detail. One adjusted to eye again, and the other at the same sharpening level as it was with the detail at 0. I think the deconvolution sharpening can work well, but at least with the M9, it seems to be really aggressive and prone to artifacts. Again, I think this makes a lot of sense in that the M9 sensor type is very different from the vast majority of cameras, which is clearly what Lightroom's deconvolution algorithms are designed to deal with.
And just another note — Eric Chan confirmed that the detail slider towards the higher side brings into play deconvolution sharpening — so that would mean that David has it right…
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.0Also, it would seem to make sense to me anyway as to why the detail slider is best used sparingly with the M9 and S2 — since these cameras do not have AA filters and have exceptionally sharp lenses, there is less convolution (blur) than in traditional cameras. So when you try to deconvolute that which is not convoluted in the first place, it starts to look weird! That's my take anyway…
Regardless of how the sharpening in lightroom works, I have found that for the M9 at least, the detail slider is best used sparingly. I know this runs counter to most people here. This is primarily based on my experience as an exhibition printer. When printing M9 images large — i.e. 20×24″/50x60cm and over, you want to be very careful with sharpening. There is a very fine balance between creating a print that appears sharp, and a print that appears very sharp but also has visible digital and sharpening artifacts. When you are printing really big, a slight softness at the 100% detail is more natural and desirable than ramping up the sharpening, which makes those digital artifacts that much clearer. This is also one of the reasons it is possible to enlarge film so much and still get great results — there is a graceful roll off in resolution which is more natural to the eye than digital's abrupt transition from high-contrast detail to unresolved detail. Managing that transition is one of the most important parts of exhibition printing.
I also think the extreme sharpness of the M9 and S2 (and other non-AA filter cameras with sharp lenses) demands an entirely different sharpening technique than other AA filtered digital cameras. In practice, I have found that mid levels of sharpening (40-80), low radius (.5), low or no detail and medium masking (40-80) does the best job of accentuating the sharpness of what needs to be sharp (such as obvious edges), while not sharpening noise or accentuating digital artifacts.
On the other hand, for smaller prints a bit more sharpening can be a nice addition, as its impact on the print will not be as clearly resolved by the printer, allowing the global effect to be more to the fore than the significant manipulation you are doing at the actual pixel level.
Sounds nice. The 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 ASPH for the R system was a fantastic lens — variable aperture is not the most convenient when shooting manual, but it is not much of a problem with AE. The 28-90 was a very useful lens and the performance was beyond question. If they can do something similar with the 30-90, I imagine that it would serve photographers quite well, especially those looking to have a fairly compact kit in the field.
Nice shot Kurt! Looks like the AF works (or did you just use MF?)! Did you freeze it with flash, or was it just high shutter speed?
It sounds like they are mostly saying, “if it ain't broke, don't fix it!”. Sound advice…
