What I love about the D-Lux 4

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the explanation.

 

Pete.

[Rexbo47]

Rexbo, please don't get me wrong. I'm not approving or disapproving Your landscape image. Also, Im not going to advertise PS to over-tune images. I really hate that cheap effect of too vibrant and synthetic images.

 

My point is, that in-camera B/W setting is more or less just ignoring any color info. Human eye is not working it the same way, therefore it's better idea not to convert into B/W in simple way, just discarding color info, but using channel mixer and enhancing and decreasing some spectrum areas. Same tool is in Photoshop Elements, called Enhance / Convert to B/W (Alt+Ctrl+

 

Bland was describing B/W image, not color one.

 

To illustrate B/W conversion I added one possible version of that conversion and compare it to original one. Do You notice added detail on the cliffs etc.

 

I hope my critics and instructions are constructive and helping to make better images.

 

Jaak

 

OK, here's the deal. If you read the title of my original post you will; see that it's about the CAMERA.

 

I posted the BASIC images to illustrate the capabilities of THE CAMERA, not to display my skills at post-production.

 

I'm perfectly capable of using either PS CS4 or Lightroom to enhance the BASIC image by adding contrast, tweaking the balance. exposure, and sharpening, and would have done so had I been submitting THE IMAGE for critique. I also have several methods at my disposal to do a B/W conversion but that was not the topic of the post..

 

I DO have one copy that is nearly identical to your enhanced version.

 

Nice work editing my image.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

[Rexbo47]

"Where IS "NorCal", btw? It sounds like something out of "1984?"

 

Northern California.

 

More like 1968 in many ways.

[Stelyn]

To my eye the enhanced version has only "enhanced" out the effects of (low?) cloud and water vapour. As to whether this is actually an enhancement would depend on whether one is promoting an idyl or seeking to fossilize the scene as it was. To my personal taste I would prefer it if nature's effects weren't "enhanced" out of photographs. That said, a professional photographer's priorities and standards are bound to be different to a souvenir hunter's.

[Rexbo47]

To my eye the enhanced version has only "enhanced" out the effects of (low?) cloud and water vapour. As to whether this is actually an enhancement would depend on whether one is promoting an idyl or seeking to fossilize the scene as it was. To my personal taste I would prefer it if nature's effects weren't "enhanced" out of photographs. That said, a professional photographer's priorities and standards are bound to be different to a souvenir hunter's.

 

True enough.

 

I think enhancement of representative nature photos should be limited to restoring what was seen with the eye. As we know, our eyes see a much wider range than either film or microchips.

 

However, if the photographer is waxing artistic, as with abstracts, all bets are off and anything goes.