Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Hoverfly Portrait via Printing Nikkor 105mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:52 am    Post subject: Hoverfly Portrait via Printing Nikkor 105mm Reply with quote
This is from 29 June 2015, with no further data apart for the camera and lens:

Olympus EM-1 (manual mode), Nikon Printing-Nikkor 105mm at f11 ISO 400, flash, hand held.

The first image is as I processed it in 2015, not having all my current software. The second image was processed from the original RAW file using my current software and technique.

Both versions have been cropped, mostly to exclude some of that horrible green string





PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Epic! I used to have one of these but never took the time and effort to adapt it in a proper way . Eventually sold it, but these lenses are stunning.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to admit that I use mine rarely. I really ought to use it on my A7r3!

The image shows the worst performance of the lens, at f11, but you can see how little DOF is available at that magnification.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: Hoverfly Portrait via Printing Nikkor 105mm Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Hoverfly Portrait via Printing Nikkor 105mm Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
It's a damn good photo!

I've never seen the lens diagram before, but does Nikon make them much different than say the regular macro lenses of similar focal length?


http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Printing-Nikkor.pdf

I have the 150mm too. Heavy and long working distance but more versatile for magnification.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Hoverfly Portrait via Printing Nikkor 105mm Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:12 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Hoverfly Portrait via Printing Nikkor 105mm Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
It says 12 elements in 4 groups.

I assume a group means glued together.

So, that’s like 4 sets of triple cemented lenses.

I want to see that in a diagram. Can that be right?


It's symmetrical, works the same reversed.

http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Printing-Nikkor.pdf


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
But, what if I much prefer the first photo? Second has too many blown highlights, causing loss of detail in the blown-out areas.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
But, what if I much prefer the first photo? Second has too many blown highlights, causing loss of detail in the blown-out areas.


If you look at the face below the left antenna you will see much less detail in the first version.

So here is the second version with highlights reduced.



PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
So here is the second version with highlights reduced.


Still, you're losing detail in the highlights. There are handles in raw processing that don't cause loss of detail in the highlights. Some folks claim you can actually "recover" details but of course this is nonsense. Anyway, here are your 3 images showing the highlight area and lost details. For sure the new image is less degraded, but still could be better:


#1


Edited to add: Here are the details of the blown highlight areas, showing color channels. It may be that your increasing saturation is to blame for the problem:


#2


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All I can say it that I don't touch saturation.

The RAW image has an identical white spot up against the eye.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let's get back to the crux of the matter: image detail. Blown highlights are a lighting issue and nothing to do with the lens performance, as flare would be.

This is the only other image which, in 2015, I chose for possible processing and uploading. I probably rejected it because the tip of the wing was out of the frame. So we have only the version I have just prepared.

Forgetting the highlights, look at the eye detail. To do this properly I should have gone back to the TIFF for each, so these images could be better but I think they show enough.







PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
Let's get back to the crux of the matter: image detail. Blown highlights are a lighting issue and nothing to do with the lens performance, as flare would be.

This is the only other image which, in 2015, I chose for possible processing and uploading. I probably rejected it because the tip of the wing was out of the frame. So we have only the version I have just prepared.

Forgetting the highlights, look at the eye detail. To do this properly I should have gone back to the TIFF for each, so these images could be better but I think they show enough.







I don’t know the exact protocol you are using for post processing, but the later pictures look sharper and also more saturated. I usually select first Lab color mode, and then choose the lightness channel first before I do any sharpness changes. Afterwards I return to RGB mode. Like that, color data remain unaffected.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
Let's get back to the crux of the matter: image detail. Blown highlights are a lighting issue and nothing to do with the lens performance, as flare would be.

This is the only other image which, in 2015, I chose for possible processing and uploading. I probably rejected it because the tip of the wing was out of the frame. So we have only the version I have just prepared.

Forgetting the highlights, look at the eye detail. To do this properly I should have gone back to the TIFF for each, so these images could be better but I think they show enough.


Separate issues:

Blown highlights as-taken are the fault of a combination of lighting and exposure. The first image above shows some blown highlights due to over-exposure, and would have benefited from diffusion and/or lowering the exposure.

Blown highlights due to over-processing is the user's fault. This is what I'm showing comparing the 3 images above. There are more blown highlights in both the two later-processed images vs the first image, and these are avoidable by not increasing the brightness of highlights during processing.

Image detail is determined by several factors such as aperture, critical focus, vibrations, lens quality, magnification, camera resolution, etc, and is greatly degraded in areas of under or over-exposure. Post-processing can make an image appear more detailed through contrast enhancements, but can't actually increase the detail present in the image, only decrease it if done improperly.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:


Blown highlights due to over-processing is the user's fault. This is what I'm showing comparing the 3 images above. There are more blown highlights in both the two later-processed images vs the first image, and these are avoidable by not increasing the brightness of highlights during processing.


Highlights were at no stage brightened. Shadows were brightened slightly and highlights darkened.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
Highlights were at no stage brightened. Shadows were brightened slightly and highlights darkened.


You may not have brightened highlights on purpose, but when you compare the first and second images, for sure highlights have been brightened. You might want to review your post-processing methodology to see where highlights are inadvertently brightened, and avoid or modify those steps.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:45 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:


You seem to be over annoyed by this great photo.

What bugs you more, the photo of the insect or the fact this was taken with a printing nikkor...


I'm not annoyed in any way. The photo is quite good, and indeed showcases the quality of the Printing-Nikkor. I simply stated that I preferred the original image published back in 2015, mostly because the newly-processed image is over-processed in the highlights. I got the sense the OP agreed, since he reprocessed the image with some improvement, so I continued with the critique. It seems the OP is doing some inadvertent processing of highlights he's not aware of, so I figured the critique might help him figure it out.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1