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

"Zeissifier" in action
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:12 pm    Post subject: "Zeissifier" in action Reply with quote
These two pictures were taken last year with a flaring Helios-44-M-4.
Shown here the "before" and "after" zeissifier versions Smile









PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmmm... well, you can boost the contrast and maybe add a little sharpening but you can never add any information to the picture that wasn't there before.

In small sizes you may be able to Zeissify enough to persuade people it is as good as a real, well-shot Zeiss image but the defects will start to show again (probably even worse than in the original) if you have to blow the thing up to a large size. IMHO


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
Hmmm... well, you can boost the contrast and maybe add a little sharpening but you can never add any information to the picture that wasn't there before.

In small sizes you may be able to Zeissify enough to persuade people it is as good as a real, well-shot Zeiss image but the defects will start to show again (probably even worse than in the original) if you have to blow the thing up to a large size. IMHO


Yes of course.
It's just a little play Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

It's just a little play Smile


But a very nice one!
And it helps to improve the pictures.

It would a bad thing to have a prog that produces Zeiss image quality based on any cheap lens you can buy. The value of really good lenses would drop intensely and thus the value of our collections.

But then, we could buy many great lenses for little money... Hmmm....


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, I'm looking for a program with similar results. Do you know of a software program that will CREATE a Zeiss lens for me?


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
With a bit of digital processing, one ought to be able to create a Zeiss filter given two optical transfer functions.

Sort of like in audio: take two transfer functions, and apply digital correction to one to match the other. In theory of course, provided there is enough signal headroom etc in the inferior system to match the better one.

Of course, with the coming nano technology, we ought to be able to instruct the wee critters to attack our Domiplan in a way to resculpt the elements into Zeiss like glass... Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Neat Orio and very generous to offer the fruits of your labour.
Laurence, welcome back and I am sure someone will find a way to grant your wish (perhaps the tooth fairy?) Smile Smile


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Orio, I'm looking for a program with similar results. Do you know of a software program that will CREATE a Zeiss lens for me?

Acdsee makes damn good job with easy to use interface if need to make more contrasty pictures.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photoshop's "auto contrast" button is quite handy, too, for a one-click solution:


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Guys what I did was not simply increase contrast in the way as ACDSee or the auto contrast function (a real picture killer) of Photoshop do, that is, optimizing the black and white point.

Paul if you look at your modification, Photoshop has modified the white and black points, which improved overall contrast, but has not modified the character of the picture, which remains flarish.

My action (which is simply an unsharp mask operation) has actually changed the character of the picture, which is not flarish anymore.

In the second picture the action transformed what was a flat looking image, into an image with decent "3D". Nowhere like a real zeiss lens, but considering the starting point, I say, not bad...


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Laurence wrote:
Orio, I'm looking for a program with similar results. Do you know of a software program that will CREATE a Zeiss lens for me?

Acdsee makes damn good job with easy to use interface if need to make more contrasty pictures.


Contrast adjustment will not modify the picture the way I did it.
Contrast control sets the extreme values of an image to the limits (or less). This is done on a whole image basis and does not take into account the neighboring pixel values.
My action did improve the contrast by way of increasing the micro-contrast, that is, the neighbouring pixels with a luminance value difference within a certain range, were modified, the other pixels were not.
This operation modified the image where it was necessary, whereas a general contrast control acts like a 5 kilos hammer to open a nutshell... that is, it impacts both the shell and the fruit...


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Neat Orio and very generous to offer the fruits of your labour.
patrickh


Patrick, I just recorded into some actions a knowledge that is widely available over the internet about how to modify microcontrast in an image.
It was really a 5 minutes thingy Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, indeed. I was messing about and did get a much better version after running USM on it at about 20% with a radius of 100 and then playing about with saturation and one or two ther things but I couldn't quite duplicate your effect.

What you say about auto contrast is interesting, particularly in relation to using uncoated lenses.

Unfortunately, understanding photoshop is almost more important than understanding photography these days, if you want to get decent results. And PS is very difficult to learn so each bit of information is valuable.

Actually, a straightforward USM amount 20, radius 100 gets pretty close, I think.



PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:

Unfortunately, understanding photoshop is almost more important than understanding photography these days


I agree, but I would modify a bit, because it's not only true for these days, in the past photographers also had to understand chemicals, development and printing procedures...

Photography is an art whose technological side is fairly advanced and mastering it (or at least handling it) is part of the skills.

I see it this way: if someone make digital photographs with more than a tourist or family user attitude, he has to learn at least the basics of digital editing, not leave it all to the machines. It's part of the process, exactly like the film photographer needs to know the basics of developing and printing.

For those on a budget, it's not necessary to buy Photoshop. Affordable programs like Paint Shop Pro let you do what I did in the actions and more, they allow you to do everything that a digital photographer needs to do, with an expense that is very small.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:

Actually, a straightforward USM amount 20, radius 100 gets pretty close, I think.


yes, that is what I did, straightforward USM, although my used values were slightly different.

One should never use the Contrast control to adjust contrast, except for those desperate cases where the original picture is so bad that you need to actually hammer it in order to bring something out.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is true, but I have the feeling that we have a massively greater range of variables available to us now than in the days of film - and I did develop and printed B&W in the 80s, not to top pro standards but with pretty good results.

I've spent several years working with PS and trying to get to grips with what I need, but I still know only a tiny fraction of what it can do.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
PaulC wrote:

Actually, a straightforward USM amount 20, radius 100 gets pretty close, I think.


yes, that is what I did, straightforward USM, although my used values were slightly different.

One should never use the Contrast control to adjust contrast, except for those desperate cases where the original picture is so bad that you need to actually hammer it in order to bring something out.


Every day I learn something new. I read about USM "polishing" actions five years ago when I got my 300D (my first digital camera) but the stock agencies I got involved with demand photos whigh are not sharpened, so all this time I have been using contrast and autocontrast controls instead of USM.

The competition is so stiff now that a tiny improvement in techniques can make all the difference between getting sales or not, so this sort of information is really valuable to me.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Page 1 of 1