Number 2, for me.Hello Everyone, I got a shot of the moon last night. I processed it 3 different ways and am wondering which way people like the best. BTW, 5DsR, 100-400L, 1.4TC, ISO 800, 1/750, F9.5, hand held.
View attachment 189556
View attachment 189557
View attachment 189558
#3 for me, but depends somewhat on context if composite with another image.Number 2, for me.
And, once again, a proof that the 100-400 is a great lens!
Definetely #3... I processed it 3 different ways and am wondering which way people like the best. ...
Yep, I really like my 100-400L. It is my most used lens.Number 2, for me.
And, once again, a proof that the 100-400 is a great lens!
Thanks MaximilianDefinetely #3
To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.
The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
Especially when you look at the edges of the craters and at the terminator.
Hope that helps.
But great work!
Thanks Stevelee. That's why I posted these photos, to get some input and try to improve my processing.They all look a little over-processed for my taste. Sharpening makes highlights look like white dots. The lens is plenty sharp. I've taken handheld pictures of the moon with mine. I don't have a teleconverter. Great lens and nice shot.
Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.Definetely #3
To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.
The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
Especially when you look at the edges of the craters and at the terminator.
Hope that helps.
But great work!
The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.
View attachment 189578
View attachment 189579
Thanks Alan. The last is most realistic for sure.The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.
Thanks for addressing me personally, but I'd say the question is to all who want to contributeHi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? ...
100% the same opinion.The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.... The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.
Great photo Alan. A "Journalist" would be required to turn in the first photo. It has to be unaltered. An "Artist" would turn in the second photo. He would try to bring out all the detail and colour that is hidden in the original "negative". Ansel Adams would never be satisfied with the first example. I guess it all depends what mood you're in, or what audience you are playing to.So much depends on the atmospherics. I can't get good shots of the moon here in the damp UK because the atmosphere softens them. 5 years ago in Cyprus, on a birding trip, I took this shot using a 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII +3xTC (yes overall 6xTC) handheld at 1/80s, maybe resting on a branch. The top one is the straight conversion from RAW with no other processing. The bottom is cooked by turning up the contrast and microcontrast to full heat. You certainly enhance the detail that way. For geographical analysis the bottom is better, but as a photo, give me the top one.View attachment 189580View attachment 189581
As neither journalist nor artiste, I aim in my processing most of the time to get the picture to convey what the scene look like to me when I took it. Within that I might convey a bit about how I felt, and sounds and smells, so I'm not aiming exactly for objective reality, if there is such a thing. But I want it to look like it looks, unless I am purposely playing around with some special effect. If I shoot a portrait outside, I'm not wanting to do an extreme background blur so people's attention will be drawn to the bokeh. I want the attention on the subject, and the background to be perceived as how things look when you are looking at something up close instead. In reality, that may be a little blurrier than what the eye sees in bright light, but the brain is receiving two displaced blurry images vs. the one I see in a photograph.Great photo Alan. A "Journalist" would be required to turn in the first photo. It has to be unaltered. An "Artist" would turn in the second photo. He would try to bring out all the detail and colour that is hidden in the original "negative". Ansel Adams would never be satisfied with the first example. I guess it all depends what mood you're in, or what audience you are playing to.