I am in love with my new Nikon Z50!

[Abitconfused]

Getting that sharpening finger under control is a bit of a task. I like Raw's Clarity and Dehaze too. They may all contribute to a "halo" effect in contrasting areas of an image. The 28-300mm seems just a smidgen sharper on my full-frame camera and the Tamron 85mm and 24-70mm don't do as well as I would hope on the smaller sensor either. But frequently the Z50 and the 28-300mm are a hop past good enough. In truth, I have not yet found the ideal walking around lens for the Z50 but I know it's out there somewhere. Perhaps a Sigma or Nikon 24-70mm. I appreciate the unbridled review and commentary, all horsey humor aside!

[xpatUSA]

<>

If you enlarge enough, you will be able to see sharpening artifacts as the process enhances the boundaries between light and dark areas. I suspect that you are looking at around 400% enlargement here Ted.

Yes, Mandfred, I looked at 100 per cent first and, like yourself, saw the halos. Then I enlarged 400 per cent but with Nearest Neighbor so as to more clearly show Ed the halos.

[Manfred M]

Yes, Mandfred, I looked at 100 per cent first and, like yourself, saw the halos. Then I enlarged 400 per cent but with Nearest Neighbor so as to more clearly show Ed the halos.

A slight misunderstanding Ted. I will not look at 100% image size when output sharpening; I work with 50% size. Doing so at 100% tends to result in over-sharpened images. The main reason I did is to try to see what you did.

I rarely post full-size images on the internet and I tend to downsize my 36MP images down to around 2MB or smaller. I generally do not do any output sharpening, simply because I have no control over the size or quality of display that will the image will be shown on. When I print, I sharpen 100% of the time because I am in total control there.

I generally input sharpen and when required, do local, in-process sharpening if required (it's not always required).

[Tronhard]

The Nikon Z50 is quite impressive. I didn't expect so much from (approximately) 20.7 megapixels.

I know what you mean. I got the Canon EOS R6 (20MP) and although I knew I didn't need the 45MP of the R5 (I have the EOS 5DsR), I was really impressed by how brilliant the images are, even if I crop them a bit. I WOULD be interested if the rumoured R7 comes to reality with a APS-C sensor and the same IBIS and tracking as the R6.

We have entered a new stage in the evolution of camera gear I think - at the top end all brands are pretty good, the rest is up to us as photographers as to how we use them.


This was taken in very dark conditions, hand-held with the R6 and the RF 100-500. 500mm, f/8, 1/500sec, ISO-3200

[Abitconfused]

Long Live ASP-C. Z50, 28-300mm, @42 in 35mm, 1/125s, f/7.1, ISO 100. Light is power! Here I attempt to tone down my sharpening. Here also, the Z50 & 28-300m meet my expectations.

[Abitconfused]

Here also I curb my impulsive sharpening neurosis. Nikon Z50, Nikon 28-300mm, at 57mm (in 35mm), 1/500s, f/4, ISO 100. I like the results here also.

[Tronhard]

Long Live ASP-C. Z50, 28-300mm, @42 in 35mm, 1/125s, f/7.1, ISO 100. Light is power! Here I attempt to tone down my sharpening. Here also, the Z50 & 28-300m meet my expectations.

I have a couple of Nikon Df camera bodies (and love them). I have them paired with the 24-120 and the 28-300 lenses. The are excellent and give me great joy to use! LONG LIVE PHOTOGRAPHY!!!!

[Abitconfused]

Which do you prefer, the 28-300 or the 24-120? For image quality??

[Tronhard]

Oh... that's a hard one. I use the 28-300 most, essentially because it has a much longer focal range, but I suspect the 24-120 has the better optics. Frankly, they both work well for me and I don't print massive, detailed images. I have a canon Ef-L 28-300, but it's metal and a howitzer in comparison - that has beautiful optics.

[Manfred M]

Getting that sharpening finger under control is a bit of a task. I like Raw's Clarity and Dehaze too. They may all contribute to a "halo" effect in contrasting areas of an image. The 28-300mm seems just a smidgen sharper on my full-frame camera and the Tamron 85mm and 24-70mm don't do as well as I would hope on the smaller sensor either. But frequently the Z50 and the 28-300mm are a hop past good enough. In truth, I have not yet found the ideal walking around lens for the Z50 but I know it's out there somewhere. Perhaps a Sigma or Nikon 24-70mm. I appreciate the unbridled review and commentary, all horsey humor aside!

Clarity and Dehaze are different approaches that use micro-contrast. I use both (as well as texture), but tend to be very gentle with them. They create a "look" that is not at all pleasing, especially for portraits, if used globally and aggressively. If applied locally (via layer masks) they can be quite effective.

In terms of image sharpness, the only way I can guarantee that is to use a heavy duty tripod and an appropriate shutter speed. I go that route whenever I can. I find that you are putting too much weight on the image quality based on the performance of the lens. While the lens is one factor, technique, camera settings, lighting conditions and post-processing skills usually play a far greater role.

A sharp lens is easily defeated by camera movement (stabilization can only correct so much), hitting the appropriate focus plane, etc. are critical. Strong post-processing skills that work at a local, rather than global level (global = using just the sliders in the PP software; applying adjustments with tools like the adjustment brush in Lightroom or with layer masks in Photoshop are local adjustments).

I suspect that your images would be stronger if you did not sharpen at all. Given your propensity to over sharpen, take a look at what an unsharpened image looks like. I suspect it will be a stronger image. While you say you have cut back the sharpening, the high frequency areas of that image look over-sharpened to me. Remove the sharpening from the boards with the artwork and the sharpening on the shingles to tame the "crunchy" look in those areas.

Another question - are you increasing vibrance or saturation either in camera or in post?

[Abitconfused]

Thank you, yes, I like to saturate but am trying to saturate just one or two colors rather than globally.

[Abitconfused]

I see that PC Magazine, which can be very candid in their reviews, rates both lenses equally.

[Manfred M]

Thank you, yes, I like to saturate but am trying to saturate just one or two colors rather than globally.

I virtually never increase saturation or vibrance when I post-process. Desaturate, yes.

Increasing saturation tends to give a very unnatural appearance to the images. Would you mind posting a straight out of camera version of either 25 and or 26 to see what you started with?

[Tronhard]

I see that PC Magazine, which can be very candid in their reviews, rates both lenses equally.

I think I would probably agree with them.

I think it would conform to Laws #2, 7, and the corollary to law #5!

The Seven Laws of Lenses

1. Never sell a good lens.
2. When evaluating lenses, look at the pictures, not at the lens.
   The Leica Lens Designer's Precept (apocryphal) The only way to test a lens is to use it for a year. Everything else is a shortcut.
3. You can make successful photographs with any lens, no matter how bad.
   ...And The corollary to the Third Law You can make terrible photographs with any lens, no matter how good.
4. You get no extra credit for using a technically excellent lens.
   Ctein's Axiom If you can't see it, it doesn't count.
5. You can never spend too much money on a lens.
   Corollary to the Fifth Law If a lens works for you, it doesn't matter how little you spent for it or how little it might be esteemed by others, it's still the right lens.
6. The proper number of lenses to own is the intersection between the sets "all the lenses you need" and "the lowest possible number." (Another way to say this is "enough but no more.")
7. All lenses give their gifts.

[Manfred M]

I think I would probably agree with them.

I think it would conform to Laws #2, 7, and the corollary to law #5!

The Seven Laws of Lenses

1. Never sell a good lens.
2. When evaluating lenses, look at the pictures, not at the lens.
   The Leica Lens Designer's Precept (apocryphal) The only way to test a lens is to use it for a year. Everything else is a shortcut.
3. You can make successful photographs with any lens, no matter how bad.
   ...And The corollary to the Third Law You can make terrible photographs with any lens, no matter how good.
4. You get no extra credit for using a technically excellent lens.
   Ctein's Axiom If you can't see it, it doesn't count.
5. You can never spend too much money on a lens.
   Corollary to the Fifth Law If a lens works for you, it doesn't matter how little you spent for it or how little it might be esteemed by others, it's still the right lens.
6. The proper number of lenses to own is the intersection between the sets "all the lenses you need" and "the lowest possible number." (Another way to say this is "enough but no more.")
7. All lenses give their gifts.

I did notice that nowhere does it suggest that one consult lens reviews from one of the lens review websites. MTF charts and other characteristics of lenses that are published measure things that are easy to do but generally have little to do with how well the lens works.

I also get a kick out of lens reviewers who whine about sub-optimal performance of a fast lens at f/11. If you spend the money on an f/1.2 lens, you are primarily looking at shooting it wide open.

My comment on #3 is that there really aren't modern lenses that I would call "bad", especially from the mainstream manufacturers. Lens manufacturers simply do not put bad lenses on the market; they can't afford to do so as they make their money selling lenses.

I also am very suspicious of lens reviewers. They get their livelihood by being nice to the companies that supply them lenses. The best example I know of where there was a problem was when Luminous Landscape did something to get Nikon a bit upset. Nikon hasn't sent them a lens to review since...

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:

I'm not sure it was meant to be taken super seriously, but most of it make a modicum of sense!
My favourite is the corollary of law #3!

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred:

I'm not sure it was meant to be taken super seriously, but most of it make a modicum of sense!
My favourite is the corollary of law #3!

That's my take as well, although CTein is a well known photographer, although I have not heard much from / about him lately.

The Leica quote comes from Peter Karbe, head of Leica's lens design group. I do remember him saying that in an article I have read.

Whether tongue and cheek or not, the comments, as a whole are spot on.

[DanK]

Ed (or should I use James?),

If I'm going over stuff you already know, please excuse me. Online, one often has to guess.

Re sharpening and saturation: the tools you are using are related, which may be one reason you are sometimes getting too strong an effect. EVen if you don't overdo the sharpening slider, you can still get an image that appears oversharpened. One caveat about what I am going to write: I have never found a detailed and specific explanation of dehaze, so I pieced together an incomplete understanding from a number of seemingly credible sources.

"Frequency" is used to describe how fine or coarse the details are that are affected by a tool. High frequency = fine detail. Lower frequencies are coarser details, that is, larger areas in the image.

Sharpening, texture, clarity, and dehaze all affect micro-constrast, but they differ in the frequencies they affect. The frequencies they affect are in that order: sharpening affects the highest frequency details, texture slightly lower frequency, etc. So when you are using more than one of these tools, you are applying variations on one type of edit. My takeaway from this is that more of one of these often means using less of another.

But that's not the only difference among these tools. Clarity is a mix of mid-frequency micro-constrast--that is, sharpening of somewhat coarser details, what's often called "local contrast"--and mid-tone contrast, that is, the adjustment you would get by moving the contrast slider to the right or imposing an S-curve on the curves tool. In Lightroom or ACR (with a caveat below), any increase in mid-tone contrast will increase saturation. Clarity can create heavy-handed adjustments, and I use it far less than I used to for that reason.

Dehaze shifts the histogram--some regions are brought down--which makes sense, since haze is white. It also adds low-frequency micro-constrast. Finally, it adjusts color balance and increases saturation.

So, between dehaze and clarity, you are boosting saturation even before you touch the saturation control.

My editing is somewhat different from Manfred's, but for what it's worth:

1. I almost never increase saturation. I do often add modest increases in vibrance.
2. I almost never use the dehaze tool, and I never use it when there isn't haze. It mixes too many things together, and it creates color shifts and oversaturation.
3. For micro-constrast, I use the texture slider quite freely because its effects tend to be subtle, but even there, I have to be careful not to overdo it.
4. I use clarity sparingly for the reasons noted above.
5. I sharpen at 100% for the reasons Manfred mentioned. When I use the LR/ACR sharpening tools, I use changes to the radius as well as the amount to avoid halos and other artifacts.

Two of the nice things about doing this in Lightroom or ACR is that everything is reversible and the order of edits has no effect on the final image. Therefore, if one finds that an image looks crunchy after sharpening, it's easy to modify any of the other related edits to try to tone things down, even if they were done earlier.

Finally, one note about saturation. If you are working in LR/ACR, there is no way around the fact that changes in midtone contrast change saturation as well. One can offset the saturation increase it if is too much either globally, but pulling the saturation slider down, or locally. In Photoshop, there are two ways to avoid this entirely, the simpler of which is to use a luminosity blend mode on any adjustment layer that changes contrast. So if you are working in ACR as a filter on a photoshop layer, you can apply a luminosity blend mode to that layer.

Dan

[Abitconfused]

Ed or James, I have dual citizenship. My Italian half loves contrast and saturation. Stylistically, the color and tone is much of the subject of interest as in the above photographs rather than content alone. My Anglo-Dutch half longs to return to the Rijksmuseum and the Dutch Masters. Of course, the Van Gogh Museum is nearby. So is the medium the message?

[Abitconfused]

Here using a sharp Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro lens...



1/800s, f/3.2, ISO 100.

and here...



1/100s, f/7.1, ISO 100.