Discussion Contrast or not? Some before and after pics

[Silverlocks]

Some ruminations on contrast and post processing So, I just got a new camera, and did some shots of my sovs the other day.  They came out fairly well, but I think a bit flat.  So, here are some before and after shots of a couple where I've pulled the contrast up and enhanced highlights and shadows.  When I first took these there was very little post processing.  What do you folks think - is it an improvement? Before
After

[Charliemouse]

Firstly, contrast ratio and sharpness are excellent, which means you have room to experiment.

Out of interest, could you share your camera settings (aperture and ISO; shutter speed doesn't really matter)?

To give something depth, you need to either a) photograph it at an angle, or b) light it at an angle.

The advantage of a) is that you can see the reeding, which is often appealing in itself.  But it adds complexity to the setup that you may not want.  b) is usually simpler overall, although you need the flexibility in your equipment.

Also, as discussed before, always ensure there is more light coming from the top, otherwise people will perceive it as inverted (concave).

[Silverlocks]

11 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

Out of interest, could you share your camera settings (aperture and ISO; shutter speed doesn't really matter)?

The aperture is f/3.5 on the lens IIRC, and I had the ISO set about 200.  Shutter was about 1/2000.

[Charliemouse]

2 hours ago, Silverlocks said:

The aperture is f/3.5 on the lens IIRC, and I had the ISO set about 200.  Shutter was about 1/2000.

Thanks.

I generally aim for ISO 100, since that is (usually) the native resolution of the sensor, and therefore has the least noise.  You might be able to find it in the technical specs, as sometimes it differs.  That said, 200 will have almost imperceptible noise.

You should probably use a smaller aperture than that.  Again it varies by lens, but I usually recommend f/8 to f/11.  Smaller than that and you will start to diffract, wider than that and the optics will be softer (plus, your depth of field will be very small).  If your shutter speed is 1/2000th, you have loads of scope to make those changes.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Charliemouse

[Silverlocks]

1 hour ago, Charliemouse said:

Thanks.

I generally aim for ISO 100, since that is (usually) the native resolution of the sensor, and therefore has the least noise.  You might be able to find it in the technical specs, as sometimes it differs.  That said, 200 will have almost imperceptible noise.

You should probably use a smaller aperture than that.  Again it varies by lens, but I usually recommend f/8 to f/11.  Smaller than that and you will start to diffract, wider than that and the optics will be softer (plus, your depth of field will be very small).  If your shutter speed is 1/2000th, you have loads of scope to make those changes.

Here's one I did with the aperture set to F10, ISO set to 100 and Shutter speed at 1/80.    There's a bit of post to pull it up a bit and enhance contrast.  Lighting is with small ring light sitting about flush with the end of the lens, and a panel light at around 11 o'clock.  See the pictures below.  

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Silverlocks

[Silverlocks]

In related news, I found a little app that posts keystroke messages into Imaging Edge's window to do focus stacking, but it seems to drop stuff on the floor quite a lot.

[Charliemouse]

Images looking good.  Always room to improve, right?

You are losing some sharpness in the shared images.  I don't think the source image is the main problem though.  I suspect it is mainly the output format.  Try exporting as PNG, and increase the image size to 1024 or 1280.  PNG is not only lossless, but it has better colour handling and is definitely better for high contrast details.

As for the gear, I would certainly try to get the ring light mounted on the lens.  No idea if that is possible, but usually they screw onto the front filter thread.  I mean, what you have works, but it might be less fuss to integrate it.  Experiment with the angle and brightness of your key light.  Try diffusion paper (greaseproof paper or baking parchment is pretty ideal), to soften and widen the light.  The ring light will tend to flatten the image, and can be a little unnatural for some subjects - humans aren't used to the light coming from their eyes.  Also, basically unusable for proofs.

[Silverlocks]

50 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

Images looking good.  Always room to improve, right?

You are losing some sharpness in the shared images.  I don't think the source image is the main problem though.  I suspect it is mainly the output format.  Try exporting as PNG, and increase the image size to 1024 or 1280.  PNG is not only lossless, but it has better colour handling and is definitely better for high contrast details.

As for the gear, I would certainly try to get the ring light mounted on the lens.  No idea if that is possible, but usually they screw onto the front filter thread.  I mean, what you have works, but it might be less fuss to integrate it.  Experiment with the angle and brightness of your key light.  Try diffusion paper (greaseproof paper or baking parchment is pretty ideal), to soften and widen the light.  The ring light will tend to flatten the image, and can be a little unnatural for some subjects - humans aren't used to the light coming from their eyes.  Also, basically unusable for proofs.

If I export as JPEGs at high quality then images are about 2MB at 1280 square.  I've just made some supplementary exports to lower quality JPEGs for uploading here so the images aren't so big. 

[Charliemouse]

36 minutes ago, Silverlocks said:

If I export as JPEGs at high quality then images are about 2MB at 1280 square.  I've just made some supplementary exports to lower quality JPEGs for uploading here so the images aren't so big. 

A 1280 PNG file is a little over 2MB, and it will look a lot better than a 'high quality' JPEG.  2MB is nothing these days.