Stymied trying to export good quality forum-sized .jpgs from large .nef files...

[jim0379]

Hoping some expert opinion will help me improve. I struggle with the export part of work flow, as the .jpg files in the recommended 1200ox long edge, almost always look brittle to me compared to the original .nef. Have reviewed Steve's short video on the LRC preset for exports, but I use ON1 Raw, but have tried to emulate most of the settings in ON1 preset screen.

After reading various opinions on image quality from the Z 400mm f/2.8 with teleconverters (other then the internal one) I went out in the early-ish morning with the 2xTC attached and got images like the one posted.

I think the .nef file looks totally acceptable for my hobbyist uses. What do you think of this output of it, and do you see any obvious artifacts that can be remediated to improve it?

Thanks!

jim

 

[bleirer]

Brittle is often associated with oversharpening. A common practice is to have 3 sharpening steps. One is a little sharpening when you convert the raw to overcome any initial softening, another as creative sharpening maybe only on certain parts of a subject, and finally output sharpening which varies according to how the image is to be viewed. So maybe try reducing output sharpening if it looks crunchy. Otherwise i can't think of a reason, as long as you are keeping the quality slider fairly high when you make the jpeg.

 

[DRwyoming]

What do you think of this output of it, and do you see any obvious artifacts that can be remediated to improve it?

From a technical processing point of view I think this image is fine as a web post.

struggle with the export part of work flow, as the .jpg files in the recommended 1200ox long edge, almost always look brittle to me compared to the original .nef. Have reviewed Steve's short video on the LRC preset for exports, but I use ON1 Raw, but have tried to emulate most of the settings in ON1 preset screen.

The forum image posting restrictions have been loosened up a bit so if you prefer you can post images here up to 2000 pixels wide or 1400 pixels tall (though no more than 1200 pixels tall is recommended) and image files can be up to 2 MB in file size.

How these look on a screen depends partly on the screen in use. For instance a 1200x700 pixel image looks great on my MacBook Pro but looks pretty small on my 27" photo editing monitor and if I use a 4K monitor that does on-the-fly image resizing the small image looks pretty bad once it's resized to fit the large, high resolution monitor. Trouble is we never know what monitor someone at the far end viewing a web post will be using. You can size up to 2000 pixels across these days which is nice for folks viewing on larger, higher resolution monitors as long as they view the image at 1:1 and don't resize to fit a huge screen but not great for forum members viewing on laptops and smaller monitors that will have to scroll around to take in the larger image or zoom their browsers out to try to see all of the photo at once.

Some folks prefer to host high res images on photo sharing sites and then link the URL here so that they can post full sized images. That's nice when discussing fine details like whether sharpening is good or whether there's any issues in things like fine feather detail but personally a web sized image is fine for me as we all understand that viewing full sized images on a large high res monitor allows us to really drill into fine detail.

To my eyes on my normal everyday laptop your image looks fine as posted. If I get onto my photo editing computer today I'll take a look but I don't see a problem here for a web post image.

[edit] this image looks fine even on my larger photo editing monitor

 

[jim0379]

From a technical processing point of view I think this image is fine as a web post.


The forum image posting restrictions have been loosened up a bit so if you prefer you can post images here up to 2000 pixels wide or 1400 pixels tall (though no more than 1200 pixels tall is recommended) and image files can be up to 2 MB in file size.

How these look on a screen depends partly on the screen in use. For instance a 1200x700 pixel image looks great on my MacBook Pro but looks pretty small on my 27" photo editing monitor and if I use a 4K monitor that does on-the-fly image resizing the small image looks pretty bad once it's resized to fit the large, high resolution monitor. Trouble is we never know what monitor someone at the far end viewing a web post will be using. You can size up to 2000 pixels across these days which is nice for folks viewing on larger, higher resolution monitors as long as they view the image at 1:1 and don't resize to fit a huge screen but not great for forum members viewing on laptops and smaller monitors that will have to scroll around to take in the larger image or zoom their browsers out to try to see all of the photo at once.

Some folks prefer to host high res images on photo sharing sites and then link the URL here so that they can post full sized images. That's nice when discussing fine details like whether sharpening is good or whether there's any issues in things like fine feather detail but personally a web sized image is fine for me as we all understand that viewing full sized images on a large high res monitor allows us to really drill into fine detail.

To my eyes on my normal everyday laptop your image looks fine as posted. If I get onto my photo editing computer today I'll take a look but I don't see a problem here for a web post image.

Thanks for the quick and detailed response! Good to know a bit more size and resolution is okay now.