Will new "blur" LR Classic feature make fast f/4 wildlife lenses obsolete?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
lukasbayern said:
No serious photographer will ever rely on software solutions, if the initial product they produce is of low quality. Personally, I would never be proud of my picture, if I knew that the RAW picture is not on par with my standards.
Click to expand...
Kind of depends what your standards are for your RAW image. I do agree you would like to start off with the best initial image that you can lay your hands on.

These days editing plays such an important role in many areas of photography. Even for Purists like photo journalists - who can't remove a damn spec of dust off an image. And they don't get to "pose" people or situations - they operate on speed and instinct. They dont have the luxury of reflectors, or moving the people to a better spot, ask them to just turn this way, or that way so the reflection in their glasses isnt so horrible...

Yet - they too have to rely on software - example - yesterday I had to edit a serious of photos for a photojournalist who had to shoot in hugely challenging circumstances. Black people against the very bright sky. It was a nightmare. I was able to pull up shadows - and tone down highlights - which is perfectly acceptable in photo journalism. He had no clue how - as "it has to be good straight out of camera" Well the camera is not a Genie in a bottle. And after 30 years of doing things his way - he said I blew his mind with a couple of simple steps - stuff that he now realises is going to change his life. It's not 1990 anymore.
 
Member's gallery
lukasbayern said:
No serious photographer will ever rely on software solutions, if the initial product they produce is of low quality. Personally, I would never be proud of my picture, if I knew that the RAW picture is not on par with my standards.
Click to expand...

Are we not encouraged to shoot RAW for the scope it gives for post processing? Certainly the series of photographs of the interiors of British Cathedrals* I am currently working on is much enhanced by the ability to pull-up the shadows. Is this wrong? I don't think so, I don't feel that it devalues the original RAW files. I feel the same about LR's other features; I don't use them all - I doubt if I ever will - but it is good to have such a powerful package.

If that makes me less than serious I can happily live with the label.

*Yes - nothing to do with wildlife - I mention it just to make a point.
Chaz
 
Member's gallery
lukasbayern said:
No serious photographer will ever rely on software solutions, if the initial product they produce is of low quality. Personally, I would never be proud of my picture, if I knew that the RAW picture is not on par with my standards.
Click to expand...
In my mind, a serious photographer will use every resource available to make the best photograph possible. If you your not using software, you must be shooting film?
 
Member's gallery
Dont forget - some people are simply not interested in any form of editing. They just like to shoot. And if that rocks their boat - so be it. Not everybody has to be "serious", or pro, or love editing - all they need to do is enjoy photography.
I have a friend who shoots with a P950 - half his stuff is out of focus - and he LIVES to shoot his stuff. I would say he is seriously addicted. but a bloody bad photographer - and he doesnt care. 😂
 
Member's gallery
Drifting a little from the blurry background bokeh thing. Here are 2 photos I shot today. They are part of a sequence of a Barred Owl that happened to land in a tree not very far in front of us. We were looking for deer in the height of the annual rut but opportunity knocked.
The first image is straight out of the camera as the camera captured it. Whatever default processing that goes on inside the R7 is there. The second is one I did some editing to bring it to life. The first image is what my camera "saw", where the second image is what I saw in my mind. Neither of these are award winning photos. Nature is messy and I couldn't really direct the owl to clear the branches from in front o fit or to move to another branch, I just captured what was there.

_T3A2254.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
_T3A2251.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Jeff-

I actually like the uncropped shot because I find the tree's bark interesting. I think the takeaway from this thread is different strokes for different folks. The R7 did well IMHO.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
Jeff-

I actually like the uncropped shot because I find the tree's bark interesting. I think the takeaway from this thread is different strokes for different folks. The R7 did well IMHO.

Tom
Click to expand...
Thanks. I will probably widen the crop a bit. I agree with the bark of the sycamore tree behind the owl.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
It did. I'd have liked the owl to be more centered on the tree behind it, to play up the camo angle. Goes to show we all like different things though
Click to expand...
So would I. However, as wildlife photographers, we sometimes have to play with the cards dealt. The owl was there and gone in about one minute. Any movement by me and it would have been long gone. I already had the camera up when it landed since I was photographing deer just a few yards away.
 
Member's gallery
The ability to isolate the subject cleanly and to look completely natural in software is not there yet for me.....i can still tell the difference in my own images.......The software also has a much less pleasing look to the lens blurred background to my taste and i wouldnt use it as it stands ..... That being said..... everyone has different ideas..... if you are happy with the results....thats all that matters. I do believe photography has now through editing and digital technology caught up to the other arts such as music, painting etc in terms of being able to create and communicate what our artistic minds want to...... We can express ourselves with as little or as much manipulation/editing as we want. The same thing has happened in music with the availability of home recording technology etc..... Of course whatever the gear..... the truly talented in each generation shine through as they always have....because they are able to communicate something deeper than the purely technical.
 
Member's gallery
Rectory Photography said:
The ability to isolate the subject cleanly and to look completely natural in software is not there yet for me.....i can still tell the difference in my own images.......The software also has a much less pleasing look to the lens blurred background to my taste and i wouldnt use it as it stands ..... That being said..... everyone has different ideas..... if you are happy with the results....thats all that matters. I do believe photography has now through editing and digital technology caught up to the other arts such as music, painting etc in terms of being able to create and communicate what our artistic minds want to...... We can express ourselves with as little or as much manipulation/editing as we want. The same thing has happened in music with the availability of home recording technology etc..... Of course whatever the gear..... the truly talented in each generation shine through as they always have....because they are able to communicate something deeper than the purely technical.
Click to expand...
Yep…I think we can all agree that the exotic 8 pound $14K or more lenses will produce 'better' images than the more pedestrian lenses…at least when you're looking at them at 1:1 in LR. However…as I've said before…a lot of that 'better' just disappears if your output is intended primarily for the screen, so in that case maybe better is the enemy of good enough. Outside of that…there's the cost, weight, and what I call bang for the buck theory. While I could easily afford the cost of say a 600TC lens…I ask myself how many shots I would use it for in some time period vs using some other lens…and where the output was going (screen for me) and in those circumstances better is definitely the enemy of good enough. But the primary reason I don't have a 600TC (outside of the essential non-availability of them) is weight, size, and needs a tripod a lot of the time. That's a bigger deal for me than any of the other factors. I'm just not willing to carry that much weight. Note that I'm going to Serengeti with Steve/Rose in April…so it's not that I won't spend the money…it's that Connie and I have always been proponents of the bang for the buck idea and I even sprung for business class tickets to/from Tanzania because they offer the ability to sleep on the 24 hours of flight time and the extra 2K for them meets that criteria.

I'm not able to do direct comparisons since I don't have any of those exotic lenses…but for display output purposes…a small amount of the lens blur filter in LR looks pretty good to me. Would I be able to tell the difference between those shots and if I had an actual 600TC? Maybe…depends on how far behind the background is and other factors but the weight of the 600TC makes it a no go for me. The 1-1/3 stop difference makes a difference in DoF and bokeh…but it isn't a significantly enough improvement for an amateur to make it worth it weight wise.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
Yep…I think we can all agree that the exotic 8 pound $14K or more lenses will produce 'better' images than the more pedestrian lenses…at least when you're looking at them at 1:1 in LR. However…as I've said before…a lot of that 'better' just disappears if your output is intended primarily for the screen, so in that case maybe better is the enemy of good enough. Outside of that…there's the cost, weight, and what I call bang for the buck theory. While I could easily afford the cost of say a 600TC lens…I ask myself how many shots I would use it for in some time period vs using some other lens…and where the output was going (screen for me) and in those circumstances better is definitely the enemy of good enough. But the primary reason I don't have a 600TC (outside of the essential non-availability of them) is weight, size, and needs a tripod a lot of the time. That's a bigger deal for me than any of the other factors. I'm just not willing to carry that much weight. Note that I'm going to Serengeti with Steve/Rose in April…so it's not that I won't spend the money…it's that Connie and I have always been proponents of the bang for the buck idea and I even sprung for business class tickets to/from Tanzania because they offer the ability to sleep on the 24 hours of flight time and the extra 2K for them meets that criteria.

I'm not able to do direct comparisons since I don't have any of those exotic lenses…but for display output purposes…a small amount of the lens blur filter in LR looks pretty good to me. Would I be able to tell the difference between those shots and if I had an actual 600TC? Maybe…depends on how far behind the background is and other factors but the weight of the 600TC makes it a no go for me. The 1-1/3 stop difference makes a difference in DoF and bokeh…but it isn't a significantly enough improvement for an amateur to make it worth it weight wise.
Click to expand...
Exactly, just use what works for you.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
I'm not able to do direct comparisons since I don't have any of those exotic lenses…but for display output purposes…a small amount of the lens blur filter in LR looks pretty good to me. Would I be able to tell the difference between those shots and if I had an actual 600TC? Maybe…
Click to expand...
At the current state of the technology the software blur works well when you don't really need it e.g. when nothing but the subject is in the DOF. When there are extraneous branches, grass, etc relatively close in front of or behind the subject the software often can't differentiate. IOW it does a poor job of actually simulating DOF in a complex scene.

As to whether someone can tell the difference between DOF/BG blur due to wide aperture vs PP, anyone who can't tell the difference would most certainly be wasting a lot of $$ investing in high end lenses.
 
Member's gallery
Jeff shot this shot @ 500mm with a 1.6 cropped sensor. The file is 32mb. That combo did a great job catching an interesting shot when Jeff has less than 1 min to get it and if Jeff tried to move the Owl was gone. With all the problems with this shot I would still post it on Facebook and my viewers would love it.

If Jeff had waited for a Z-8 and had sprung for a 600mm f4 I wonder if he could have gotten that heavy sucker around fast enough to even capture the shot.

What I am saying is that light weight and compact size has a quality all its own. What I want to know is where is the shot of the bird taking off? At 30 f/s you should have caught one.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
Jeff shot this shot @ 500mm with a 1.6 cropped sensor. The file is 32mb. That combo did a great job catching an interesting shot when Jeff has less than 1 min to get it and if Jeff tried to move the Owl was gone. With all the problems with this shot I would still post it on Facebook and my viewers would love it.

If Jeff had waited for a Z-8 and had sprung for a 600mm f4 I wonder if he could have gotten that heavy sucker around fast enough to even capture the shot.

What I am saying is that light weight and compact size has a quality all its own. What I want to know is where is the shot of the bird taking off? At 30 f/s you should have caught one.

Tom
Click to expand...
Tom,
Thanks. This was taken about 3 miles from where I had parked. I doubt I would have been carrying a 600 F4 that far back, especially with some of my back and shoulder problems (63 years of abuse to my body taking its toll).

Flight shot... well, to be perfectly honest, I missed it. The owl flew to the branch, I grabbed focus (Canon R7 grabbed it fast) and started shooting. I lowered the camera for a second thinking about taking a step to my left. I really would have liked to have centered it up on the tree behind it and to see if I could get a better background. Before I could take that step or even get the camera back up to my eye, poof, it flew off. The owl went about 20 yards back into the trees but, other than the opportunity to watch a beautiful creature hunting and doing its thing, the new location offered nothing that resembled a photo opportunity. It sat in its new perch for a few minutes and then went deeper into the woods not to be seen by me or my wife again.

The photos are average at best, the experience of sharing a moment with this beauty was outstanding.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Having grown up in times of film, I still admire photographers that come home with picture jewels without having to fill ten memory cards a day and having to spend hours to manipulate data, but can produce marvellous results with theiri knowlegde about light and the way to catch it in the right way in the right moment. Reality is that there is a trend towards practicing photography in a way similar to the cliché of Japanes and Chinese holiday trips, where the people realize weeks later, where they have been, what they have seen and what they could have felt, if they had lived the moment - which is gone.

Admittedly I also use software and its capabilities to "develop my digital films", but the FTR apporach f(irst time right) is kind of recognized occupational disease for me ;), although I have to admit I learn everyday how far away from perfection I really still am.

As a consequence I try to maximize the quality of the original image in the first place and minimize the time and effort put in for tweaking the results afterwards.

We have to make compromises everywhere every day and so we have with our gear depending on what we want to do with it and how good we are in doing it.
E.g. a Z 180-600 can be the optimal tool for one situation and a reasonable compromise for another, but if you want the optimal result you got to use the optimal tool.

Thus, instead of hoping for a software update I take my 10+ years old fast prime with the big tripod out in the hide, wait for the light crawl in the scenery and feel comfortable, knowing that I have the tool with me that allows me to get as close to FTR as I possibly can. And if I can't lug the right gear around anymore for what I want to do, there's time for changing my focus, not for using software to manipulate the perception not for using software to give the impression that I am (still) capable of doing things that I can no longer do in reality.

If I wanna race a superbike with 300+ km/h I have to be able to do it. If I am not, there is no point in buying a scooter, make it look like a superbike, take a film of my driving it and use software to make it look like a 300+ km/h ride.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but during the decision process for changing platform there were moments where I seriously thought about forgetting new camera gear, just get good binoculars go out and go back to "brain photography". In times where it becomes increasingly difficult to decide whether an image or video reflects reality or not, I think it is a critical development that more energy seems to be invested in manipulating the perception of reality rather than improving reality itself - and photography as well as videography are probably some of the most important tools in this area, which makes it kind of obvious that there is a nincreasing demand for functionality to manipulation of photos and videos themselves.

The previously mentioned initiatives in relation to manipulation-proof authentification of data are IMHO are most welcome and long overdue, while applying this to photographic or videographic content is only one aspect. And of course it will be difficult to define the borderline between optimization and manipulation.
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
Oy vey - Sorry for your troubles but your post and statements are a tad much for this nuclear blond - and I am challenging you to prove your exact statement:

Creamy backgrounds makes for mostly dull and boring shots.
Click to expand...

Jeff has pretty gotten a good part of what I was thinking here.

jeffnles1 said:
I can say the way I read it and what I tend to think about the topic.
[...]
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
Your photo allows me to vicariously experience seeing that magnificent creature. Thus, the picture did what was intended, showing your experience to the viewer.

Tom

PS: I barely remember being 63
Click to expand...
Thanks Tom.
When I first started getting more serious into nature photography, I was chasing the perfect exposure the perfect pose, the perfect background. Fast forward about 20 years to today and I hope I've matured a bit. I now realize the purpose for my photography is to build awareness of these beautiful creatures, flowers and landscapes. Your statement of seeing the magnificent creature through my photography made my day! Thank you.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
The technology isn't there yet - but I have no doubt it will be at some point. The biggest issue I see with it is that it's not great at transitions from sharp to blurry like a real lens - it's applied in too general a way without enough subtle granularity in the transitions.

Still, let's play a game using some bokeh examples from one of my recent videos. In this case, we're going to compare the 600 6.3 to the 600 F/4. Also keep in mind this is an INCREDIBLY easy and unrealistic scene - real wildlife shots would be much tougher.

First, just what the two lenses look like side by side, the backgrounds unmolested by technology :)

View attachment 73732

Now, how it looks with 100% blur applied to the F/6.3 lens.


View attachment 73733

At first glance, the 600PF looks really good here, but look closer. Notice how the blur "spreads out" in the 600 F/4 shot, as opposed to the 600 6.3 where it simply takes the background and applies uniform blur to it. You can especially see this in the greens in the lower left and also the yellows right next to the clamp (note the size the the dark areas). Also, note the transitions between the blurry areas - they are still contrasty and hard compared to the 600 F/4. However, the tool does soften the textures in the background which is a plus. Will a casual facbook user notice things like this? Probably not. However, they may notice that the effect looks somehow "fake" without being able to put a finger on it.

Here's a quick side by side with just the 600 6.3 so you can see the difference the filter made.

View attachment 73734

Also, keep in mind that you can also apply this to the F/4 shots too. In this case, both at 100% blur.


View attachment 73735

Personally, I think the best use for this tool isn't using it at 100% :)

I think the best way to use it is for just knocking off the hard edges in the background and not trying to completely simulate a faster lens - I think when you push it that far, it tends to look a little unrealistic (although, this can also depend on the shot - texture of the background, that sort of thing).
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing. I guess you only used the blur for the pf-lens. What will happend if you also reduce contrast/blackness?
 
Member's gallery
lukasbayern said:
No serious photographer will ever rely on software solutions, if the initial product they produce is of low quality. Personally, I would never be proud of my picture, if I knew that the RAW picture is not on par with my standards.
Click to expand...
What are your standards? And what do you define as "low quality?" Different people might have different opinions!

For "high quality":

I want the RAW image to be a reasonable to excellent composition -- for a landscape, I want excellent, for a BIF, I'll often take reasonable (which means I'm more likely to crop).

The eye has a greater dynamic range than the camera does, so bringing up shadows, etc strikes me as pretty reasonable (or even HDR). It's quite possible the out of camera image appears too bright or too dark and I have no guilt about fixing that in post ... this is only possible if the exposure was close enough. You want to get exposure right in camera, but with changing light and moving subjects, not always going to happen.

The image should be "in focus" where again, I might want a landscape to be completely in focus, but with moving critters often part of the critter may be NOT in focus (it's really hard with macro stuff to get everything in focus with a live creature). (Disclosure: I have used Topaz software to "fix" a handful of pictures that were out of focus ...)

I'll cheerfully "cleanup" some pictures with distracting bright spots, etc.

I will also -- horrors -- selectively sharpen/add contrast/etc to the subject. This becomes a grey area, but I will point out that a human looking at a scene in nature will do the same; as one gazes at the eagle sitting on a branch focus goes to that bird and the rest of the scene becomes literally out of focus/almost ignored.

And noise reduction software is pretty cool. It's dark and things are moving. At the shutter speed required, lots of noise. If the overall image is good enough, I'll try and fix that in post.

It was my belief that almost every really good published picture you see today has had a reasonable about of post-processing.

I circle back: what is lukasbayern's definition of low quality?
 
Member's gallery
ThomasJohansson said:
Thanks for showing. I guess you only used the blur for the pf-lens. What will happend if you also reduce contrast/blackness?
Click to expand...
I don't have the photos handy at the moment, but reducing the black point and contrast tends to lighten things up and sort of "flatten out" the color, but it wouldn't make the background any more "blurry". Dropping clarity and texture can, but that's often not great either.
 
Member's gallery
It’s interesting to read some of the comments here.
The way that some you imply a them and us society is staggering, if you are a position to afford the ridiculously expensive lenses by all means do so, but don’t assume that us poor people are not real photographers.
Just because you have a big lens doesn’t make you any better a photographer than the person who only has a 70-300 lens or similar. I would actually go as far as to say that maybe the “poor” photographer is possibly better because he actually has to really try harder to get a good shot. When I hear comments like “purist” it makes me laugh. I for one applaud adobe and everyone else for bringing these features into editing software.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top