PDA

View Full Version : Keukenhof, Muscari River



Mike Singh
07-03-2017, 02:50 PM
I had a short trip to Amsterdam and of course had to go to the famed Keukenhof Gardens. This is the photo I planned to get. It took me ages to find this Muscari river. Never ask anyone in an official suit, just ask a gardener.
I would appreciate your CCs.

Early Spring cloudy with sun
A lot of tourist around
1/100, F9, ISO 800, 24mm
Canon 5DMkiii, Sigma 24-105mm
Hand Held
Processed in LR and cloned out distracting tree in PS.

Don Railton
07-04-2017, 07:32 AM
Hi Mike

Love the composition and colour here. Well planned... and I am glad you have kept the blue clear of the RH side. My only comment is that the blue flowers don't look quite as sharp mid frame as in the fg for instance.... Maybe there was a bit of wind? or maybe a wave:bg3: moving down the river?? I also copied you image into PS to have a play (hope you dont mind) and applied a masked contrast layer to the image BG trees & sky. Basically pulled back the sky brightness and increased the contrast.. I thought the image looked better. What do you think?..

Don

Mike Singh
07-04-2017, 08:17 AM
Hi Mike

Love the composition and colour here. Well planned... and I am glad you have kept the blue clear of the RH side. My only comment is that the blue flowers don't look quite as sharp mid frame as in the fg for instance.... Maybe there was a bit of wind? or maybe a wave:bg3: moving down the river?? I also copied you image into PS to have a play (hope you dont mind) and applied a masked contrast layer to the image BG trees & sky. Basically pulled back the sky brightness and increased the contrast.. I thought the image looked better. What do you think?..

Don

Thanks for your comments and edit Don. Keukenhof is all about the color and the patterns they have made with the tulips. I don't know why the mid portion of the river is not as sharp as the foreground. I focused 5 feet into the scene at F9. Maybe there was flow down the river!

I did a similar contrast adjustment in LR, with a graduated filter. Maybe I did not do it enough. I will have a look at your version when I get home on my PC.

Mike

Steve Kaluski
07-04-2017, 08:49 AM
Is the 'RAW' shot in sRGB Mode or RGB 1998???

John Mack
07-04-2017, 08:00 PM
Like the vertical composition here nice color as well.

Mike Singh
07-05-2017, 04:30 AM
Is the 'RAW' shot in sRGB Mode or RGB 1998???
Hi Steve
The RAW was shot in sRGB.
Mike

Mike Singh
07-05-2017, 04:31 AM
Like the vertical composition here nice color as well.
Thanks John.
Mike

Don Lacy
07-05-2017, 09:40 PM
Hi Steve
The RAW was shot in sRGB.
Mike
What color space was it converted in and why are people shooting in sRGB in camera. Not sure where this advice is coming from but it is wrong for a number of reasons. Mike set your camera to RGB 1998 and during your Raw conversion choose either 1998 or pro also called wide on some converters as the output color space. In case your wondering why the short answere is sRGB is a rather small color space which will clip colors that the others wont if you want the long version I will send you links to color theory and spaces that might cause your eyes to glaze over. In short sRGB is throwing away color information that modern printers and monitors can see and use and the larger color space along with 16 bit color depth allow for greater lattiude in processing your images before artifacts and posterization show.

Steve Kaluski
07-06-2017, 01:26 AM
Don, I have tried advised Mike on this in an Avian thread, it's then down to folk to then take the advice onboard.

Mike Singh
07-06-2017, 02:51 AM
What color space was it converted in and why are people shooting in sRGB in camera. Not sure where this advice is coming from but it is wrong for a number of reasons. Mike set your camera to RGB 1998 and during your Raw conversion choose either 1998 or pro also called wide on some converters as the output color space. In case your wondering why the short answere is sRGB is a rather small color space which will clip colors that the others wont if you want the long version I will send you links to color theory and spaces that might cause your eyes to glaze over. In short sRGB is throwing away color information that modern printers and monitors can see and use and the larger color space along with 16 bit color depth allow for greater lattiude in processing your images before artifacts and posterization show.

Don and Steve
This photo was taken befor I joined BPN.

Don
I would like to have your links please.

Mike

Steve Kaluski
07-06-2017, 02:58 AM
This photo was taken befor I joined BPN.

OK Mike, but I think you should mention this in any future posting, however the image will never be as good as if you had shot it in the correct mode RGB 1998 and processed it in RGB, as this is Industry Standard Mike. If you are reluctant to change from sRGB to RGB as both Don & I have suggested then fine, just let us know please.

Don Lacy
07-06-2017, 08:03 PM
Don and Steve
This photo was taken befor I joined BPN.

Don
I would like to have your links please.
Mike

Mike if this came from a Raw image your cameras color space is irrelevant just convert it again and assign either 1998 RGB or the pro color space during the conversion and here are some sites to check out. Personally I shoot in 1998 convert in Raw to pro as my working space and save my master file in pro and save my jPegs meant for web viewing in sRGB
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-spaces.htm
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/print_workflow_colorspace_article.shtml
http://www.color-management-guide.com/choosing-between-srgb-adobe-rgb-and-prophoto.html

Mike Singh
07-07-2017, 07:25 AM
Mike if this came from a Raw image your cameras color space is irrelevant just convert it again and assign either 1998 RGB or the pro color space during the conversion and here are some sites to check out. Personally I shoot in 1998 convert in Raw to pro as my working space and save my master file in pro and save my jPegs meant for web viewing in sRGB
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-spaces.htm
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/print_workflow_colorspace_article.shtml
http://www.color-management-guide.com/choosing-between-srgb-adobe-rgb-and-prophoto.html

Thanks Don.
I always shoot in RAW. From what I have read so far I can choose the colour space after, as you have suggested. I also read that if I was shooting in JPEG then setting the colour space in camera would be more relevant.

I have read the Cambridge in Colour article previously. Will be reading the other links ASAP.

I looked through the BPN Digital Workflow threads as well as doing a search title for sRGB. The most recent thread I could find is a few years old. Surely printing technology would have caught up with the expanded colour gamut offered by modern digital photography. It may be a good idea to have a contemporary thread on the subject.

Mike

Rachel Hollander
07-10-2017, 09:48 AM
Mike - Yes, shooting in RAW you can change the color space afterwards but my understanding for the reason why to have your camera's color space set to Adobe RGB is that the histograms are then rendered in the wider gamut and depict the channels with greater accuracy to ensure against clipping.

Regards,
Rachel

Mike Singh
07-11-2017, 04:36 AM
Mike - Yes, shooting in RAW you can change the color space afterwards but my understanding for the reason why to have your camera's color space set to Adobe RGB is that the histograms are then rendered in the wider gamut and depict the channels with greater accuracy to ensure against clipping.

Regards,
Rachel
Thanks Rachel, that Histogram info is good to know.
Mike

Andrew McLachlan
07-12-2017, 07:30 PM
Hi Mike, each of my cameras is set to Adobe RGB as well. The only time I convert images to sRGB is for web viewing. When presented with over-cast conditions, as you were, you have beautiful soft lighting on the flower beds. Bright, white, over-cast skies do little to help scenes such as this and I find the white sky to be a very distracting element for this composition. Composing the scene without the white sky will make the scene more appealing as our attention is drawn immediately to all the wonderful flowers. Don Railton's repost does help by toning down the brightness of the sky but I think the image would have more impact if it was more of an intimate scene of just the flowers.

Mike Singh
07-13-2017, 05:58 AM
Hi Mike, each of my cameras is set to Adobe RGB as well. The only time I convert images to sRGB is for web viewing. When presented with over-cast conditions, as you were, you have beautiful soft lighting on the flower beds. Bright, white, over-cast skies do little to help scenes such as this and I find the white sky to be a very distracting element for this composition. Composing the scene without the white sky will make the scene more appealing as our attention is drawn immediately to all the wonderful flowers. Don Railton's repost does help by toning down the brightness of the sky but I think the image would have more impact if it was more of an intimate scene of just the flowers.
Hi Andrew
Your point about the overcast skies and light is well made. It was great lighting for taking macro shots of the flowers...which I did.

Arthur Morris
09-07-2017, 12:33 PM
Hi Mike,

I am late to the party here and viewing this image in the car; no worries, I am not driving. I have been to Keukenhof several times and I gotta say that this one is a stunner both composition- and color-wise. Thanks also for commenting on so many threads in the various Forums. We hope to have you as a member soon.

wtih love, artie

Mike Singh
09-08-2017, 06:33 AM
Hi Mike,

I am late to the party here and viewing this image in the car; no worries, I am not driving. I have been to Keukenhof several times and I gotta say that this one is a stunner both composition- and color-wise. Thanks also for commenting on so many threads in the various Forums. We hope to have you as a member soon.

wtih love, artie
Thanks for feedback Artie! It is an awesome place for flower photography.
Mike