Flat greens

bm75 · 04-21-2016, 01:49 AM

Hi all.
I'm sorry for the dumb question I'm asking but I need some help to understand. Looking at some landscape pictures I've taken with different lenses (DA 17-70 and K 55 f/2) I realize that DA 17-70 seem to flat the greens areas to a strain of pale green without detail. The 55 f/2 renders leaves and trees with much more detail and more real and differenced green tones. This doesn't happen in pictures representing closer scenes , where the green tones of the 17-70 are brilliant and accurate. This happens in all light situation. I've found the IQ of DA 17-70 to be from good to very good so I'm wondering if this a odd behaviour of the lens or just a negative aspect of some modern lens design (compared to K55) that brings more contrast. Oh... and the same happens with 20 f/4 (also in lanscape - distant scenes).
Now the question. Is this a common issue to take count of in digital or it's just simple difference between lenses (i.e. zoom lens design compared to prime lenses) ? And, what is the cause of that (i.e. Am I missing something in PP?)
Thanks in advance. Best regards. Matteo

Adam · 04-21-2016, 02:00 AM

Could you post some examples straight of our camera?

In this day an age colors are mainly determined by the camera. The lens just has the potential to fool the camera's metering and white balance systems, and to darken corners or introduce aberrations that can negatively affect colors. Post-processing, either using in-camera tools or desktop software, can effectively counter this.

If you're shooting in JPEG, do you have lens corrections enabled?

bm75 · 04-21-2016, 02:41 AM

Here some pics taken with 55 f/1.8 and DA17-70. They're PP from RAW then resized. Sorry, I'll search my ext HDrives ho find original RAW files.

mcgregni · 04-21-2016, 02:51 AM

The contrast is less on your second image, and this has lightened the blue and green tones and the reduced shadows. It may be that the prime lens used in the first was a bit more contrasty to start with, but to me these differences look like processing matters. I think you could get both shots very similar it you wanted with RAW processing. It may be that your RAW software is applying a profile to the DA lens which it cannot with the old prime ...?

Wild Mark · 04-21-2016, 03:55 AM

This example exemplifies the benefit of having software like Photoshop. Using masks you can selectively lighten the shadows (trees) without impacting the well metered mountain and snow. The detail is there, you just have to 'find' it.

With regards to the 55mm shot, it seems 'over exposed' hence showing more detail in the trees and less in the mountain/ show. Speed up the shutter and you would get a result somewhat similar to the zoom lens. Also, a hood might be wise to use (if you didn't) to improve contrast in the 55mm shot.

MikeD · 04-21-2016, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by bm75

Hi all.
I'm sorry for the dumb question I'm asking but I need some help to understand. Looking at some landscape pictures I've taken with different lenses (DA 17-70 and K 55 f/2) I realize that DA 17-70 seem to flat the greens areas to a strain of pale green without detail. The 55 f/2 renders leaves and trees with much more detail and more real and differenced green tones. This doesn't happen in pictures representing closer scenes , where the green tones of the 17-70 are brilliant and accurate. This happens in all light situation. I've found the IQ of DA 17-70 to be from good to very good so I'm wondering if this a odd behaviour of the lens or just a negative aspect of some modern lens design (compared to K55) that brings more contrast. Oh... and the same happens with 20 f/4 (also in lanscape - distant scenes).
Now the question. Is this a common issue to take count of in digital or it's just simple difference between lenses (i.e. zoom lens design compared to prime lenses) ? And, what is the cause of that (i.e. Am I missing something in PP?)
Thanks in advance. Best regards. Matteo

Looks like they were shot at different exposures. The 17-70 is variable and the 55 is a constant F2. The 55 looks to be about 1/3 underexposed and the 17-70 looks about 1/3 overexposed. Try increasing and reducing exposure in ACR and see what the difference is.

mcgregni · 04-21-2016, 04:47 AM

Looks like I got your shots the wrong way round, based on the order you referred to them in the post. So the zoom is the first one? Ok, so that is the more contrasty, and I agree that you could hold the exposure on the mids and highlights and just bring up the shadows to reveal the trees and give them more colour. To me the white points look very similar on the two so I see it as more of a contrast issue, not exposure value.

bm75 · 04-21-2016, 05:51 AM

Thanks all.

Lenses are ok so I have to do a better PP and for sure take a class to expand my knowledge of PP (and take care of using the bracketing option when I get pictures..) . Taking these pictures with different lenses was non intended as a real test so that's why I didn't take the right attention on exposing at the same values with both lenses. In fact I realize that the difference between dark areas (trees) and the snow is so much that exposing correctly for highlights involves losing detail in the trees;an hdr or something similar in Photoshop with 2 different exposures would have been a better choice.
Thanks all for your kindness and attention.

Matteo

**beachgardener** · 04-21-2016, 05:52 AM

these images from early 2015, K-5. I see you use RawTherapee, both manual metering with the first one is using pattern metering the second centre weighted, both with manual white balance, what colour space are you using to output the jpg's? It also says in the meta data that, contrast is hard, high saturation and hard sharpness. could there be something going on in original exposure and the post processing?

bm75 · 04-21-2016, 07:27 AM

Yes, you're right.
The images are not recent; some days ago I used exposureplot to evaluate how often I use 20 mm and 55 lens in my pictures and in the findings I've found what I've reported in the first post. And, yes; PP of the images was done long time ago so I have to find the original raw files and do the exp. comparison well explained by the previous post. I'll post the findings. Thank you.

bm75 · 04-21-2016, 01:41 PM

Hi all. I've found 2 images taken last year with 20 f/4 and da17-70. Just to say that ....I was wrong

! No differences here with greens. Images developed straight from .pef without applying anything then resized , all with PDCU4.

Wild Mark · 04-21-2016, 02:42 PM

Goodo and as a surprise to all I would give honours to the 20mm lens. Slightly better contrast and less highlight blowout. Sharpness to and appears to be no corner differences. Ahhh the legacy lenses!

bm75 · 04-21-2016, 03:27 PM

The 20 f/4 is a little gem and a pleasure to use. In APSC it's quite versatile too with a natural FOV . but my suspect towards DA 17-70 is still here,,,,those pictures are taken at the "wide" end of the zoom; I suspect that the 17-70 lens performs worse on the tele side

04-21-2016, 01:49 AM	#1
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	Flat greens Hi all. I'm sorry for the dumb question I'm asking but I need some help to understand. Looking at some landscape pictures I've taken with different lenses (DA 17-70 and K 55 f/2) I realize that DA 17-70 seem to flat the greens areas to a strain of pale green without detail. The 55 f/2 renders leaves and trees with much more detail and more real and differenced green tones. This doesn't happen in pictures representing closer scenes , where the green tones of the 17-70 are brilliant and accurate. This happens in all light situation. I've found the IQ of DA 17-70 to be from good to very good so I'm wondering if this a odd behaviour of the lens or just a negative aspect of some modern lens design (compared to K55) that brings more contrast. Oh... and the same happens with 20 f/4 (also in lanscape - distant scenes). Now the question. Is this a common issue to take count of in digital or it's just simple difference between lenses (i.e. zoom lens design compared to prime lenses) ? And, what is the cause of that (i.e. Am I missing something in PP?) Thanks in advance. Best regards. Matteo

04-21-2016, 02:00 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	Could you post some examples straight of our camera? In this day an age colors are mainly determined by the camera. The lens just has the potential to fool the camera's metering and white balance systems, and to darken corners or introduce aberrations that can negatively affect colors. Post-processing, either using in-camera tools or desktop software, can effectively counter this. If you're shooting in JPEG, do you have lens corrections enabled? Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

04-21-2016, 02:41 AM	#3
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354 Original Poster	Here some pics taken with 55 f/1.8 and DA17-70. They're PP from RAW then resized. Sorry, I'll search my ext HDrives ho find original RAW files. Last edited by bm75; 12-24-2016 at 06:32 PM.

04-21-2016, 01:41 PM	#11
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354 Original Poster	Hi all. I've found 2 images taken last year with 20 f/4 and da17-70. Just to say that ....I was wrong ! No differences here with greens. Images developed straight from .pef without applying anything then resized , all with PDCU4. Last edited by bm75; 12-24-2016 at 06:32 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Flat profile	i83N	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	8	02-22-2016 12:49 PM
Nature Brown black bear eats greens	postal33610	Post Your Photos!	4	08-03-2015 01:53 PM
V-flat supplies	scottike	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	06-04-2015 03:42 PM
Nature Greens and Reds	slowpez	Post Your Photos!	6	05-07-2015 09:09 PM
Landscape Flowing Greens	Jimbo	Post Your Photos!	5	07-30-2012 10:03 PM

04-21-2016, 02:51 AM	#4
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	The contrast is less on your second image, and this has lightened the blue and green tones and the reduced shadows. It may be that the prime lens used in the first was a bit more contrasty to start with, but to me these differences look like processing matters. I think you could get both shots very similar it you wanted with RAW processing. It may be that your RAW software is applying a profile to the DA lens which it cannot with the old prime ...?

04-21-2016, 03:55 AM	#5
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	This example exemplifies the benefit of having software like Photoshop. Using masks you can selectively lighten the shadows (trees) without impacting the well metered mountain and snow. The detail is there, you just have to 'find' it. With regards to the 55mm shot, it seems 'over exposed' hence showing more detail in the trees and less in the mountain/ show. Speed up the shutter and you would get a result somewhat similar to the zoom lens. Also, a hood might be wise to use (if you didn't) to improve contrast in the 55mm shot.

04-21-2016, 04:08 AM	#6
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	Originally posted by bm75 Hi all. I'm sorry for the dumb question I'm asking but I need some help to understand. Looking at some landscape pictures I've taken with different lenses (DA 17-70 and K 55 f/2) I realize that DA 17-70 seem to flat the greens areas to a strain of pale green without detail. The 55 f/2 renders leaves and trees with much more detail and more real and differenced green tones. This doesn't happen in pictures representing closer scenes , where the green tones of the 17-70 are brilliant and accurate. This happens in all light situation. I've found the IQ of DA 17-70 to be from good to very good so I'm wondering if this a odd behaviour of the lens or just a negative aspect of some modern lens design (compared to K55) that brings more contrast. Oh... and the same happens with 20 f/4 (also in lanscape - distant scenes). Now the question. Is this a common issue to take count of in digital or it's just simple difference between lenses (i.e. zoom lens design compared to prime lenses) ? And, what is the cause of that (i.e. Am I missing something in PP?) Thanks in advance. Best regards. Matteo Looks like they were shot at different exposures. The 17-70 is variable and the 55 is a constant F2. The 55 looks to be about 1/3 underexposed and the 17-70 looks about 1/3 overexposed. Try increasing and reducing exposure in ACR and see what the difference is.

04-21-2016, 04:47 AM	#7
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	Looks like I got your shots the wrong way round, based on the order you referred to them in the post. So the zoom is the first one? Ok, so that is the more contrasty, and I agree that you could hold the exposure on the mids and highlights and just bring up the shadows to reveal the trees and give them more colour. To me the white points look very similar on the two so I see it as more of a contrast issue, not exposure value.

04-21-2016, 05:51 AM	#8
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354 Original Poster	Thanks all. Lenses are ok so I have to do a better PP and for sure take a class to expand my knowledge of PP (and take care of using the bracketing option when I get pictures..) . Taking these pictures with different lenses was non intended as a real test so that's why I didn't take the right attention on exposing at the same values with both lenses. In fact I realize that the difference between dark areas (trees) and the snow is so much that exposing correctly for highlights involves losing detail in the trees;an hdr or something similar in Photoshop with 2 different exposures would have been a better choice. Thanks all for your kindness and attention. Matteo

04-21-2016, 05:52 AM	#9
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	these images from early 2015, K-5. I see you use RawTherapee, both manual metering with the first one is using pattern metering the second centre weighted, both with manual white balance, what colour space are you using to output the jpg's? It also says in the meta data that, contrast is hard, high saturation and hard sharpness. could there be something going on in original exposure and the post processing?

04-21-2016, 07:27 AM	#10
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354 Original Poster	Yes, you're right. The images are not recent; some days ago I used exposureplot to evaluate how often I use 20 mm and 55 lens in my pictures and in the findings I've found what I've reported in the first post. And, yes; PP of the images was done long time ago so I have to find the original raw files and do the exp. comparison well explained by the previous post. I'll post the findings. Thank you.

04-21-2016, 02:42 PM	#12
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	Goodo and as a surprise to all I would give honours to the 20mm lens. Slightly better contrast and less highlight blowout. Sharpness to and appears to be no corner differences. Ahhh the legacy lenses!

04-21-2016, 03:27 PM	#13
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354 Original Poster	The 20 f/4 is a little gem and a pleasure to use. In APSC it's quite versatile too with a natural FOV . but my suspect towards DA 17-70 is still here,,,,those pictures are taken at the "wide" end of the zoom; I suspect that the 17-70 lens performs worse on the tele side