[osv]

On recent versions of Camera Raw, the "Clarity" control can be used to manipulate micro contrast - it was deliberately created for this purpose. I didn't realise it until Russell Preston Brown explained it to me.

Problem is - micro contrast manipulation is so rife and overused these days some of us may not even realise what natural contrast looks like. Russell tells me he is not afraid to push the control all the way to 90 or 95 in some images. That may be valid for artistic reasons, but I see a lot of photos these days where both macro and micro contrast are just too high to be natural - even in a lot of films.

90-95 on clarity is pretty serious, i wonder if he uses that for portraits.

i've seen people argue that clarity isn't micro contrast, but the effect it gives looks like micro contrast it to me... glad to hear russell's viewpoint.

digitalis and pinholecam were thinking that this fdn 24mm 2.8 has weak micro contrast, and i shot some 24mm lens comparison images this morning that may bear that out... i'm gonna post 'em up later today.

[Digitalis]

On recent versions of Camera Raw, the "Clarity" control can be used to manipulate micro contrast

The clarity tool only manipulates macro contrast Christine.The clarity tool is basically USM applied with a very large radius - if you don't believe me: open an image in photoshop and apply unsharp mask with these settings, Amount=25 Radius=40 thresh=0 - it is exactly the same effect as clarity - though using USM to do this gives far more control than the slider in LR. Micro contrast covers tonal values that are very small, if a lens doesn't have the inherent ability to render these micro-scale contrast differentials you won't see them in the image - and you cannot amplify what was beyond the ability of the lens to project on the sensor.

Micro contrast should not be confused with resolution which is based on accutance - which is edge contrast between two distinct colours or tonal values which is what gets measured in MTF testing. USM can be used to enhances edge contrast, but if diffraction is high enough edge contrast suffers along with micro-contrast.

Problem is - micro contrast manipulation is so rife and overused these days some of us may not even realise(sic) what natural contrast looks like. Russell tells me he is not afraid to push the control all the way to 90 or 95 in some images.

I have never done that in my life +25 clarity is enough for me. Some people abandon their sense of taste as quickly as their sense of artistic integrity these days.

[Christine Tham]

90-95 on clarity is pretty serious, i wonder if he uses that for portraits.

I think it suits his style, which I can only describe as "outlandish" :-)

BTW, here's a photo of me with Russell, taken on my iPhone by a friend:

[pinholecam]

90-95 on clarity is pretty serious, i wonder if he uses that for portraits.

i've seen people argue that clarity isn't micro contrast, but the effect it gives looks like micro contrast it to me... glad to hear russell's viewpoint.

digitalis and pinholecam were thinking that this fdn 24mm 2.8 has weak micro contrast, and i shot some 24mm lens comparison images this morning that may bear that out... i'm gonna post 'em up later today.

I think I forgot to say that those are nice shots anyway, whatever the lens characteristic
I wouldn't loose hair over it.
I'm just curious about the FD24/2.8 as an option for the A7/r.
Seems like most of the small 24/2.8 (Canikon, Minolta, Pentax) are more similar than not, based on samples I've seen on other forums (FM; MFLenses; SeriousCompacts) and my own use of the K24.


Often, as photographers, we take the gear that matches our budget, preference to small/big lens, lens characteristics and get out the door to take photos.
At best, we make educated choices and are aware of the other options out there and the trade-offs.
So the FD24/2.8 seems to work fine to me within a set of real world constraints.

If you don't mind the lens comparisons, its certainly welcome info.
TIA

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 03-20-2014 at 08:45 AM.

[RyanW]

but I see a lot of photos these days where both macro and micro contrast are just too high to be natural - even in a lot of films.

I agree. Like you, about 15 is max for me in LRoom unless I specicially want a fried crispy sharp look. It's absolutely horrid on people shots.

[Christine Tham]

I agree. Like you, about 15 is max for me in LRoom unless I specicially want a fried crispy sharp look. It's absolutely horrid on people shots.

I know - it makes me cringe. Unfortunately, it's become the norm, just like compression in pop music. I find it very hard to look at some people's photos because of it. And a natural looking photo in some people's eyes is now "boring" "lifeless" "lacking in punch" etc. etc.

[pinholecam]

Just when I said that it has not affected me and perhaps there is little real world implications of the problem .

Hit me like a hammer!



130s exposure with a 10 stop ND

The lucky thing is that this was between adapter and lens.
I made do with some tissue paper rolled up and wrapped round the area and the problem went away.
But the time spent solving the problem meant that I lost any chance to shoot with the ND as light was falling fast.

Tried an elastic hair band pilfered from my daughter's stash of trinkets and it seems to solve the problem.

Its something to look out for though I'm lucky its not from the E-mount itself.
My friend who was using the A7 and shooting with me was using a better more expensive adapter and he had no issues.
So perhaps the pricier stuff makes a difference.

[Clavius]

Just when I said that it has not affected me and perhaps there is little real world implications of the problem .

Hit me like a hammer!



130s exposure with a 10 stop ND

The lucky thing is that this was between adapter and lens.
I made do with some tissue paper rolled up and wrapped round the area and the problem went away.
But the time spent solving the problem meant that I lost any chance to shoot with the ND as light was falling fast.

Tried an elastic hair band pilfered from my daughter's stash of trinkets and it seems to solve the problem.

Its something to look out for though I'm lucky its not from the E-mount itself.
My friend who was using the A7 and shooting with me was using a better more expensive adapter and he had no issues.
So perhaps the pricier stuff makes a difference.

So the quality of the adapter determines the amount of leakage. Like I said a few posts back: Using an FE mount lens I am completely unable to reproduce the problem. Experimenting with lenses not intended for the FE mount is all fine and good, but you have to be sensible about it.

[osv]

Just when I said that it has not affected me and perhaps there is little real world implications of the problem .

Hit me like a hammer!

dang, sorry to see that, looks like it wrecked a cool shot

maybe now that we've both posted pics of it, people will start testing their gear, before it's too late??

the other day i got a cheapo ebay adapter for my fdn lenses, that's all black, no chrome plating, i think that it helps with the light leakage situation.

o.t.: that russell pic is classic! lol

[pinholecam]

dang, sorry to see that, looks like it wrecked a cool shot

maybe now that we've both posted pics of it, people will start testing their gear, before it's too late??

the other day i got a cheapo ebay adapter for my fdn lenses, that's all black, no chrome plating, i think that it helps with the light leakage situation.

o.t.: that russell pic is classic! lol

Yes indeed.
That what I try to do.
Try out in more real use situations to check is the issues affect me.
Better than to find out when I am on an expensive overseas trip
Hopeful others can benefit too.

I tried 2 different brand nikon adapters.
Both bad too.
Iight leaks in from the lens release button for both.
Canon eos and ltm adapter that I have seem ok.