Chuck wrote:
> I didn't pay too much attention to AG's comments...
Story of my life...
> First, the
> difference in sharpness between in-camera JPEG and post
> processed raw is pretty dramatic. It almost looks like the
> difference between an excellent lens and a just so-so lens.
I would have agreed with you on the lens, except the fuzzyness
is at the limits of the resolution, as though the AA filter was
too strong. But the softness of the processing appears to be
quite linear and easily addressable with a fine-tuned USM.
> I'm wondering if the JPEG output is deliberately designed to
> be "comfortable" for the average photo but with raw available
> for the advanced used.
Possible. When you consider that the average JPEG file is
printed 4x6 on a Wal-Mart machine, the slightly softened files
may produce a far superior print with fewer artifacts. In
otherwords, the file is matched to the common output.
> I'd like to hear from AG about the types of photos he has used
> where people seem to prefer the softer version. I'm wondering
> if subject matter, size and viewing distance are involved. I
> can hypothesize that in some types of photos (portraits in
> particular) an extremely sharp photo can force our attention
> to parts of the photo that really aren't
> intended to be examined in detail.
My test photos are a mix of portraits in 5x7 and 8x10 as well as
a couple of 8x10 scenics.
What I have surmised is that when the print exceeds the
sharpness of normal peoples' vision at the equivelent viewing
distance, that it becomes less than "real". For example, the
camera-subject distance of a portrait is generally about 2-3
meters. What is the normal human vision like at that distance
vs 1/2 meter for viewing the printed portrait? Same thing with
a landscape--the camera-subject distance is near infinity
whereas the up-close viewing is more like 1/2 meter. So what
happens is that the print is containing far more detail and
"edginess" than what the normal person would ever experience in
person. We need to ask ourselves just what is 20/20 vision?
In 35mm film terms, a quality 8x10 enlargement from a 35mm image
is pretty close to matching the resolution of the human eye at
the same equivelent subject-camera subject-eye viewing distance.
If I take an image from my E-1 and apply zero sharpening to it,
it makes a very comfortable 8x10 that is pretty much the
equivelent of what I get with an unsharpened 35mm image printed
the same size. Granted, this is MY experience with my particular
cameras with my selection of lenses printed out in my particular
output chain.
> In any case, it doesn't matter for someone who shoots mostly
> raw.
Bingo. And with the Pentax, I consider the "lack of sharpness"
in the JPEG file to be a non-issue. The softness is addressable
with USM and is uniform. Not unpredictably blobby like you get
with a smaller-sensored digicam.
What excites me about the K10D is that this is a precurser of
their medium-format digital. Seeing where they came from with
the *istD, they are on a steep learning curve and learning fast.
Their eventual release of the 645D should be really well timed
as Canon is starting to lose their marketing and product "edge".
People who shot medium-format in the past really are wanting to
shoot medium-format again and Canon is just a temporary measure
until the MF companies get their act together. You won't see a
wholesale swapout, but the market is desparately waiting for an
affordable MF alternative.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|