I think your experiments with what people like in prints are
interesting and probably say a lot about people's perceptions. I
wonder though whether you may be reading something into this that is
not there.
There has been a constant drum beat of criticism for Nikon jpegs
going back to the high end Coolpix models and the DSLRs. They get
constantly compared unfavorably for sharpness, mostly to Canon. Maybe
the idea of a good 4x6 print was in the mind of the designers, but
the very cameras to be used for getting those prints are the less
expensive more consumer oriented cameras and they are the ones with
heavy sharpening right out of the camera. Gradually Nikon has
increased the jpeg sharpness in the lower priced cameras, but
comments still are made about the pro and semi pro models which are
the ones least likely to be used for 4x6 snaps.
I took a couple of the full sized Pentax jpeg samples at dpreview and
they took lots of sharpening very well, like Nikon jpegs.
I think this is the deal. It is probably very hard to do a really
good job of preserving the most photo information with a file when
converting it and sharpening simultaneously with the little power
limited circuit in a camera. It is pretty clear from some of the
other things done, like highlight preserving exposure that looks too
dark, that every effort is being made to save the most information
possible in a JPEG. I just think that Pentax is following the same
philosophy. Canon does this too, I think, but probably more relegated
to the pro models, just drawing the compromise differently.
The preference for a print with a softer file is probably just a
happy coincidence. I could be wrong, though.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:24 PM, AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> 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.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|