On 8/12/2010 4:57 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> ...
>
> When I see OM images as sharp as these I feel like giving up .....
I think you are misunderstanding, and mis-attributing the source of what you
see on the screen.
Here's an image , the original of which is fairly sharp, with good DOF, but,
being from a small sensor compact camera,
doesn't have the pixel level detail of a DSLR, especially FF. The subject has
an incredible amount of fine, subtle
detail. Yet when seen on the web, none of that will be visible. In fact, I
doubt if one could tell the difference at
this size if I had duplicated the shot on the 5D.
What IS visible is mid level detail, and the way it is processed and presented
determines how sharp it looks.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Sharp/IMG_0859.htm>
Look closely, and I think you will find that the amount of clear detail
increases with each step, not all of which are
sharpening, and some of which were done at full size, others after downsizing.
Even step Five, which certainly starts to
look over processed, does increase visible detail in parts of the image.
I have not forgotten your eloquent and moving post on why you don't have a
computer with contemporary processor speed,
amount of memory and image editing software.
Nevertheless, much more of the difference in sharpness you perceive between
your web size images and these of Joel's is
attributable to post processing than to differences in camera, lens and
photographic technique. Joel uses current
computer equipment and version of PS. (Funny what people notice. I take the
sharpness and clarity in 208 a bit for
granted, lovely as they are, and notice the slight sharpening halo along the
horizon.)
Or perhaps you are projecting backward from his web images to originals
imagined to be razor sharp, too. I'm sure they
are quite nice, but this is an E-410 with kit lens, so you aren't going to cut
yourself on the originals. :-)
Remember, "sharpness" is not a measurable quality. What we call sharpness is
some imprecise combination of several
separately measurable qualities, among which are resolution, overall contrast
and contrast at edges (Roughly, accutance
for film and local contrast for digital.)
I suppose there are plenty of folks who have fine tuned their camera settings
to optimize sharpening and contrast for
JPEGs out of the camera. I, and many others, shoot RAW, and can choose how to
set these factors in RAW processing and/or
post processing.
Beyond that, as Chuck has pointed out many times, , I a few less and Joel in
this thread, the simple act of downsampling
an image ALWAYS results in a softer appearing image. Sharpening, resharpening,
whatever you call it, is necessary to get
a sharp looking web image.
In fact, it's quite possible to get a very sharp looking web image from a
slightly soft, full size original. If one of
your photographic goals is really clear looking web images, stop worrying about
equipment to capture images; you've
already got more than enough, and good enough. Maybe even sell some, to start
the "real computer and software" fund.
Then invest the time to learn to use it.
A. Sharp Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|