Moose wrote
> 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.)
Thanks Moose. Yes, I did notice the over-sharpening halo along the
horizon, and pointed it out to my partner when I showed the image to her.
And thanks for the 5 images. I did load them all and look at them several
times. I'm aware that altering contrast, and other changes, can make
alterations to apparent sharpness.
I really doubt if any of my gear could produce images as sharp as those of
yours in that set of 5 variations.
Nevertheless, comparing this shot of Joel's (and in this also responding to
Chuck's posting) to what I am used to seeing in my own images and the
prints I can get from them, I think this one from Joel in exceptionally sharp
in
the area of the clouds, in particular.
No, I'm not really going to give up. When I look back at the quality of image I
posted when I first joined this eclectic and fine group of individuals, I
cringe
somewhat at what I produced. Every image I see that is better than what I
can do just helps me lift my own bar (as in a high-jump). Raises my goals.
Which reminds me. A couple of days ago I was looking at the small monthly
national photographic journal produced by a local outfit some 25 years ago. I
had bought a copy, and still have it. The quality of one set of images
(colour, probably some sort of off-set printing) were so spectacular; I
wondered if anything had got better in 25 years ..... this was printed at a
time when colour printing on coated journal papers usually left a LOT to be
desired. Not on this occasion.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|