On 8/13/2010 4:01 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> 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.
I still haven't convinced you, I see. Perhaps I can go a step further. I
intentionally chose an image that isn't
particularly sharp at the pixel level. Here are full pixel samples of the same
image.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Sharp/IMG_0859fp.htm>
As you can see, it's not at all sharp as it comes from the camera and through
default ACR RAW conversion or the in
camera JPEG. Even with my best efforts, post improves it a lot, but it's still
not sharp enough to cut me. By the way, I
didn't do any sharpening at full size for the prior examples. All sharpening
was done after downsampling.
I chose this image intentionally for this exercise. It has three strikes
against it for sharpness; it's from a small
sensor camera, the fstop is well into diffraction softening territory and there
still isn't enough DOF for the subject.
Yet the web versions created from the full image can look very sharp. You KNOW
you have equipment that can produce
sharper pixel level images than this one.
> 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.
Yup, yup. BUT - The sharpness you see is that of the process used to create the
web images, NOT from the sharpness of
the original. The original may be sharp as a tack, or slightly soft - it
doesn't matter. What you are seeing is not,
within a surprisingly broad range, dependent on the sharpness of the original.
That's why I roll my eyes, at least mentally, whenever I see comments on how
sharp an 600-1000 pixel wide web image is.
> 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.
That's excellent, and I can certainly say the same. It's a familiar cringe
that's led me to pull some of my earlier
galleries. I'm only suggesting that the next step that has the highest
likelihood for improvement, at least for your web
images, is in the area of what happens after the image is captured, not in
better equipment to make the capture.
A. Persistent 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/
|