On 8/13/2010 10:16 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Moose<olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree with this. The clouds are not particularly sharp (which would be
> some sort of contradiction anyway, wouldn't it?). I think it is some
> function of the way the light falls and the contrast that
> suggests sharpness.
Yes, an effect very familiar to me.
>> ...
>>
>> 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>
> That's a very interesting study. Thanks for sharing that.
Glad you liked it!
>> 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. :-)
> Your condescension is breath-taking at times, Moose. 8/
Aw, gee ... (Looks down ans drags toe in dirt.)
Really, I didn't mean it that way, or if I did, would have to apply it to
myself.
I imagine you take the 410 and kit lens along in preference to larger, heavier
kit, not to improve your images, but to
make the process easier, more comfortable.
I intentionally work with less than the very best possible equipment. My
standard kit is 5D, Tamron 17-35/2.8-4, Tamron
28-300/3.5-6.3VC, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro and Canon 50/1.8.
None of those lenses but the macro would be considered first rate by most
folks. In good conditions, at their sweet
spots, etc. the Tammy zooms are really very, very good, but not the best at all
settings.
If I really wanted the best, I'd be carrying at least a 5D II, if not a 1Ds
III, with 16-35/2.8 L II,
24-70/2.8L,70-200/2.8 L IS II, 300/4 L, 50/1.4, and a couple of other prime
lenses. Had I not bought an RV, I could even
have bought all that. The problem is - I then wouldn't take very many pictures.
I'd be lucky to get all that gear in the
car or RV, let alone out in the field.
So I was assuming that, like me, your 410 kit was an intentional compromise
between ultimate sharpness and practicality.
I'll take the thousands of images I've taken with my less than perfect kit,
many, many of which I love, over the images
I would have missed with the best kit.
Second point, which you weren't to know at the time, but have probably now seen
in my reply to Brian, is that I had a
trick up my sleeve. The original I used for the study isn't very sharp full
size to begin with.
> The impression I get also is that the web image is a little sharper than the
> original when one looks at the original fullscreen. I've put a new version
> cropped 3:2 out there which has been reworked from the
> 16-bit TIF output of raw conversion. In addition to the different crop, I
> brought the overall values up a bit more. To me it appears a little softer
> overall.
Just Lovely! Although I too liked the highly defined clouds, I like this a
little better overall.
> There is no difference in sharpening procedures.
That's why I have Actions for two levels of IntelliSharpen II that do it in a
layer for finer adjustment. I'd prefer to
have a simple click to do, but different images and different versions of the
same one just seem to require different
sharpening.
> The appearance of a halo in the previous version is an artifact of the way I
> sometimes use the highlight-shadow tool (and the fact that haste makes
> waste), not over-sharpening.
That's what I thought. I've been moving slowly to less use of the Shadow tool
for exactly that reason. There are other
ways to accomplish much the same thing without the halos. I still use Highlight
a fair amount.
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/
|