On 4/23/2012 2:37 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> The irascible keyboard of Moose sent me
>
>> Again, I have to disagree. You resist using better exposure techniques,
>> rely on old, slow computers and old, cheap and/or obscure apps for image
>> processing, etc. Clearly, your friend spends the time, effort and money to
>> get the best tools and learn how to use them to best advantage.
>>
>> I believe that the same shot, taken with E-3 and 14-54, exposed properly
>> and processed with the same skill and care spent on the Phase One shot,
>> would look just as good at the 750x582 image size.
Over on TOP, Ctein is making an offer of his very best work in printing a 12 MP
4/3 image at 15x20". As a well known and
successful pro photographer and print maker, he assures us that it is fully up
to his commercial standards.
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/print-offer-small-sensor.html>
For $20, I ordered one. I'm curious to see the best that 4/3 can do - and it's
one of my local bridges.
He did go to a considerable amount of trouble to get the best out of the
sensor.
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/how-i-made-the-1995-print.html>
But I suppose
Andris also puts great effort and skill into his commercial print offerings.
> Moose, you and I live in quite different financial circumstances. The kinds
> of computer you have in mind and the
> associated software are but a distant pipe-dream for me, given the many
> compromises I have to make these days.
I'm sorry that you are in that situation. I'm not wealthy, but apparently
better able to afford modest image creation
hardware and software.
> I do what I can with what I have.
I'm going to disagree a little here. Your long term litany of complaints about
high brightness range subjects and many
posted images with blown highlights lead me to believe you are extremely
reluctant to use exposure compensation and
bracket freely to hold highlights.
And the E-3 is, as far as I can tell, capable of fully professional results.
> While I have saved as Notepad messages
> etc many of your examples/homilies, there isn't much chance of me putting
> them into practice.
>
> <big snip of stuff about equipment,money, etc.>
But that wasn't the point. My point was that I really believe that your camera
and lenses are capable of equal quality
at the very modest size of the web image, as well as for prints at least up to
10". I believe you are mis-attributing
the results of technique and processing to equipment.
> The 720 pixel facebook standard size is not a suitable size to judge an
> image of any value,
No kidding!!
> but I think that that one shot of his, and the first one he produced from the
> Phase One
Am I recalling correctly that the one you posted turned out to be an MF film
shot? Makes no difference to me, except to
the extent that psychological issues of expectations may have colored your
response to it. Either source, properly used,
has vastly more information than needed for the sharpest possible 720 pixel
image.
> (which I think I also drew to the attention of
> us all without copying it), show to my eyes distinctly finer detail than any
> other shot I have seen at the same size.
Our experiences differ. I find it a very fine image, but not exceptionally
sharper than many others. A recent eye test
confirms the unusual acuity of my eagle eye, now enhanced in practical use by
computer glasses to the new prescription.
I see a modest, but distinct, increase in visible detail in the version I
posted.
Still Stubborn Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|