Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Full or half size?

  
 
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Full or half size?


Lan11 wrote:
gdanmitchell: "However, depending upon what you shoot, how you shoot it, and what you'll do with the photographs, you can get superior functionality for your purposes from a range of formats."

Thanks, I'd only add: "…which raw converter you use and how you pp your files…".


But that, of course, affects all files equally. I know how to optimize the image files from my cropped sensor body and my full frame body, but the FF images will still print larger with better quality. (Which I will again emphasize, may be meaningless to quite a few photographers who don't print large or don't print at all.)

I remain unconvinced by the supposed differences among raw converters. Frankly, if you know what you are doing, you can produce an outstanding conversion that will stand up to large print sizes - assuming a well-shot original - using just about any of the current converters.

Dan



Aug 30, 2013 at 01:10 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Full or half size?


Lan11 wrote:
Plates 1 (45 mm), 3 & 5 (300 mm) are crops and Plate 1 is a huge crop.
Plates 1 (45 mm) & 12 (75 mm) show the Olympus ability to capture moving targets with primes, despite its tracking limitations.
Plates 3 & 5 show Canon 1Dx files (with sensor pixel count close to the Olympus), while plates 10 & 11 show files from the Canon 5D3 camera with a higher pixel count.
All other Plates show results from the Lumix zoom in the 200-300 mm range, which is its weakest performance according to some internet one-lens testers.


The reveal shows very little without EXIF data.
Can you share that as well?

It's not surprising that 1,3 & 5 are crops. Those are the ones that I believed to have the most noise.
The Panasonic long zoom, even if only web sizes, shows pretty well here.



Aug 30, 2013 at 08:23 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Full or half size?


gdanmitchell wrote:
I remain unconvinced by the supposed differences among raw converters. Frankly, if you know what you are doing, you can produce an outstanding conversion that will stand up to large print sizes - assuming a well-shot original - using just about any of the current converters.

Dan


Absolutely.



Aug 31, 2013 at 04:50 AM
Lan11
Offline
[X]
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Full or half size?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Q: "But that, of course, affects all files equally….."

Many people believe it, but each file responds differently to the proprietary algorithms in the raw converters. Usually deltas are subtle, but in case of more difficult files the differences can vary dramatically. For majority, after a while, the pp becomes the same routine. However, a new tool is well worth trying.

Q: "I know how to optimize the image files from my cropped sensor body and my full frame body, but the FF images will still print larger with better quality. (Which I will again emphasize, may be meaningless to quite a few photographers who don't print large or don't print at all.)"

Optimization means optimized result which may satisfy the user, but not necessarily produce the best result.

Q: "I remain unconvinced by the supposed differences among raw converters."

I wish I could help. Colors, gradations etc…… look differently to different people, but sharpening/noise is less controversial. I've no idea what others see on their monitors. Therefore presentations of any results is difficult, often impossible over the internet.
You may try sharpening comparison using Adobe products vs. other converters. You should easily see differences on the screen. In prints those differences depend on many factors and sometimes may be insignificant.

Q: "Frankly, if you know what you are doing….."

It assumes you know the best or optimum (whatever it means) method, but you cannot.
Each file is different (did you see identical histograms?), and converters have too many variables, combinations and permutations.
This is wishful thinking based on what the advertisers promised: "a digital camera will make a perfect photo every time", but reality is different, as usual :-( They also promised paperless society in the computer age.
If current pp gives you fine results then stick with it. I like to experiment.


surf monkey wrote:
Q: "The reveal shows very little without EXIF data. Can you share that as well?"
I assume you're interested in the Plate 1. EXIF: 45/1.8 @6.3, 1/1250, iso 200, 18.5m.

Q: "It's not surprising that 1,3 & 5 are crops. Those are the ones that I believed to have the most noise."

I'm not bothered by some noise. Noise can be reduced in those files, but all after cropping, were given identical pp treatment and naturally the biggest crops suffered most. Noise must show up when the original (Plate 1) 14.2 MB file is cropped to 3.55 MB and then posted as 594 kB jpg. In fact the result is surprisingly good.

Q: "The Panasonic long zoom, even if only web sizes, shows pretty well here."
It is an excellent lens, while 75/1,8 is too sharp yielding unpleasant results, to my eyes, as compared to 45/1.8 rendering.



Aug 31, 2013 at 04:29 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Full or half size?


andyjaggy82 wrote:
I see the tell tale signs of the heavy sharpening required on 7D files that accentuates the noise and creates a kind of fine speckle texture. I see it most in slide 3, 5 and 8, though it could be present in others as well. I agree though the differences between the two formats isn't nearly as large as some would have you believe.




P&S cameras tend to give that look though like in say #8



Aug 31, 2013 at 05:37 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.