RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
+1 @ glass rules
However, while those lenses are not L lenses. They are certainly capable of producing WAY SHARPER images than we see here.
We've played this game before in the Alt Forum with some of the best glass in the world vs. some good enough glass. Yes, your starting point with greater resolving glass is more refined, but with good sharpening "matched" to the lens, you can achieve significantly better results than we are seeing here. Heck, I even pitted my 24L vs. a 30 year old Oly 24 and while the Oly needed a different sharpening amount than the L ... it made a lot of folks question why spend so much $$$ on the L (that's a whole different discussion).
I personally have the little Tammy and it is no slouch in the sharpness department. Sure, there may be sharper lenses out there, but these images are not anywhere near the limits of sharpness for the glass being used, imo. To me, this is most likely a processing issue that is undersharpening for the contrast level of the lighting and/or the other processing that accompanies it. Will the OP notice a diff in the "L" glass when he steps up the investment ... most definitely, but I just don't think the glass is his "weakest link" here.
There is also the possibility that it is a sensor cleaning issue that has left the sensors with an overall "smudge" / "film" veil to it. Curious to see how the sooc / raw files look for one of the images.
Light, glass, sensor, processing ... those are your four possible components to the process @ soft light, soft glass, soft sensor, soft processing. I am inclined to think that "soft glass" is the least involved factor for what we are seeing here.
These kinda remind me of when I first switched from a D70s shooting jpg to a 1D MK II shooting raw. It wasn't until Chuck Westfall (Canon) reviewed my soft images for me, that I realized I was underprocessing them ... and that was shooting with some good Zeiss glass ... i.e. the glass wasn't the problem, it was my processing.
Then, I got Bruce's book, combined with reading Dan Margulis and Chuck's advice ... I started to learn more, to which I would mention that sharpening is merely contrast in its variation of transition rate/size.
Looking at the last picture (OP), we see specular lighting for the hair light. Note the wisps of hair "sharpness" compared to the sharpness of the face/hair that is bathed in soft light. The lighting involved makes a starting point diff @ contrast. Then, on to the lens, sensor & processing. Each piece of the puzzle plays a part ... and by adjusting the variables of one we can get a different result, or we can offset one variable with another. Below, I've used some additional selective sharpening to illustrate for the difference in lighting ... i.e. the relationship between lighting & sharpening matters, and both are subjective to taste.
To that point ... certainly, using sharper glass and holding the other variables constant will yield a different output. But, so will changing the lighting or processing while holding the lens constant. I suspect that the OP is using a sharpening that has been recommended by others, but is undersharpened for his glass (aperture) / style of using such soft lighting ... coupled with the processing for his "look". The other issues @ resizing and when / where in his process is the sharpening being applied come in to play as well.
|