It was my understanding that a 100% crop was ANY portion of the image or the whole image at the native resolution.
So say my image is 800x600 (hypothectically this is what the camera makes) and I want to show you the 100% crop of say the center, I could "crop" the center 80X60 pixels, or 80X80, or 40X40, and they are 100% crops of the actual pixels.
It'd the similar to going to photoshop or DPP and clicking ctual pixels or 100% view.
RobertLynn wrote:
...these 100% crops look like ass.
Robert, allow me to add this from my perpective: Whenever I have done a 'sharpness test' or 'IQ test' I have found fault with my lenses/cameras every single time. However, when I look at my regular everyday images, I never see any lens or camera faults (only the occasional user error). This includes images that I have printed upto 16x20 (I have only rarely made anything bigger). I only seem to notice back/front focusing, softness, etc, etc, when I've 'pre-concluded' that it's there....but those faults never seems to show up when I'm out just using the equipment taking regular/normal photos. Hope that helps.
AJSJones wrote:
Sorry, I still confused!
The vertical distance from the eye to the centre of the lips is 113 pixels in the "whole image" but 264 pixels in the "100% crop" That's only a 2.3 fold enlargement. If the whole image resized as posted is 530 pixels high, then the crop at 530 pixels high should be a 6.3x enlargement if the "true" size is 3328.
What am I missing - a 100% crop is pixel for pixel the same as the original size, without any resizing applied, just a portion of the original, right?
Since Photoshop is more widely used than Lightroom, let me use PS in explaining how I derive my 100% crops. At least, this is my understanding of 100% crops - If you open a full size image, tif or jpg, using PS, regardless of your camera resoluaiton/pixel size (and we are not even going there), take a look at the "Navigator" folder. Under the image itself, there is a display indicating the size displayed and right next to it, there is a slider. Using the slider, I adjusted the display to show 100%. That is the way I choose my 100% crop. On the image itself, there is a red area showing where the crop is located relative to the total image. You can move that area around to choose what area you want to show as 100%. From there you cropped accordingly, resize the crop to whatever size you want to disply, choose your jpg compression, sharpen and what not. In LR, you just click the 1:1 button or you can choos 1:2 or 2:1 and other ratios.
Hope this helps. BTW, I am open to discuss this and if my method of making 100% crop is not correct, then by all means, please let me know.
Another thing is perhaps to get your eyes checked. Since I had a new pair of contact lenses, I was able to see through the viewfinder clearer and as the result, I noticed the photos I took are slightly sharper as well.
I thought it's pretty damn sharp and if a cheap lens like this can do it, why can't we expect other lenses costing 5 times, and more, to do it as well?
RobertLynn wrote:
Ageo, if you resize the crop, then it's no longer a 100% crop. The crops I posted are actual pixels of the images, without any resizing.
If I resize them, they get much, much sharper.
Robert,
I resize it only to fit 800 pixels at the long edge, again for web presentation purposes only. On my monitor, whatever it is displayed at 100% stays, of course. Why don't you go ahead resize your images and if indeed they become sharper and to your liking, then great. Again, we are definitely in the pixel peeping realm here but hey, whatever floats your boat. I am not being sarcastic although it may sound that way. Maybe you worry too much about your images not being sharp.
It goes with anything, you can make a not so sharp photo at 16X20 sharper by making it 4X6.
What I did to get those 100% crops is, I opened up the "start trimming" tool in DPP, and cropped out an area. Saved it as a jpeg at quality 10/10, uploaded it as is. So like I said, you see the actual pixels.
If i understand you correctly, you cropped the image out, then resized it, then saved for the web, so it's not the 100% pixels.
I don't believe you were being sarcastic, so don't worry We're cool, well unless there's something I don't know about
Seriously though, I think I am worrying too much, but for instance, when I save some images and post them, then I compare to others (not 100% crops, just regular images) mine never seem as sharp.
Then again, I think it's only bothering me, because like I said, clients have been buying the prints.
what size are you printing? how do your prints look? I know it is hard to get past your computer screen, but isn't some kind of print your final output... or is it lens testing?
Robert,
If your prints, even 24X36 enlargements, are sharp then why are we worrying about reduced web size images? Since I am using a FF camera, the 100% crop of my images will be larger than that generated by your crop camera. For comparison, I have to either reduce (resize) my image to match the size of your image or for you to uprez your image to match mine. Either way my image will be a tad sharper, well, that's the advantage of a FF body.
Josh, it wouldn't matter (the way I understand it) if your camera was 10000mp and mine was 2mp. If we're cropping actual pixels, then our images would be the same size. There's no need for me to uprez, or you to down rez anything.
Take your photo, and crop any section of the photo to 800x600 (or 533) and do no resize anything, don't save for web, just upload as is. That image will be the same size as an image that I crop at 800X600.
If money wasn't an option, my kit would probably be 2 5D2s or even 1s, however that's not an option this year :P
Thank you for all of your help.
Like I said, I obsess over small details, and drive myself nuts over anything.
Oct 11, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
AGeoJO wrote:
Well, if you insist, this is a 100% crop of an image taken with a sharp 70-200mm f/2.8L IS that I just sold to Ryan Hough. The aperture used was f/3.5. The FF image is also enclosed.
To me it don't look like a 100% crop I don't know of course and haven't checked anything. But when I see the real image below I can see that you have cropped out more than 1/3 of the lenght. And still it's a rather small sizes pic on my screen. When I do that it will be a very large pic that I have problem to even see all of it on my monitor. And you use the 1Ds2 that also give you a large image
I did a recent test on all my gear using my back yard as the perfect testing point. If you check out my post you'll find a series of 12 images from the 70-200/40D combo or 12 from the 70-200/30D which ever you prefer. I'll be adding the originals soon so it should provide you with what you should expect from this gear.
I find that 100% view on the screen is pretty much what the print will look like at close viewing when printed at native resolution, on my 5D that's an 18X12" print. As I offer 3 16X12" prints as part of most of my wedding packages and have to be ready and prepared to print any image for sizes up to 40X50" (maximum I offer), I don't see viewing at 100% to be anything but sensible when checking sharpness. I've never looked at a corner in my life though. I find 50% viewing size to be accurate for sharpness levels when the print is viewed from 'normal' viewing distances but an OOF image will still be OOF at 50% and that 50% could well be nearer 100% after you've uprezzed a bit.
Of course as ChrisDM says, certain images need the sharpness, certain images are strong enough to not need sharpness as a defining feature (though back/front focus is inexcuseable, it just looks wierd period). Ditto an image important enough that sharpness can be excused.
A documentary or reportage type image may not need to be sharp though my personal belief is that there is little excuse for a top wedding photographer having anything but perectly exposed and focused images, however fashionable their compositions may be, if only given their price point. A landscape image needs to have sharp detail throughout, mushiness just looks bad. A PJ probably couldn't care less as long as they got the image which captured the decisive moment.
Its a very difficult question, partly because a 100% crop on a 1D2N is a very different image from a 100% crop on a 1Ds3 due to the enormous difference in the number of pixels - yet the lesn remains the same, so which is the right test?
Also it isn't just sharpness, it's precise focusing, contrast and all sorts of other subjective assessments.
The answer to me is that I assume a lens to be ok unless I actually notice something wrong. My Tamron 17-50 seemed great until I noticed it was going out of focus on the left hand side, I sent it in, had is altered and now it's terrific.
Don't bother worrying about it. You're totally taking the fun out of photography. Part of doing photography is to enjoy it, not fuss over the details. If it really stresses you out this much then maybe it's time to find a new hobby.
Man... I just saw an extremely sharp 100% uncropped 31MP image of an actress... probably taken with a Hasselblad. There's so much details in there, I could even see the fine pores. Now that's humbling.
It's early in the morning, so I may have missed it, but I don't see any mention of where you have in-camera sharpening set. I've always read/been told that due to the AA filter all digital files need some level of sharpening. If you have all sharpening off then I think they look pretty good.
These are a couple of 100% crops from a 20-35/2.8L at 2.8 either end of the zoom- 1dmkIIN with in camera sharpening set to 3.
We're cool, well unless there's something I don't know about 
.
I don't know of course and haven't checked anything. But when I see the real image below I can see that you have cropped out more than 1/3 of the lenght. And still it's a rather small sizes pic on my screen. When I do that it will be a very large pic that I have problem to even see all of it on my monitor. And you use the 1Ds2 that also give you a large image