p.1 #1 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
Posting here because other recent threads have appeared here.
(Brainiac might comment I hope)
As I have stated before, submitting images to stock libraries where they are QC`d at 100% and no form of sharpening is allowed can be a problem if the operator isn`t clued up on how an image of 21million pixels looks at that size (also would be clients might be put off) I mean even on here people don`t fully understand it.
So instead of submitting images from the 1dsmk3 at an 8 bit J peg of around 60Mb surely I`d be better downsizing them to around the mk2 size of 50Mb (my images from the mk2 haven`t had anywhere near as many failed QC notices)
And if so, when to downsize? and any tips on the process to show the images at their very best?
I`m sure (from the images I`ve sold already) that 50Mb would be more than enough for most editors to use.
p.1 #2 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
IMHO, it would be a waste of megapixels (and your money) to downsize unless you really have to. Larger images sell at higher prices on stock agencies. I guess you can downsize images that can benefit from it, such as slightly OOF, or with a very slight blur.
p.1 #3 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
edwardkaraa wrote:
IMHO, it would be a waste of megapixels (and your money) to downsize unless you really have to. Larger images sell at higher prices on stock agencies. I guess you can downsize images that can benefit from it, such as slightly OOF, or with a very slight blur.
Thanks Edward
I`ve been picking up my mk2 lately instead of the mk3 I just thought that with the superb feature set of the mk3 and the ability to use my MF lenses along with live view (which is how I have found it better to nail the focus along with my loupe) I`d still have the 21million pixel images which give me the flexibilty to crop and straighten along with (where needed) the res for printing and the choice to downsize for that bit of extra sparkle when needed.
I just converted a mk3 image of a landscape where although I know it will print up a treat looks just a bit under par at 100% (in distant tree branches) I added a very light smart sharpen and it tidied up but looked slightly sharpened, I went back and started again and just down sized it to 50Mb and on my 27" monitor it definitely slaps me around the face more.
I take your point re: more money for bigger size but that has to be weighed against selling the image first!
I had the chance to talk to a guy at a recent family gathering who`s job is mainly searching the stock market for images to keep the designers in the company satisfied with images and he mentioned that although file sizes are getting bigger the IQ isn`t keeping pace. Now we know that in reality the mk3 images, correctly processed and printed (lets say full page in a mag) are every bit as good as the mk2 but from what he has downloaded and viewed for poss purchase he isn`t seeing this (because like Richard has said many many times) he is comparing 50Mb and 60Mb images at 100% which can be comparing apples and oranges.
In the past I raved about my D60 and 20D (of course they were both great cameras in their own right) but I was falling into the trap of the 100% viewing)
Thanks for coming back and I understand what you are saying about using a state of the art camera below what it is capable of but now I`m getting long in the tooth I still like driving top notch cars around the country lanes in a more sedate manner
p.1 #4 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
Tell them to get a grip.
So now having a camera capable of uncredible resolution is a disadvantage? From the gear and lenses you own Dave I would say if they are not very happy with the QC they need training. You dont need to compromise their incompetance.
p.1 #5 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
Hi Dave,
The example you gave about the landscape is a typical case of files that could improve with a little downsizing. I've read with interest the threads started by Richard regarding the misconceptions of 100% viewing and I fully agree with him (though I do not own the Mark 3). You will probably notice that downsized mark 3 files still contain slightly more details that mark 2 files of same pixel count.
I believe the image reviewers at stock agencies expect a certain quality at 100% regardless of the pixel count. That's what I've been told when I was submitting my 22 mp 35mm film scans (and being rejected ).
So I guess the answer is easy: If the mark 3 files look as good as the mark 2 at 100%, then no problem. If they don't, downsize
p.1 #7 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
It is incredible, but agencies do not want any sharpening at all to the original image. The 1DsIII needs capture sharpening, so do my 5D files. So if you sharpen you cant submit, if you dont you cant submit?!
They have to be aware that the image is very possible to look 'incredible', as long as they are prepared to understand that if you meet their guidelines then the images are not the best they can be. They are all used to looking at 12mp sensor shots, its a problem for sure.
p.1 #8 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
edwardkaraa wrote
So I guess the answer is easy: If the mark 3 files look as good as the mark 2 at 100%, then no problem. If they don't, downsize
Cheers,
Edward
Yeh, Thats the way to go I reckon.
Dave
Nov 19, 2008 at 05:16 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #9 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
Hi Dave - thanks for blaming me!!
I don't find the 1Ds3 needs any more sharpening than any other EOS I have used UNLESS THE LENS IS THE SHARPNESS BOTTLENECK.
I don't see any problem with submitting a 15 megapixel downrez of your 1Ds3 files. In reality the amount of detail discarded that way is pretty marginal, and if it makes the picture library happy and they pay you, then that can't be bad.
The failure of comparison at 100% is a tricky concept to understand for many people, and it isn't going to go away soon.
The picture libraries have to store millions of images, so it makes good sense for them not to store redundant pixels. I'm not surprised that they want to see high contrast and very high per pixel information. Ever since the 5D v M8 contest we've known that more worse pixels can deliver better pictures than fewer (arguably) better pixels, but we can't expect picture editors at libraries to understand this.
With the right lenses, sensible noise reduction using a blended layer of smart-blurred colour in photoshop, and a touch of luminosity sharpening, I would think that it is possible to make your 1Ds3 pixels look as good as those from a 1Ds2 or 5D. One photoshop action should do it.
p.1 #10 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
dave chilvers wrote:
I`ve been picking up my mk2 lately instead of the mk3 I just thought that with the superb feature set of the mk3 and the ability to use my MF lenses along with live view (which is how I have found it better to nail the focus along with my loupe) I`d still have the 21million pixel images which give me the flexibilty to crop and straighten along with (where needed) the res for printing and the choice to downsize for that bit of extra sparkle when needed.
I just converted a mk3 image of a landscape where although I know it will print up a treat looks just a bit under par at 100% (in distant tree branches) I added a very light smart sharpen and it tidied up but looked slightly sharpened, I went back and started again and just down sized it to 50Mb and on my 27" monitor it definitely slaps me around the face more.
I take your point re: more money for bigger size but that has to be weighed against selling the image first! ...Show more →
If you're just taking landscapes maybe e-mail maxmax about putting a hotrod IR/UV filter in place of your AA filter Dave. They don't state that they offer this service for 1-series but it's a posibility. Since I mainly shoot landscape and am not afraid of moire I'm strongly considering converting my 5D to increase the up-rez-ability of the files it produces. The differences are minor though, just looking for that slight edge as always (same thing that drives part of my alt addiction).
p.1 #12 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
If they want images with no sharpening then you can only submit images processed in Bibble as this is the only RAW processor that does not perform some base level sharpening that you can't turn off. Even among the other RAW processors there are different levels of sharpening that they apply even when you set the sliders to zero. Compare an image processed in Bibble and C1 at 100% side by side and you will see a not too subtle difference in detail.
p.1 #13 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
The no sharpening is not a clear cut issue. When I submit images for stock, I process them in DPP and add just enough initial sharpening so that the image looks good but doesn't show sharpening signs. I have never had any image rejected because of sharpening. Some images look good with 0 sharpening (actually DPP does use demosaicing algorithms that favour sharpness), others will need up to level 3, but I never go above that.
p.1 #14 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
shirozina wrote:
If they want images with no sharpening then you can only submit images processed in Bibble as this is the only RAW processor that does not perform some base level sharpening that you can't turn off. Even among the other RAW processors there are different levels of sharpening that they apply even when you set the sliders to zero. Compare an image processed in Bibble and C1 at 100% side by side and you will see a not too subtle difference in detail.
Correct me if I am wrong, but afaik, it is possible to set Sharpening to 0 in CaptureONE Pro also. Ofcourse, it is not 0-ed by default..
p.1 #15 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
What I am saying is that when you set the sharpening to zero or turn off output sharpening in any of the RAW processors except Bibble there is still some hidden sharpening applied to the image which cannot be deactivated in the software controls.
Nov 20, 2008 at 05:37 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #16 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
p.1 #17 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
Film scans come in at sizes bigger than 21mp - take a 35mm slide on a 4000dpi scanner ( like the Nikon film scanners) which comes in at just under 6000x4000pixels = 24mp. Have these been rejected in the past? How about a 6x6 film at 4000dpi ( used to do this on my Nikon 9000) which gave around 8500x8500pixels or 72mp - were these also rejected when viewed at 100%?
I have had images like this turned away for " not enough sharp detail" but I`ve got to say that that was when the 1dsmk3 came out and things have got better as time goes on so maybe they have realised.
As one earlier poster suggested I have been adding a small amount of smart sharpen (just enough to make fine distant detail stand out a touch but with no artifacts.) I`ve just had a run of over 100 images fly through but they were all from the 1dsmk2.
I`ll do a bit of testing and send a few 1dsmk3 images taken with the 17-40 and 24-105 with no sharpening at all, I`ll try to find some with distant fine tree branch detail.
I might add that even now 100% crops from the mk3 before processing don`t excatly inspire but but knowing what I now know from this forum I just get on and when printed( with the right amount of sharpening) the prints look OK.
p.1 #19 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
It's worth noting that Canon recommend a USM setting of .3 pixels width at 300% to remove the effect of the AA filter on their images so it could be argued that all images should be supplied like this as this is infact unsharpened in once sense of the word.
p.1 #20 · Downsize 1dsmk3 images for better results??
shirozina wrote:
If they want images with no sharpening then you can only submit images processed in Bibble as this is the only RAW processor that does not perform some base level sharpening that you can't turn off. Even among the other RAW processors there are different levels of sharpening that they apply even when you set the sliders to zero. Compare an image processed in Bibble and C1 at 100% side by side and you will see a not too subtle difference in detail.
I find that the Reduce Noise tool in Ps set at a strength of 1 and the other controls set at zero does a pretty good job of removing the basic sharpening in C1 - which as you say - is applied even when you have sharpening disabled.
I just thought that with the superb feature set of the mk3 and the ability to use my MF lenses along with live view (which is how I have found it better to nail the focus along with my loupe) I`d still have the 21million pixel images which give me the flexibilty to crop and straighten along with (where needed) the res for printing and the choice to downsize for that bit of extra sparkle when needed.
