p.3 #1 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Spyro P. wrote:
I did mean myself actually, I said I have bought cameras in the past for this reason. You take "feeling important" too literally, it has nothing to do with showing off. Just getting in the mood, becoming part of a history and a legend. I dont see anything wrong with that.
Alright, fair enough. English is not my native language, after all.
p.3 #3 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
Spyro, I love handling the camera and don't mind people admiring it among friends but I actually dislike any attention in public, but I assume you were mostly inferring the former.
No man, its just that I want someone, just once, to come out and honestly say "I bought this camera because-I-like-it", instead of building entire business cases trying to convince the whole universe that its the best camera out there. I'm sure there are many people who bought it for this reason (and I'm not talking about you). Where are they? Whats wrong with saying it? I'm sure its not like they stole the money or their kids are starving because they bought a Leica?
p.3 #4 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
those are specular reflections, pixel sized and in-focus, they vary in intensity and correlate with the tips of the moss formations. Unless the image looks different on your monitor than mine?
I don't think they are specular highlights for a few reasons, one of which you mention here.
1)They are exactly pixel sized which strongly suggests a digital artifact of some sort.
2)They do show up in out of focus areas as well, such as those I have circled on the right side of the frame.
3)The specular highlights in this scene do not go to pure white specks with hard edges. Hard edges also strongly suggests a digital artifact of some sort.
I have never seen this type of precise, sharp sprinkling of pixel sized white specks in similar shots I have taken in the past ten years of digital photography in specular or non specular highlight areas. It's fairly minor but there is something going on here.
And here's a 400% magnification to show they aren't exactly individual pixels and are specular highilights. Most of them have a border of slightly lighter pixels as well, except this one but it also isn't white.
p.3 #9 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
What part of my explanation was not satisfactory?
First of all, with a subject this close to the camera using a 35mm lens, even F11 will not result in perfect sharpness over the entire frame. Secondly, full frame digital at 18MP runs into diffraction softening at F11 so you would never get pixel sharp images to begin with. Thirdly, I believe I have discovered the actual cause and it is NOT specular highlights but rather digital artifacts caused by processing. I downloaded the original camera DNG and opened it in Raw Developer. To my surprise, these white specks were not to be seen. IF the crop you posted was from the camera jpeg, then these specks were caused by the jpeg engine in the camera but if you processed the raw file yourself, then either the raw converter you used OR additional sharpening or tweaking you performed resulted in these specks. So, which is it for the crop you posted?
p.3 #10 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Here is the irrefutable proof that these white specks are not the result of specular highlights. Camera DNG converted with Raw Developer, completely unedited with NO specks: http://www.gibranstudio.com/proof.jpg
p.3 #11 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
By the way, there is yet another, obvious digital artifact in the crop I posted which is clearly NOT a specular highlight but rather looks like clumps of bad pixels. This is from Raw Developer. ACR automatically fixes such issues during conversion. One would expect no bad pixels at 7K: http://www.gibranstudio.com/proof2.jpg
If the price puts you off, by all means accept my invitation to not buy one.
I take it then that the crop you posted was from the DNG processed in C1 Pro? Was the sharpening in your C1 conversion of that image set at the default? Did you perform a direct conversion of the image with no further tweaks? My bet the answear to both these questions is a big NO. C1 Pro likely performs automatic bad pixel correction as well. Why don't you look it up if you are curious about it instead of accusing me of smoking something...my allergies just don't allow me to do so! By the way, do you still claim those specks to be the result of specular highlights?
p.3 #14 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
I was going to say that I hadn't seen the white specks anywhere in my images, and it appears that they might be the result of C1, potentially oversharpening a bit too much.
p.3 #15 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Irrefutable proof is a bit strong, isn't it? It looks like (to me) highlights that are exacerbated by processing - over sharpening and/or contrast. There are highlights in the same places in both versions, they are just much smoother looking and darker in the Raw Developer version - which looks very nice by the way.
I don't have an M9 because I can't afford it, but I bought my Ms because I like them. Why else would I buy them? Haha. Though I didn't get them because they look pretty. Actually, I always thought they looked a bit ugly. Classic, but ugly. Then again, I feel like I'm one of the few that actually prefers the way Canons look to Nikons. The Canon 1V is a good looking, albeit large, camera.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. M's are not versatile cameras, but what they do they do well. The size difference between an M + 2-3 lenses and a modern SLR + 2-3 lenses is significant, at least for me. It's the ideal travel camera. If I was shooting a job, some of those advantages disappear and I'd be more likely to grab an SLR, but if I'm taking a trip for the weekend and have to fit all my crap into a small bag, an RF with a couple rolls of film/cards and a lens or two works for me. Especially when my 15mm lens is so tiny
p.3 #16 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Can someone provide a link to these DNG's? I can't seem to find them on his site. I did read his M9 review. Guy goes a long way to say that certain things are far more complicated on DSLR's that they ever are. To the point of blatant lying and massive over exaggeration. I've never read his stuff eventhough I know well of his reputation. Now I know why he has that reputation!
p.3 #18 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
kidtexas wrote:
Irrefutable proof is a bit strong, isn't it? It looks like (to me) highlights that are exacerbated by processing - over sharpening and/or contrast.
Not at all as I claimed exactly what you state to be the case. That is, we are looking at some form of digital artifact caused by processing. The extreme processing has caused these zone 5 or 6 mid-tones to appear as they do.
p.3 #19 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
Yes, I'll leave the conversation now and go take some pictures.
... and you conveniently avoided answering the direct questions I asked about your processing of the file AND instead attempt to change the subject. Just as, I might add, you did by suggesting that what I discovered was a result of my inability to afford an M9. Poor form on your part I must say...but I forgive you.
p.3 #20 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Beni wrote:
Can someone provide a link to these DNG's? I can't seem to find them on his site. I did read his M9 review. Guy goes a long way to say that certain things are far more complicated on DSLR's that they ever are. To the point of blatant lying and massive over exaggeration. I've never read his stuff eventhough I know well of his reputation. Now I know why he has that reputation!
