FlyPenFly wrote:
Once you\'ve used a high resolving sharp lens to capture a great photo, using a softer lens to capture great photos is a bit more disappointing unless you\'re specifically going for a certain look.
sebboh wrote:
unless you don\'t pixel peep.
I guess that\'s a joke?
If not that\'s kinda silly to say. As soon as the captured image appears in the camera\'s EVF I (usually) know. It\'s screamed at me with an ACR display of Fit Image which is usually like 16 to 20 percent. It reaches out and pokes ya right in the eyeballs with extreme force on the first PS scale displayed as Fit Image full-screen which for me is usually 50% display scale and 65% image scaling. After a few more scaling steps when the image size is below 1000 pixels it\'s sometimes difficult to tell. And of course it\'s fairly impossible to tell with shots being scaled down to around 800x600 and less (which is one reason I don\'t understand people who post that small). But absolutely no pixel peeping is needed to know if the lens is mediocre, sharp, or exceptionally sharp - once a person has shot with those grades of lenses. And that\'s just what FlyPenFly said too.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I think you should do both.
sebboh wrote:
in my admittedly limited experience, i find that optimizing for 100% view can sometimes result in a worse downsized image or an image in which many more steps are necessary to achieve the optimal downsized image.
And of course again just like FlyPenFly said there too, you should optimize for both the original 100% and for the targeted output. Nothing else even makes much sense. You can\'t tell me you don\'t do that S. I know you do it - I can see it in your images and I think I read you saying as much in the recent past too.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Once you\'ve used a high resolving sharp lens to capture a great photo, using a softer lens to capture great photos is a bit more disappointing unless you\'re specifically going for a certain look.
sebboh wrote:
unless you don\'t pixel peep.
I guess that\'s a joke?
If not that\'s kinda silly to say. As soon as the captured image appears in the camera\'s EVF I (usually) know. It\'s screamed at me with an ACR display of Fit Image which is usually like 16 to 20 percent. It reaches out and pokes ya right in the eyeballs with extreme force on the first PS scale displayed as Fit Image full-screen which for me is usually 50% display scale and 65% image scaling. After a few more scaling steps when the image size is below 1000 pixels it\'s sometimes difficult to tell. And of course it\'s fairly impossible to tell with shots being scaled down to around 800x600 and less (which is one reason I don\'t understand people who post that small). But absolutely no pixel peeping is needed to know if the lens is mediocre, sharp, or exceptionally sharp - once a person has shot with those grades of lenses. And that\'s just what FlyPenFly said too.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I think you should do both.
sebboh wrote:
in my admittedly limited experience, i find that optimizing for 100% view can sometimes result in a worse downsized image or an image in which many more steps are necessary to achieve the optimal downsized image.
And of course again just like FlyPenFly said later, you should optimize for both the original 100% and for the targeted output. Nothing else even makes much sense. You can\'t tell me you don\'t do that S. I know you do it - I can see it in your images and I think I read you saying as much in the recent past too.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Once you\'ve used a high resolving sharp lens to capture a great photo, using a softer lens to capture great photos is a bit more disappointing unless you\'re specifically going for a certain look.
sebboh wrote:
unless you don\'t pixel peep.
I guess that\'s a joke?
If not that\'s kinda silly to say. As soon as the captured image appears in the camera\'s EVF I (usually) know. It\'s screamed at me with an ACR display of Fit Image which is usually like 16 to 20 percent. It reaches out and pokes ya right in the eyeballs with extreme force on the first PS scale displayed as Fit Image full-screen which for me is usually 50% display scale and 65% image scaling. After a few more scaling steps when the image size is below 1000 pixels it\'s sometimes difficult to tell. And of course it\'s fairly impossible to tell with shots being scaled down to around 800x600 and less (which is one reason I don\'t understand people who post that small). But absolutely no pixel peeping is needed to know if the lens is mediocre, sharp, or exceptionally sharp - once a person has shot with those grades of lenses. And that\'s just what FlyPenFly said too.
And of course again just like FlyPenFly said later, you should optimize for both the original 100% and for the targeted output. Nothing else even makes much sense. You can\'t tell me you don\'t do that S. I know you do it - I can see it in your images and I think I read you saying as much in the recent past too.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Once you\'ve used a high resolving sharp lens to capture a great photo, using a softer lens to capture great photos is a bit more disappointing unless you\'re specifically going for a certain look.
sebboh wrote:
unless you don\'t pixel peep.
I guess that\'s a joke?
If not that\'s kinda silly to say. As soon as the captured image appears in the camera\'s EVF I (usually) know. It\'s screamed at me with an ACR display of Fit Image which is usually like 16 to 20 percent. It reaches out and pokes ya right in the eyeballs with extreme force on the first PS scale displayed as Fit Image full-screen which for me is usually 50% display scale and 65% image scaling. After a few more scaling steps when the image size is below 1000 pixels it\'s sometimes difficult to tell. And of course it\'s fairly impossible to tell with shots being scaled down to around 800x600 and less (which is one reason I don\'t understand people who post that small). But absolutely no pixel peeping is needed to know if the lens is mediocre, sharp, or exceptionally sharp - once a person has shot with those grades of lenses. And that\'s just what FlyPenFly said too.
Aug 22, 2012 at 04:15 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10902268 « How much sharpness do you need? »
