View Single Post
  #27  
Old July 14th 18, 03:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:52:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

Now that's better.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

... and that's interesting ... umm.

...and what exactly did you find interesting?
I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is
soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when
I first got my D300
https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0
and here is a 100% crop of the same image.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0

Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway
comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot.


Postage stamp?


I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless
of your crop.


I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the image as a
whole.

I picked the kite image as as a convenient example, as the string was
a single sharply delineated object so narrow that any blurring of the
edges would be immediately visible. I included the full image only to
show where 100% crop came from. The point I was trying to make was
that the unprocessed kite image seemed to be sharper than top of the
sail in your image.

That is an artifact of Dropbox.


I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I
don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type.

You should be able to down load the file.


Yup!

When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165.


Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg.
Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg.

ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm



Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg


That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter.

...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here
is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg


I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve
the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was
probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite
surfers in your shot.


...and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky.


At the time I was most interested in the curve in the line caused by
the wind shear.


No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG.

Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small?


I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because
Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data.


Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got
after downloading your 100% crop.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg?


Here is what I got when I tried to access the EXIF of the Dropbox
image using Firefox.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy1csuvrm2s8k8k/Kite.jpg?dl=0
Normally I get the full EXIF.


I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in
both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite
image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post
processing would have made a difference.


And still it was sharp.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens