If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
The ONLY thing I need to improve is "shutter lag" (even with the Sony
828, once aware of its foibles, you can avoid them) Larry: You prove two important points, and that is to get to know your camera and then push it to the max, and to work at taking good photos. Over the weekend I stood on a train platform with my 5060 and did incredibly fast firing in the HQ mode at fast oncoming trains. I shut down all the auto exposure features and bang, bang, bang. I suppose a dslr would have been faster, but not so much so that it would have made a difference. And, even though it takes a second or two for my camera to 'warm up' after it decides to rest I've learned over the years that an occasional tap on the zoom control (which is now done almost sub-consciously) suffices. As for good photos, I suspect that a very high percentage of problems with small prosumer cameras can be attributed to things like miserable knowledge of backlighting, camera shake, and, sad to say, poor optics. Incidentally, I think we do need to make some distictions between those who are first time investors and those who have already invested in very good prosumers. But by and large I want to use my money to travel, get extras, upgrade software, etc. When Pentax gets a good dust cleaning system and goes back to CF cards I may take the plunge (I have some beautiful top of the line K mount lenses which I can still use on my SLR), but right now I can think of very few reasons to do so. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
The ONLY thing I need to improve is "shutter lag" (even with the Sony
828, once aware of its foibles, you can avoid them) Larry: You prove two important points, and that is to get to know your camera and then push it to the max, and to work at taking good photos. Over the weekend I stood on a train platform with my 5060 and did incredibly fast firing in the HQ mode at fast oncoming trains. I shut down all the auto exposure features and bang, bang, bang. I suppose a dslr would have been faster, but not so much so that it would have made a difference. And, even though it takes a second or two for my camera to 'warm up' after it decides to rest I've learned over the years that an occasional tap on the zoom control (which is now done almost sub-consciously) suffices. As for good photos, I suspect that a very high percentage of problems with small prosumer cameras can be attributed to things like miserable knowledge of backlighting, camera shake, and, sad to say, poor optics. Incidentally, I think we do need to make some distictions between those who are first time investors and those who have already invested in very good prosumers. But by and large I want to use my money to travel, get extras, upgrade software, etc. When Pentax gets a good dust cleaning system and goes back to CF cards I may take the plunge (I have some beautiful top of the line K mount lenses which I can still use on my SLR), but right now I can think of very few reasons to do so. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote:
I disagree that you need a print to properly see or judge a digital image. Indeed not. To print, you almost always have to compress the gamut and/or the dynamic rnage. Andrew. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote:
I disagree that you need a print to properly see or judge a digital image. Indeed not. To print, you almost always have to compress the gamut and/or the dynamic rnage. Andrew. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera. I do that as well. It puts these puny 6 Mpixel DSLR images in perspective. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:03:52 -0500, rafe bustin wrote: But many where a screen preview can reveal an irrelevant quality difference because it's one that *won't* show on the print. That's the point. The destination of any good photo is to be printed, surely? So, that's *all* that matters. When you enlarge a 3000x2000 pixel image at 200% on your monitor, you are comparing it in size to a 60" x 40" print. This is *insane*. So what if you can see an imperfection at that magnification? most people are never going to *dream* about ever printing a 35mm image image that size, so imperfections that only show up now are *irrelevant*. Print size matters, of course. I have an Epson 7000 at home, so I can do 24" wide prints. I believe you're saying the monitor is perhaps "overly critical" and there is much truth to that -- many flaws visible on the monitor will be invisible in print. But that does presume a decent monitor that's properly calibrated. You've done that, right? Not relevant. Hogwash. It's entirely relevant. If the monitor lacks focus or is misadjusted for gamma, you will lose detail, and will be surprised by what you see in print. If you're doing digital darkroom work on a cheap uncalibrated monitor at 600 x 800, you're in for a rough ride. When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set of variables, issues, and technologies. So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep it a constant. Constant, yes. But having the effect of masking or obscuring and generally degrading the original image. For example, there are very few print technologies that can match the Dmax or gamut of a good monitor, and inkjet prints are far from being "continuous tone." The ubiquitous "banding" seen on many inkjet and dye-sub printers has no parallel on a monitor. For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but not every image makes it to print. And not every print makes it past the scrap bin. If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested. I bin stuff for any number of reasons, some technical, some not. A large part of art is knowing what to keep and what to toss. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
rafe bustin wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga wrote: At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera. I do that as well. It puts these puny 6 Mpixel DSLR images in perspective. I gave it and bought one last weekend. It's a great old thing, MPP VI, upgraded to VII spec with the rotating international back. Two days ago, I shut myself in my bathroom, blocked the gap under the door, turned out all the lights, and loaded my first sheet of film. That was a bit of an intimidating experience - I knew vaugely what to expect after unsealing the box, but having to do it all in total darkness by feel alone was kind of daunting. I'm hoping it'll get easier with experience. I also got a rollfilm back for 6*7, for when I'm feeling too wimpy to use sheet film. So far, I have spent hours playing with the camera, but have yet to take a single exposure. How many digital cameras can you say that about? ;-) I expect I'll be taking a picture this weekend - probably a macro of a dried flower using the triple extension. I'm hoping my friendly local lab won't mind me just dropping the dark slide off with them, otherwise I have no idea how I'm going to get this processed. I don't especially fancy setting up my own E6 darkroom. My wife has decided that we are calling the camera, "Snapper", because something with so much character needs a name. This is not because we expect to use it to make expensive snapshots, but because the thing essentially seems to be a load of springs held in formation by willpower, which leap out and "snap" at the unwary. Not entirely sure what I've got myself into here... |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:44:37 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote: wrote: Roger, while I normally agree with your work, I'm not at all sure about this bit.. The human eye with normal vision has a image resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels. Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view. But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle - I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with memory and 'false' resolution by assumption. By your argument, one only needs a small patch of high resolution data in the center inch or so of an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch in diameter) and the rest can be fuzzy. Obviously the eye+brain see more than that. Your eye wanders around even if you are not aware of it. As you view a scene, you move your eyes around to see all the detail. This is true whether looking at a photographic print, or looking at a real scene. Stand outdoors and examine a real scene and the wealth of detail you can see all around you. Now produce a photograph with that same detail: the detail you can see with your eyes in the real world. It can't be done with a digital camera, 35mm film, or medium format film. One needs large format film, and 4x5 fine grained film is about the minimum, and even then it does not have the detail you experience with one's full field of view. If you've never seen a big large-format print, at the next opportunity, do so. It can be like looking out a window to the real scene. Except by these standard of arguments, the print will only have about 1/5th of the dynamic range that an eye can handle, plus information for only one eye (eg, no 3D data). By this argument, it's hardly convincing - of course in reality our brains ignore all that stuff and those prints do look amazing. -- Owamanga! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson R800 versus 2200 image quality | Ben Kaufman | Digital Photography | 0 | December 31st 04 05:26 AM |
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams | Richard Lee | Digital Photography | 21 | August 23rd 04 07:04 PM |
Sigma wins image quality challenge. Bayer user in disbelief. | Georgette Preddy | Digital Photography | 3 | August 7th 04 01:48 PM |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
still image quality | paul flynn | Digital Photography | 1 | June 28th 04 11:07 PM |