That was very interesting! I have a lot to learn.
Thanks,
Tina
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 4:06 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>
> > I see Mike used an Olympus SP350 - a camera I had not previously heard
> > of. An 8 MP camera as well.
> >
> > Timing and light are critical components which Mike has nailed, but it
> is also
> > sharp.
>
> Digital sampling ALWAYS softens edges - ALWAYS. The original capture of a
> subject, scanning an analog source and
> resizing an image are all cases of this. I wrote at some length about
> this, with a thought experiment and examples, on
> Zone-10 over five years ago. If you read this and the following three
> pages, perhaps you will understand what is
> happening. <
> http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1
> >
>
> Mike uses post downsampling (re)sharpening. He's done a good job here. My
> eagle eye sees just the tiniest signs of
> sharpening artifacts, just about perfect for the display size (i.e. nobody
> else will likely notice them, but they will
> find the image 'sharp'.) (For printing, more sharpening would be better.)
>
> (Brian, pay particular attention where I talk about the decisions the JPEG
> engine must make, and why they may not be
> ideal for all uses.)
>
> > I doubt that my E-3 could give that resolution.
>
> Resolution at the camera level is only loosely associated with a sharp
> appearing web image (or print, for that matter).
> I have posted images from rather soft original Raw files that look tack
> sharp on the web. Other people post web images
> from very high detail originals that don't reflect the quality of those
> originals.
>
> > I'm getting increasingly dissatisfied with my device.
>
> If you were doing scientific work, your equipment regularly produced less
> accurate results than identical equipment used
> by others, what would you conclude? There are two leading candidates:
>
> 1. Your equipment is faulty, in need of repair or calibration.
>
> 2. There is a flaw or flaws in your technique in using the equipment.
>
> Yet you have proposed a third, logically inconsistent alternative:
>
> 3. The basic design and/or manufacture of the equipment is at fault.
>
> Now I happen to think the E-3 and E-5 were underwhelming cameras, but
> because of too little too late, relative to the
> competition. They are not incompetent in their basic functions. Tests when
> they came out and use by many, many people
> have shown that they are capable of first class, sharp images.*
>
> You are really stuck with 1 & 2 above, not 3. Now, if you want to update
> to a newer camera, that's just fine, there's
> some great equipment out there. However, if no. 2 is true, you are headed
> to disappointment with new equipment, as well.
>
> I've railed at you about software before, and you make excuses** or just
> ignore me (Which is fine, but why are you then
> back over and over again, complaining about the same problems?)
>
> So let me say it straight. Back in the film days, shooting slides, you got
> the best you could get when the film came
> back from processing. That is simply no longer true. Post processing is
> how the images you envy come to be the way they are.
>
> Your insistence on shooting JPEG only, processing those images with free,
> second rate software and not spending time to
> learn how to use software to best advantage for your images is holding you
> back, and will continue to do so, new camera
> or not.
>
> Back to Mike's image and your dissatisfaction with yours. Down sampling an
> image so that it retains much of the
> character of the large original is a tricky business. Using free software
> to do so, without comparing it to the best, is
> just asking to end up with poor apparent sharpness in web size images.
> Finding a good combination of down sampling and
> resharpening software and appropriate settings for them is crucial.
>
> Testy Moose
>
> * Send me the camera and a good lens, and I'll show you that it can easily
> take excellent, sharp images. ;-) Or turn
> on Raw, take 2-3 careful shots, and send me the ORFs.
>
> ** Often about money, and here you are, talking yourself into buying new
> equipment.
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|