Nikon people - a reality check

[Fred H.]

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image. As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog' problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong. I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

 

[Robert MacLellan]

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed
the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want
to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which
is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to
deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image.
As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play
in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are
engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a
product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog'
problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong.
I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being
over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald
point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and
needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they
are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product
to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if
your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the
site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

 

[Don Lashier]

You're right in that in their raw state the Kodak images "appear" more pleasing. But this is at the expense of significant detail loss. Look at the hoods of the white cars. The Kodak has totally burned out the subtle shadings and shadow lines on the hodds. A few simple tweaks in Photoshop will give the Nikon pics the same snap as the Kodak and yet retain the detail.

I believe that Kodak (and Sony) aim their cameras at the consumer who doesn't want to fiddle with the photos after taking them. Nikon, OTOH, is aimed more at the prosumer who has the knowledge, tools, and desire to spend the time to produce a superior final image.

Just my opinion, and you're entitled to yours

Don

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed
the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want
to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which
is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to
deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image.
As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play
in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are
engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a
product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog'
problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong.
I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being
over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald
point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and
needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they
are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product
to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if
your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the
site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

 

[Fred H.]

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something
referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold
of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

I didn't notice that blob in the sky. I'll check it out; and this image is quite typical of all the Nikon 950 images I have seen.

 

[dave]

back in the 70's we had interminable arguments about whether the high contrast of the Olympus OM lenses was better than the high sharpness of the Nikon lenses. At the end of the day you selcted the appropriate grade of B&W paper or the colour film that suited your requirements and got on with taking pictures. Do the differences were talking about here actually matter. I don't think they do.

Even if you do get the odd pixel you simply select the smudge or smear tools in photoshop set the transpareny around 80% wipe over the offending spot and it dissapears. alternatively use a soft edged clone tool.

With conventional photography you might spend hours spotting a 16" x 20" to get rid of every last hair and dust mark ( that you should removed before you did the enlargenment!!!!). Perfection never come easy, so why should digital photography be any different. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether the print achieves the result you wanted

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something
referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold
of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

I didn't notice that blob in the sky. I'll check it out; and this image
is quite typical of all the Nikon 950 images I have seen.

 

[Burt Alcantara]

As an owner of a Nikon FTN that's about 30 years old, I've found that I've shot more pictures in the last 3 months with the 950 then the I have over the entire lifetime of the FTN. Digital photography has become a great outlet for my creative energies. This thread reminds me of the "Mac is better then PC" argument that people have finally ceased bantering about.

Did Ansel Adams take his negatives straight out of the camera, print then directly to paper with no fiddling and twiddling? Hardly. I spend a lot of time with Photoshop because I like my color on the very intense side. You may look at my pictures and say I'm color blind or they are way over saturated. I don't care. I love the pictures the camera takes and I love the way I mess them up in Photoshop.

When the next great camera comes out I'll probably find a new way to mess up the "great gorgeous color" that comes out too.

Go to a TV store and look at the different sets. Some look better then others but whatever you buy your mind will percieve it as the best and after 1 hour you wont care anymore.

Even if you do get the odd pixel you simply select the smudge or smear
tools in photoshop set the transpareny around 80% wipe over the offending
spot and it dissapears. alternatively use a soft edged clone tool.

With conventional photography you might spend hours spotting a 16" x 20"
to get rid of every last hair and dust mark ( that you should removed
before you did the enlargenment!!!!). Perfection never come easy, so why
should digital photography be any different. At the end of the day the
only thing that matters is whether the print achieves the result you
wanted

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something
referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold
of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

I didn't notice that blob in the sky. I'll check it out; and this image
is quite typical of all the Nikon 950 images I have seen.

 

[Robert MacLellan]

It is just above the middle antenna over the red and white sign at the top of the building at the left.
It appears on all of the 950 examples in THIS set.

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something
referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold
of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

I didn't notice that blob in the sky. I'll check it out; and this image
is quite typical of all the Nikon 950 images I have seen.

 

[Francis]

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed
the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want
to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which
is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to
deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image.
As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play
in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are
engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a
product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog'
problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong.
I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being
over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald
point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and
needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they
are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product
to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if
your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the
site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

I am not satisfied with 950 colour (I am a Nikon fans using 35mm SLR for over 20 years), it bias to blue too much and makes portrait photo annoying, the skin colour is very unpleasing. Kodak DC sure have better colour rendition, I don't find much over saturation, it is within tolerance as compared with 950.

I have try to correct it in Photoshop, but the problem is the white balance is not consistant, and the colour bias seems to be non-linear, so it waste too many time in editing and still get unsatisfactory (not natural) colour.

What's problem with Nikon, are they can't correct it and post upgrade firmware like Kodak.

Besides colour, I do like other features and sharpness what 950 provides.

I don't want to light fire here, I just express my findings.

I 've just bought the Nikon filmsacn LS2000, it is an very very good machine that turn my 35mm slides and negatives into digital image with very good colour. The print out from Epson 750 is equal or sometimes exceed the quailty of 8x10 blow up from colour photo lab. I am happy with it because I can still use my Nikon 35mm SLR camera with image quality that blow the top 6M pixel Kodak digital camera aside. But I would still like my 950 if its colour accuracy is improved since it is more handy, convenient and don't need film.

 

[cat]

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

Hey Fred

Why the acrimony against Nikon cameras in particular ?

Every digital camera has a fault - be it Nikon, Oly, Canon, Kodak, Fuji, Sony, Epson, whatever. The basic fact is that you choose the camera that meets your needs and has faults that you can live with. FYI - I chose the Nikon CP950 because of its flexibility and the fact that all my SLRs are Nikon and they have withstood a tremendous battering over the past decade. This is despite the fact that at the time, I though the Canon Pro 70 produced more accurate resolutions. Images aren't the only factor in decision making.

I am not sure what is the purpose of your missive other than to provoke Nikon owners. IF so, then stop as non constructive criticism adds zero value

cat

 

[Fred H.]

cat:

Your response is exactly the reason for my criticism of Nikon (and if you had read my other postings, you would know that I am equally critical of Olympus and others for the same reason). I am troubled that Nikon, Olympus, Canon and others get undeserved, uncritical praise based mostly on past reputation ["all my SLRs are Nikon and ..."]. I view my criticism as constructive if it will make people question their preconceived notions and be more critical in their assesments.

Fred

 

[ian]

You're right in that in their raw state the Kodak images "appear" more
pleasing. But this is at the expense of significant detail loss. Look at
the hoods of the white cars. The Kodak has totally burned out the subtle
shadings and shadow lines on the hodds.

What is it with Kodak and their handling of whites and light areas?
I used a Kodak DC50 which had a great macro and it did ok with bright ]
areas but was really low res.
I liked the DC50 so I bought a DC120 and it "burned out" whites
so much that I stopped using the camera completely and it almost
burned me out on digital photography.
Clouds, snow, bright sky, or white objects it totally obliterated.
Best case, total loss of detail. Worst case, hundreds of pure blue
and pure red pixels scattered randomly through the "problem areas".

After I showed someone at work some recent CP950 cloud pictures he
remarked that he had a problem with whites with his new digital camera.
"They always appear to be washed out. I lose all detail in light areas."
You guessed it. A Kodak DC260.

It's interesting to look at those PC Watch samples and see that the
Kodak DC280 does the same thing. Not only obliterates the details
in the hoods of the cars but the signs in the background and the
tiles on the outside of the off-white building on the left.
It would be easy to blaim it on the bright sunlight but then you
look at all the other samples and find that most of the other cameras
don't ever have this problem.

Anyway, I'll take my CP950's beautiful detail with its correctable
blue tint over Kodak's nice skin tones and totally washed out whites
any day.

ian

 

[cat]

cat:

I am troubled that Nikon,
Olympus, Canon and others get undeserved, uncritical praise based mostly
on past reputation ["all my SLRs are Nikon and ..."]. I view my
criticism as constructive if it will make people question their
preconceived notions and be more critical in their assesments.

Fred

Fred

I grant you that there is a gush/have to have/brand name slavery/snobbery factor existing among certain buyers. However, I believe that most of the contributors to these forums have been fairly neutral in their assessments (not completely neutral - only armchair critics can achieve this). At first glance your posting read like a beta vs. vhs type message which is an endless and pointless merry-go-round.

"...undeserved, uncritical praise based mostly on past reputation..." which I think refers to the aforementioned factor certainly requires dissection and deflation though based on what I've read , it is at a much reduced level at these forums. BTW, please note that "all my SLRs are Nikons" indicate that it is my past EXPERIENCE with Nikons and not past reputation that gave me confidence to purchase the brand once more.

Cheers

cat

 

[Brent Keith]

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

Fred,

I really can't read the Japanese on the Image Comparison and don't know how the pictures were taken. Were they taken in point and shoot automatic? Well, one thing is for sure, the Kodak was taken that way since it is basically a point and shoot product. When I compared the images, I noticed that a lot of detail was lost in the Kodak print. The red brick walkway looked more like carpet on the Kodak sample. But I get the feeling that you would be pleased with blurry smudges as long as they were bright and cheerful!

What sold me on the Nikon CP-950 was the possibility of inserting myself into the decisions made when taking a photo. I am just a student at what is possible on the Nikon, but anyone is a master on the Kodak DC280 the day they buy it. This isn't a shortcoming of the Kodak, it is just meant for a different kind of operator. My last DC was a point and shoot and there were many times that I wished that I could manipulate the depth of field, shutter speed, etc. The Nikon, unlike the Kodak, has manual aperture and shutter priority, excellent macro capability, ability to produce an uncompressed TIFF image, manual focus, and external flash capability. Many of the features of the Nikon allow the operator more creative flexibility when taking pictures than the Kodak DC280.

Photography has always been an empirical process for me. You learn how to manipulate the picture taking process to get the desired result. This may include different films, filters, shutter speeds, lighting, apertures, etc. etc. It is exciting to me that I now can extend my empirical process to my digital camera. I am not ready to accept the picture quality on PC Watch as the best capable of the Nikon 950. Heck, I haven't even started trying the whiteness balance overides yet.

It may be that the Kodak DC280 is a better point and shoot camera than the Nikon CP-950. It should come highly recommended to those wishing that kind of camera. As for me, I am off learning the endless combinations possible on the Nikon CP-950 and how they affect my pictures. By the way, I am not at all alarmed by what I have seen so far. The images are very good.

By the way, who invited this skunk to the party?

Brent

 

[wes]

Well, firstly, with all due respect & gratitude to
PC watch for all the nice image samples, the thing
that strikes me about the nikon and kokak images is
that they weren't even taken at the same time of day
and maybe not on the same day with the same atmospheric
conditions. That's makes it really hard to do a serious
comparison.
In comparing the two skys, I believe the violet blues the
nikon and my CP700 produce are much more realistic color
than the kodak which tend toward the pastel or robin egg
blue. The kodak 280 looks like an awesome camera. It's been
tweaked a different way. I agree, kodak definitely has the
purple fringing problem much more under control.
In the end though, I think the Nikons produce more realistic
color in general that's easily adjusted in photoshop with
the detail that I treasure.

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed
the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want
to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which
is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to
deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image.
As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play
in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are
engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a
product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog'
problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong.
I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being
over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald
point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and
needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they
are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product
to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if
your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the
site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

 

[Greg Biggs]

Well I own a Nikon Coolpix 950 and I like it better than the Kodak models. I have no desire to buy a Kodak nor do I need to go convince those who did that they should have bought a Nikon 950. That is even if they should have.

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed
the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want
to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which
is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to
deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image.
As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play
in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are
engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a
product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog'
problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong.
I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being
over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald
point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and
needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they
are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product
to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if
your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the
site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

 

[Brent Keith]

Well, firstly, with all due respect & gratitude to
PC watch for all the nice image samples, the thing
that strikes me about the nikon and kokak images is
that they weren't even taken at the same time of day
and maybe not on the same day with the same atmospheric
conditions. That's makes it really hard to do a serious
comparison.

Wes,

Check out the vertical banners on the right hand building. They are not even the same banners in the two pictures (Kodak DC280 and Nikon CP-950). The pictures were definitely taken on different days.

Brent

 

[Peter iNova]

Well, firstly, with all due respect & gratitude to
PC watch for all the nice image samples, the thing
that strikes me about the nikon and kokak images is
that they weren't even taken at the same time of day
and maybe not on the same day with the same atmospheric
conditions. That's makes it really hard to do a serious
comparison.

Wes,

Check out the vertical banners on the right hand building. They are not
even the same banners in the two pictures (Kodak DC280 and Nikon CP-950).
The pictures were definitely taken on different days.

Brent

The sky may or may not be valid, we have no way of seeing the same day in these shots. But the exposure (however it was made) still gives us camera results under the conditions at hand.

The sun angle is within a few degrees and the presence or lack of building texture, lowered plant-life textures, discrepancies in street and brick... These are not all completely invalidated by being on different days through 200 feet of "different" air. At least they waited for full sun, which in Tokyo may be not to California frequencies. One could argue that the ONLY VALID TEST would be to have all of them shot within moments of each other.

Does anybody seriously believe that the sky changes hue, chroma and intensity that much in two Tokyo bright cloudless sunny days? Summer isn't like that in Tokyo.

More to the point: is anybody capable of making the Kodak shot look like the Nikon shot in a post-production step? I certainly can crank the Nikon shot to look like that Kodak camera. Blur .6 pixel. Crush the whites. Despeckle (to rid yourself of annoying texture). Chroma +40. Manipulate the gamma... There it is! The world's best picture.

-iNova

 

[Fred H.]

The sky may or may not be valid, we have no way of seeing the same day in
these shots. But the exposure (however it was made) still gives us
camera results under the conditions at hand.

The sun angle is within a few degrees and the presence or lack of
building texture, lowered plant-life textures, discrepancies in street
and brick... These are not all completely invalidated by being on
different days through 200 feet of "different" air. At least they waited
for full sun, which in Tokyo may be not to California frequencies. One
could argue that the ONLY VALID TEST would be to have all of them shot
within moments of each other.

Does anybody seriously believe that the sky changes hue, chroma and
intensity that much in two Tokyo bright cloudless sunny days? Summer
isn't like that in Tokyo.

More to the point: is anybody capable of making the Kodak shot look like
the Nikon shot in a post-production step? I certainly can crank the
Nikon shot to look like that Kodak camera. Blur .6 pixel. Crush the
whites. Despeckle (to rid yourself of annoying texture). Chroma +40.
Manipulate the gamma... There it is! The world's best picture.

-iNova

I would dearly love to see that image so that I can see the magic of desktop editing on an image that I believe cannot be fixed up due to the fact that the imaging errors are artifacts of the imaging process. Perhaps you could E-mail me that image. The problem is the so-called purple (I would have called it blue) fog that is inherent in the image. The colored artifacts can be quite easyily seen in the 'Resolution' image (found just below 'test box) in the Imaging Resources Image comparison section. Go to the bottom of the image and look near the number 4 in the striated bars.

I don't believe that you can get rid of the 'fog' without messing up some other aspect of the image. Prove me wrong, and I may apologize for my impertinance and bow out of the forum.

Fred H.

 

[Don Lashier]

I think you missed Peter's sarcasm regarding matching the Kodak images. But in any case, I don't normally see as extreme a blue cast as in the PC Watch examples. Occasionally my 950 blitzes out and gives me a photo like their sample, but not normally. In any case I find that some very mild photoshop tweaks really make the 950 photos look nice. I posted some sample before and after shots at
http://www.newportnet.com/demo/adjust/

Note that these have been adjusted for a 6500K monitor. They are reduced to 400x600, but you can click on the image and get the full 1600x1200. The large "raw" ones are straight out of the camera, the adjusted large ones were saved from PS at jpg quality 8, the small ones at jpg quality 6.

Don

More to the point: is anybody capable of making the Kodak shot look like
the Nikon shot in a post-production step? I certainly can crank the
Nikon shot to look like that Kodak camera. Blur .6 pixel. Crush the
whites. Despeckle (to rid yourself of annoying texture). Chroma +40.
Manipulate the gamma... There it is! The world's best picture.

-iNova

I would dearly love to see that image so that I can see the magic of
desktop editing on an image that I believe cannot be fixed up due to the
fact that the imaging errors are artifacts of the imaging process.
Perhaps you could E-mail me that image. The problem is the so-called
purple (I would have called it blue) fog that is inherent in the image.
The colored artifacts can be quite easyily seen in the 'Resolution' image
(found just below 'test box) in the Imaging Resources Image comparison
section. Go to the bottom of the image and look near the number 4 in the
striated bars.
I don't believe that you can get rid of the 'fog' without messing up some
other aspect of the image. Prove me wrong, and I may apologize for my
impertinance and bow out of the forum.

Fred H.

 

[wes]

Peter, it's not a few degrees difference in the
angle of the sun, it's more like 10 or 20! Look
at the shadows in the foreground and look back at
the kodak. It's so much later in the day. I think
it's really a stinker they even posted that image.

Well, firstly, with all due respect & gratitude to
PC watch for all the nice image samples, the thing
that strikes me about the nikon and kokak images is
that they weren't even taken at the same time of day
and maybe not on the same day with the same atmospheric
conditions. That's makes it really hard to do a serious
comparison.

Wes,

Check out the vertical banners on the right hand building. They are not
even the same banners in the two pictures (Kodak DC280 and Nikon CP-950).
The pictures were definitely taken on different days.

Brent

The sky may or may not be valid, we have no way of seeing the same day in
these shots. But the exposure (however it was made) still gives us
camera results under the conditions at hand.

The sun angle is within a few degrees and the presence or lack of
building texture, lowered plant-life textures, discrepancies in street
and brick... These are not all completely invalidated by being on
different days through 200 feet of "different" air. At least they waited
for full sun, which in Tokyo may be not to California frequencies. One
could argue that the ONLY VALID TEST would be to have all of them shot
within moments of each other.

Does anybody seriously believe that the sky changes hue, chroma and
intensity that much in two Tokyo bright cloudless sunny days? Summer
isn't like that in Tokyo.

More to the point: is anybody capable of making the Kodak shot look like
the Nikon shot in a post-production step? I certainly can crank the
Nikon shot to look like that Kodak camera. Blur .6 pixel. Crush the
whites. Despeckle (to rid yourself of annoying texture). Chroma +40.
Manipulate the gamma... There it is! The world's best picture.

-iNova