Reading mode: Light Dark

Post your wide open, sharp, unprocessed 100% crops....

Go to last post
I shoot RAW. Different RAW converters yield different conversions. My converter of choice yields crisper results out of the box than, for example, Digital Photo Pro -- although DPP digs up just about as much detail and can quite easily be USM'ed to equal crispness. So even though my conversions are straight out of the converter at default settings, the perceived sharpness will be different than what you're probably expecting.

And no, I'm not going to switch converters just for your benefit. I don't even have DPP installed on my current machine.

Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
I shoot RAW. Different RAW converters yield different conversions.
My converter of choice yields crisper results out of the box than,
for example, Digital Photo Pro -- although DPP digs up just about
as much detail and can quite easily be USM'ed to equal crispness.
So even though my conversions are straight out of the converter at
default settings, the perceived sharpness will be different than
what you're probably expecting.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows this.

An average comparison isn’t too much to ask…or shouldn’t be. He isn’t arguing technicalities with anyone for Pete’s sake.
Petteri Sulonen said:
And no, I'm not going to switch converters just for your benefit. I
don't even have DPP installed on my current machine.
Click to expand...
Is this guy on his knees begging for your samples? Loose the attitude.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/
Click to expand...
 
...I am not trying to collect objective data for comparison. That would be impossible. Even if they used the same body, raw converter and shot the Dec 5th New York times on a copy stand with all other lights dimmed many objective variables would still remain.

I am simply trying to get some anecdotal info pertaining to what people on this forum feel is sharp. Folks post all kinds of "lens tests." Most lack sufficient control to be of any use for objective comparison, but if one looks enough at the expectations of the skilled photogs on this board, I think one can get a better idea if a lens is performing well, mediocre or poorly.

BTW, I find it to be presumptuous of you to think I expect you to switch RAW converters just for little old me, but since you responded in kind, how about if I ask "Pretty pretty please, with sugar on top!"

And oh yeah, I think the images you posted look soft! BAAAhahahaha!!

Just kidding, thanks for contributing.
Petteri Sulonen said:
I shoot RAW. Different RAW converters yield different conversions.
My converter of choice yields crisper results out of the box than,
for example, Digital Photo Pro -- although DPP digs up just about
as much detail and can quite easily be USM'ed to equal crispness.
So even though my conversions are straight out of the converter at
default settings, the perceived sharpness will be different than
what you're probably expecting.

And no, I'm not going to switch converters just for your benefit. I
don't even have DPP installed on my current machine.

Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/
Click to expand...
 
Here goes... I´ve been wanting to try this. This picture is unprocessed except for a bit in the levels and whatever else RSP does in its conversion.

I´m not sure if I doing this right but I put the picture in photoshop and zoomed in until it said 100% and then framed that area with a little jossling.
Here´s the 100% taken with the Xti and 35 1.4 wide open



original picture



--
alex
 
The previoous was unsharpened. This is sharpend in Capture one during conversion with a value of "standard, amount 50, threshold 0"

The 400/5.6 is quite sharp wde open, and Capture one has a very good demosaicing algorithm. - Gene



--
Gene (aka hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my wildlife galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/gaocus
http://hawkman.smugmug.com/gallery/1414279

 
glasswave said:
..."no USM, hopefully no levels either." I know about required in
camera processing, but couldn't think of a better term. I think
most people that read the post can understand what I mean.
Click to expand...
You meant out-of-camera JPEGs? At what in-camera settings? An older camera with the older system like the 20D or the newer, picture-sytles system like on the 5D?

This is an out-of-camera JPEG from the Canon S3IS with sharpness and contrast both at minimum (-2), and I still think it's just a bit oversharpened.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/S3__0665.JPG

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
The closest you will get to unprocessed is a raw file to work with.

Sharpening is required for maximum IQ on Canon bodies to negate the AA filter blurring effect.

harvey
--

 
Elan Remford said:
Oh cr*p. I was all set to dig-out, convert to JPG at full
resolution, clear out my entire site to make storage space, and
upload them all until I realized that I restrict my "wide open"
shooting to the months of May, June, July, and August. :)
Click to expand...
You must be the only one laughing.
Oops, the is another one in the same camp of retards. Bleah.
 
glasswave said:
...so I accept your punishment, stone me.

I am not looking for objective data, just anecedotal info. That's
why I asked for efix, camera settings, shooting methods etc.

I am not try to compare apples to apples. I just want to see
peoples opinion of ripe "unprepared" fruit.
Click to expand...
I see what you're getting at, and I understand why. I'm just trying to tell you it's impossible. If everone posts "unprocessed" shots from the exact same equipment, those shots will have just as much diversity in processing as if you had asked for "processed" shots. This is because all shots are processed, and the default processing techniques for each person are vastly different.

One person might use the in-camera system with the sharpness and contrast set at maximum. Another might shoot RAW and use the defaults in DPP, CO, or RSP. Yes another might shoot RAW and use custom settings with sharpness turned way down and NR turned way up in their converter of choice. The difference between a 5D JPEG at maximum in-camera settings and a RAW converted in RSP at the softest settings is absolutely enormous.

You need to either ask for images shot and converted in exactly the same ways, or you need to accept processed images covering a wide array of processing approaches.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Natural light, handheld. Shot and processed with "Standard" setting in cam and in DPP. Zero sharpening in DPP. The first shot is simply an unsharpened 100% crop. The second shot is the same but sharpened.



 
Hawkman said:
Here is my gallery of 400/5.6L and 500/4L samples of real subjects,
not tests, all 100% crops, but with USM applied.

View at "original" size or pbase downsamples and blurs them.
Click to expand...
http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/40056_sampler_gallery

Wow! If those are 100% crops, I can't image how sharp they might be in print.
Hawkman said:
--
Gene (aka hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my wildlife galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/gaocus
http://hawkman.smugmug.com/gallery/1414279

Click to expand...
 
Mike Crowe said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
I shoot RAW. Different RAW converters yield different conversions.
My converter of choice yields crisper results out of the box than,
for example, Digital Photo Pro -- although DPP digs up just about
as much detail and can quite easily be USM'ed to equal crispness.
So even though my conversions are straight out of the converter at
default settings, the perceived sharpness will be different than
what you're probably expecting.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Glasswave sure made it sound like he didn't, when he mentioned in-camera processing and USM. If he knows that the choice of RAW converter impacts pixel-level sharpness at least as much as an application of USM on an out-of-camera JPEG, why would he bother mentioning USM?
Mike Crowe said:
An average comparison isn’t too much to ask…or shouldn’t be. He
isn’t arguing technicalities with anyone for Pete’s sake.
Click to expand...
But it is, because there is no average comparison. The output from Raw Shooter is not comparable to the output from DPP, nor the output from the camera.
Mike Crowe said:
Mike Crowe said:
And no, I'm not going to switch converters just for your benefit. I
don't even have DPP installed on my current machine.
Click to expand...
Is this guy on his knees begging for your samples? Loose the attitude.
Click to expand...
You're right, that was uncalled-for.

Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top