Reading mode: Light Dark

Mr Greenshank sharpening the E-400

Go to last post
M

mercuryrising

Active member
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Location
FI
Hi Guys and Gals

Here is the issue. How much can these images take? I had in camera sharpening set to 0 for these pics and i have selectively sharpened in CS3 and they have taken everything i dare throw at them and the image still seems soft to me. Is there an optimal for the E-400 pp sharpening? Do these images seem soft to you?









Guidance from anyone greatly appreciated, especially the E-400 Gurus.

PJ
 
did you use a tripod? 150mm @ f5.6 - 1/400sec, hand shake? kit lens? my first guess would be the lens is not very good.
 
well i cant really tell at those sizes, but they seem reasonably sharp.

most probably its a mixture of the soft kit lens @ 150 and maybe a tad out of focus. when shooting that long, depth of field is also very narrow so that's another consideration for you.

I followd a local magpie around for about 10 minutes and got quite a few soft images, mainly due to thin DOF, a bit of camera shake and subject movement.





--
Cheers, Tom
If you can't be the best, then be different!
http://home.iprimus.com.au/yankoslogistics/
 
of course the olympus cure for this is the 510 + 150 f2. for 3k, lol
 
Well, I'm no E400 guru but I think your pictures can take more sharpening. Did you sharpen again after re-sizing? I saved the first of your images and gave it another 50% 0.4 pixels smart sharpening in CS2 and it looked fine. A slight boost to the contrast for my monitor did it no harm either. For handheld with the kit lens, I have no problem with those shots.

Pete
--
http://www.pbase.com/mb1pnm/my_favourites
 
i think this is a example of the garbage in, garbage out scenario. not to disparage your photos but overprocessing inadequate images is a waste of time.
 
Hi Tom, i think the combination of factors you pointed out, working off eachother are responsible. Very handsome Magpie :)

PJ
 
sorry man, but i gave up on the kit lenses along time ago. and there are cheaper alternatives that you may learn about if you keep working at it.
 
So why dont you share your aquired wisdom and teach me about the better performance of the cheaper lenses Gwillys?

PJ
 
PJ, at what aperture did you shoot them? From what I understand you used the 40-150 kitlens. Someone else recently posted images from that lens that were not as sharp as they could be, and the most likely cause was that he used a very small aperture (f22 if memory serves). Try shooting at f5.6 or f8, it may make a difference.
 
Hi Danielvr, tahnks for your feedback. I shot all the images at f5.6 as i was after the fastest shutter speed possible.

Kind regards

PJ
 
--
Tom
(Equipment in profile)

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.
 
Is it the "carved" look the feathers have? They did not look that soft, but with more depth of field, I imagine there might be more detail lurking in the feathers.

Steve

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knoblock/ Equipment in plan.

Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper. -- Jean Cocteau
 
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