Reading mode: Light Dark

BushmanOrig and 12MP and the Oly statement

Go to last post
Danielvr said:
That's simply because prints with their minimal dynamic range and
their fuzzier, typically low effective resolution are much more
forgiving of many photographic problems, such as limited tonal ranges
and gradations, exposure errors, fringing, jaggies, banding, noise,
et cetera. And that's nothing exclusive to Oly, it goes for any image
from any brand.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, prints are much more demanding than viewing images at web resolutions.
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
Am, cameras are built for print results. Period. Why? because that's
what cameras have always been built for...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Cameras are built for print results because demands of web-resolution are so low, that they've been met long ago.

Dynamic range of (some) monitors and projectors is indeed higher than that of a print - but still, the DR captured by current DSLRs exceeds it.
Danielvr said:
By far the most images taken today will never be seen in print -
they're made to be seen on computer screens. And so, they need to
look good on computer screens - preferably even at 1:1 magnification,
so we can use as much of our images as possible.
Click to expand...
Where did 1:1 enter the picture? You take an image, postprocess it (which includes reduction to web resolution), and publish it. Everybody sees the resized version. The only person who looks at the source image (at 1:1 or any other magnification) is you.

For web usage, the original image from camera is an intermediate step, never seen at the end. Why is it important for it to look good at 1:1?

Boris
 
I am not sure if I understand. When I post an image on Flickr I never resize it. If you cannot see it at full resolution it is only to avoid image theft, but the full resolution image is there to download, available to friends, contacts or when needed.

There is no downgrading of the image whatsoever: if someone wants to blow it to 100% he/she can do it. If they want to print at their chosen reolution they can do it.

Here in this forum we argue all the time about images we share digitally. I don't understand what the matter is about.

If one person feels that the end product of his/her work or recreation is a maximum resolution print, fine with me.

My own interest is in communication, therefore I find digital file sharing an ideal medium. But I am as much interested in getting good IQ from my images as anybody else.

What the final use people do of their images is their own business , not an excuse for arrogance and slander. LOL.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
BorisK1 said:
On the contrary, prints are much more demanding than viewing images
at web resolutions.
Click to expand...
[..]
BorisK1 said:
Cameras are built for print results because demands of web-resolution
are so low, that they've been met long ago.
Click to expand...
I already explained the mistake in that way of thinking.
BorisK1 said:
Dynamic range of (some) monitors and projectors is indeed higher than
that of a print [..]
Click to expand...
Not 'some' monitors - nearly all have higher DR than printed images.
BorisK1 said:
[..] - but still, the DR captured by current DSLRs exceeds it.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant! That is another mistake many people make: captured DR ('input DR') can be accurately reproduced on any medium, regardless of that medium's DR. The brightess values between black and white are relative to one another, and when they are transfered to a certain medium, they are compressed or expanded as necessary to best fit that medium.

Problems only arise when there are extreme discrepancies; for instance, in prints, shadow detail is easily lost because the low DR of paper is bringing the dark gray values too close to eachother. Conversely, a regular JPG that has only a bit of noise on today's monitors, may look quite ugly on the HDR monitors that we will be using in the future, because the limited tonal ranges in that image will become more apparent.
BorisK1 said:
Where did 1:1 enter the picture?
Click to expand...
The subject here is not viewing images, it is what the yardstick for judging image quality should be: screen or print. Well, IQ problems are much more apparent on screen, when viewed 1:1. And so, that is a better yardstick than viewing prints. If prints were the yardstick, camera makers could fire their R&D staff today because we're all very happy about the quality of our prints, and there's nothing left to improve.
BorisK1 said:
You take an image, postprocess it (which includes reduction to
web resolution), and publish it.
Click to expand...
(Well, if you are like most people, you would start by cropping your image. You can take many more good quality crops out of a high-quality photo than out of a so-so photo).
BorisK1 said:
Everybody sees the resized version.
Click to expand...
Often, but not necessarily. But that's beside the point.
BorisK1 said:
Why is it important for it to look good at 1:1?
Click to expand...
When an image looks good at 1:1, it will (within reasonable limits) look good anywhere: printed, on screen, projected, et cetera.
 
amalric said:
I am not sure if I understand. When I post an image on Flickr I never
resize it.
Click to expand...
Why not? Sounds like you're letting Flickr software resize it - which means it's not going to look its best (at the very least, image should be sharpened differently, depending on the target size).

Really, what you're doing, is publishing an unfinished product, and letting the website and browser software finish it, using defaults. Certainly there's nothing wrong in doing so - but why then would you demand IQ perfection?
amalric said:
If you cannot see it at full resolution it is only to
avoid image theft, but the full resolution image is there to
download, available to friends, contacts or when needed.
Click to expand...
But why would they need a full-resolution image? It won't fit on their screen, so they can't view it (unless they let the browser resize it). It wasn't optimized for printing, so the prints won't look their best.
amalric said:
There is no downgrading of the image whatsoever: if someone wants to
blow it to 100% he/she can do it.
Click to expand...
But, why would somebody want to see an image at 100%, unless they were postprocessing it, or deciding on what camera to buy?
amalric said:
If they want to print at their chosen reolution they can do it.
Click to expand...
Print it? With sharpening and color management done by Flicker + Internet Explorer? Heh.
amalric said:
Here in this forum we argue all the time about images we share
digitally. I don't understand what the matter is about.
Click to expand...
Here, people post 100% crops to talk about cameras and their techical characteristics, not to "communicate" with images. For creative communication, the images are sized (and sharpened) to fit the screen.

I simply can't imagine how a 100% crop can be useful for creative communication, unless you mean as an image in its own right.
amalric said:
My own interest is in communication, therefore I find digital file
sharing an ideal medium. But I am as much interested in getting good
IQ from my images as anybody else.
Click to expand...
If you don't care how good your file looks at web resolution (and you clearly don't, because you don't optimize your files for web viewing), why would you care how it looks at 100%?
amalric said:
What the final use people do of their images is their own business ,
not an excuse for arrogance and slander. LOL.
Click to expand...
What exactly did I write that constitutes slander?

Boris
 
Fully agree with Boris. Web viewing = Website viewing or Monitor size viewing nt
--
cheers
Martin F.
 
Danielvr said:
BorisK1 said:
On the contrary, prints are much more demanding than viewing images
at web resolutions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Danielvr said:
I already explained the mistake in that way of thinking.
Click to expand...
You did no such thing. You explained how monitors are a better tool for analysis of images. There's a world of difference between analyzing an image and viewing it.
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
Dynamic range of (some) monitors and projectors is indeed higher than
that of a print [..]
Click to expand...
Not 'some' monitors - nearly all have higher DR than printed images.
Danielvr said:
[..] - but still, the DR captured by current DSLRs exceeds it.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant!
Click to expand...
Wrong again. This is the very heart of the matter. My point was that the current DSLRs' resolution and DR exceeds the range provided by monitors. Since the OP and myself are talking about viewing unedited jpegs from the camera, it's your nice paragraph about those high-DR monitors of tomorrow that's irrelevant.

[snip]
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
Where did 1:1 enter the picture?
Click to expand...
The subject here is not viewing images
Click to expand...
It is.

[snip]
Danielvr said:
(Well, if you are like most people, you would start by cropping your
image. You can take many more good quality crops out of a
high-quality photo than out of a so-so photo).
Click to expand...
If the final image requires cropping all the way to 1:1 resolution, it wasn't shot from a right place, or with a right equipment.
Danielvr said:
When an image looks good at 1:1, it will (within reasonable limits)
look good anywhere: printed, on screen, projected, et cetera.
Click to expand...
No it won't. Not if you don't sharpen, resize, and control colors properly.

Boris
 
I am amazed at your not making the difference between web viewing and using Flickr as a backup utility.

If you want to download the full sized, not modified image I uploaded, and I allow you, you can perfectly do it. It is exactly the same size of the PPed original image.

Sometimes I'll check if they accept also RAW images, but that's besides the point. Being able to download the original full-sized image doesn't have anything to do with the way Flickr chooses to visualise it for you. LOL. Don't you see the difference?

You might even print it if you ask me kindly :)

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
Please! Stop changing the subject of this discussion. In my original message you'll see exactly what I was responding to: One comment that said that 1:1 images are not representative of print quality (true - prints are less demanding) and one comment that called prints the yardstick of IQ (nonsense).

If you want to judge the potential of an image, don't print it, view it 1:1. That's all I'm saying.
BorisK1 said:
Wrong again. This is the very heart of the matter. My point was that
the current DSLRs' resolution and DR exceeds the range provided by
monitors.
Click to expand...
And that is relevant how?
BorisK1 said:
If the final image requires cropping all the way to 1:1 resolution,
it wasn't shot from a right place, or with a right equipment.
Click to expand...
That's not for you to decide. Once an image has been taken, its quality determines what you can do with it. If you are satisfied by images that print nicely, fine - but don't expect others to be as easily satisfied.
 
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
The one thing that some people here most certainly understand
that others really don't seem to is this: you can't pixel peep an Oly
and truly get an understanding of the print quality. You just can't.
Click to expand...
That's simply because prints with their minimal dynamic range and
their fuzzier, typically low effective resolution are much more
forgiving of many photographic problems, such as limited tonal ranges
and gradations, exposure errors, fringing, jaggies, banding, noise,
et cetera. And that's nothing exclusive to Oly, it goes for any image
from any brand.
Danielvr said:
Am, cameras are built for print results. Period. Why? because that's
what cameras have always been built for...
Click to expand...
What are you doing in front of that computer when a quill, some ink
and a bit of parchment would carry your message just as well?!

By far the most images taken today will never be seen in print -
they're made to be seen on computer screens. And so, they need to
look good on computer screens - preferably even at 1:1 magnification,
so we can use as much of our images as possible.
Danielvr said:
Print IS the ultimate yardstick [..] Because no monitor can match
the resolution capacity or capability of even the most moderate
inkjet systems...
Click to expand...
With print, the medium simply covers up many of the problems that are
very apparent when seen 1:1 on a monitor.
Click to expand...
So how large is your monitor so it allows you to see the whole of the image at 100% at the same time? Internet dpi is 72 dpi. I print at at least 300 dpi. You really need to get a better understanding of DPI.

If that is what makes
Danielvr said:
prints the 'yardstick' of image quality, you are setting a very low
standard for image quality.

Print fetishists here are making a very fundamental mistake: they
don't see the difference between the quality of a print, and the
inherent quality of the image file itself. Those are two very
different things, and its only the latter, i.e. the inherent image
quality, that camera makers should get right. And if they do, prints
will only look better for it.

The bottom line is: print is only a yardstick for those who make
prints and who don't mind what their images look like on screen. The
rest of us will judge our images on screen, in the secure knowledge
that images that look good there (and have sufficient pixels), will
look even better in print. In other words, what's good for the (1:1)
screen is good for the printer..
Click to expand...
What complete rubbish. What is good for the screen won't even be sharp enough for print. The two need different output sharpening. Plus if it looks good on the screen but it has not been calibrated it will look dreadful on print.

You really need to see some decent prints before coming out with a statement like this. If you think you have go back and see some more because those ones can't have been that good.
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
I think that in a few decades time so many images are going to be
lost for ever because they are not being printed. We will lose our
families history and more importantly the future world will lose part
of it's history.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that? If anything, electronic images are much
easier and less expensive to make, to keep and to copy and share than
prints. People today have countless more images of themselves, their
family, friends and collegues than previous generations. How many of
us have photos (other than boring yearbook pics..) from their school
days? I wish I did! Kids and young families today are recording every
second of their lives on camera phones and compacts, posting them on
Facebook and MySpace where hundreds of people will see them. What do
spludges of ink on bits of dead trees add to that? Also, look at all
the photographic archives that in recent years have been opened up to
the public through the internet. We now have access to much more
photographic information, both historical and contemporary, than we
ever did before.
Click to expand...
Ok perhaps I should not have said 'think' because it is happening already. Some of those images in archives came from scans of prints. The rest from negatives. In a few years time your CDs will not be readable, nor will your DVDs. Your firewire 800 drive won't even plug in to anything. Facebook and Myspace won't exist and don't even support colour profiles. Plus they greatly reduce the image quality. So unless you regularly update your backups your images won't exist. Nor will those of familes who don't tend to back up stuff in the first place.
 
Danielvr said:
If you want to judge the potential of an image, don't print it, view
it 1:1. That's all I'm saying.
Danielvr said:
Wrong again. This is the very heart of the matter. My point was that
the current DSLRs' resolution and DR exceeds the range provided by
monitors.
Click to expand...
And that is relevant how?
Click to expand...
A good print can have a wider range!
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
If the final image requires cropping all the way to 1:1 resolution,
it wasn't shot from a right place, or with a right equipment.
Click to expand...
That's not for you to decide. Once an image has been taken, its
quality determines what you can do with it. If you are satisfied by
images that print nicely, fine - but don't expect others to be as
easily satisfied.
Click to expand...
 
Have any of you actually had a professional print made of any of your photographs?
Base on the replies above, I'd guess not.

--
Bill Turner
Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Infrared Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/ir_photos
 
amalric said:
I am amazed at your not making the difference between web viewing and
using Flickr as a backup utility.
Click to expand...
Different uses. When backing up images, you want them untouched. When uploading images for viewing, you want them optimiized for viewing. When uploading images for printing, you want them optimized for printing.
amalric said:
If you want to download the full sized, not modified image I
uploaded, and I allow you, you can perfectly do it. It is exactly the
same size of the PPed original image.
Click to expand...
The size of PPed image changes depending on the purpose of that image.
amalric said:
Sometimes I'll check if they accept also RAW images, but that's
besides the point. Being able to download the original full-sized
image doesn't have anything to do with the way Flickr chooses to
visualise it for you. LOL. Don't you see the difference?
Click to expand...
If you want nice IQ, you shouldn't let Flickr resize your images for your viewers, because it does a poor job of it. Same with web browsers - they are lousy at resizing images. They use poor algorithms for resizing, and they don't sharpen after resizing.
amalric said:
You might even print it if you ask me kindly :)
Click to expand...
But that image is not optimized for printing. It's not sharpened for printing, its tones and colors are not adjusted for printing. If I just hit a "print" button, it wouldn't look its best.

Boris
 
Your comments are exactly correct.

Despite the fact that many very good photographers use Flickr, I believe that it's a source for wannabe's and, as I stated above, a source for insincere comments.
--
Bill Turner
Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Infrared Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/ir_photos
 
Danielvr said:
If you want to judge the potential of an image, don't print it, view
it 1:1. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Judge the potential of an image for what purpose ? By switching to 1:1, you're ignoring magnification - which is always a part of the final image.

If a 3MP image looks clean at 1:1, and a 14MP image looks noisy at 1:1, which one has more potential?

Here's another thought: By requiring that there is no noise at 1:1, you're asking the camera manufacturer to hide information from you. Instead of you deciding how to compromise between noise and detail, you're asking for the camera software to do it.
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
Wrong again. This is the very heart of the matter. My point was that
the current DSLRs' resolution and DR exceeds the range provided by
monitors.
Click to expand...
And that is relevant how?
Click to expand...
That the web-viewing IQ needs are already met.
Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:
If the final image requires cropping all the way to 1:1 resolution,
it wasn't shot from a right place, or with a right equipment.
Click to expand...
That's not for you to decide.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not a decision - it's a fact. If you need the magnification that 1:1 screen viewing provides, not for analyis but for actual usage, the photographer didn't do his job.
Danielvr said:
Once an image has been taken, its quality determines what you can do with it.
Click to expand...
That is determined by the photographer's decisions, before the image has taken.
Danielvr said:
If you are satisfied by
images that print nicely, fine - but don't expect others to be as
easily satisfied.
Click to expand...
I'm satisfied by the images that fit the purpose for which they were shot. If your purpose is no detectable noise at 1:1 magnification, it's easily achieved - just put NF at maximum and set resolution to 640x480.

Boris
 
Bootstrap said:
Your comments are exactly correct.
Click to expand...
Thank you Bill!

Well - with most websites, it's possible to publish web-sized images, and if they are small enough, those sites don't resize them. Don't know if Flickr allows it.

I don't use Flickr, and don't often browse it, so I don't have much experience with it.
Bootstrap said:
Despite the fact that many very good photographers use Flickr, I
believe that it's a source for wannabe's and, as I stated above, a
source for insincere comments.
Click to expand...
He-he :)

Boris
 
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