Comments please - Photo comparison..which do you like

Ralph McKenzie

Senior Member
Messages
2,094
Solutions
1
Reaction score
309
Location
Hamilton, NZ
I took these photos on the same day within 10 minutes of each other, one with the HS10 and one from and older camera. I cant quite make up my mind as to which is the better photo, so any comments are welcome. Tell me what you think and why. I'm not interested in the subject matter so much as the overall tone and look of the two images.

We have a little bit of a debate going here as to which camera produces the best looking photo.
The chap pictured is my son and his new Lab/German Shepard pup "Majik"

From The HS10





From the old "camera" (non Fuji)

Apologies for the rough look of this photo. I think I did something wrong when converting from tiff to jpeg.





Love dat Fuji :P
http://akiwiretrospective.blogspot.com/
Fuji HS10,Pentax K1000, Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
 
Ralph,

Image 2 looks better to me because image 1 has problem with that person's black shirt. It kind of looks digitized...
I took these photos on the same day within 10 minutes of each other, one with the HS10 and one from and older camera. I cant quite make up my mind as to which is the better photo, so any comments are welcome. Tell me what you think and why. I'm not interested in the subject matter so much as the overall tone and look of the two images.

We have a little bit of a debate going here as to which camera produces the best looking photo.
The chap pictured is my son and his new Lab/German Shepard pup "Majik"

From The HS10





From the old "camera" (non Fuji)





Love dat Fuji :P
http://akiwiretrospective.blogspot.com/
Fuji HS10,Pentax K1000, Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
 
I took these photos on the same day within 10 minutes of each other, one with the HS10 and one from and older camera. I cant quite make up my mind as to which is the better photo, so any comments are welcome. Tell me what you think and why. I'm not interested in the subject matter so much as the overall tone and look of the two images.

We have a little bit of a debate going here as to which camera produces the best looking photo.
The chap pictured is my son and his new Lab/German Shepard pup "Majik"
Apologies for the rough look of this photo. I think I did something wrong when
I am struggling to believe that you are serious comparing these two images.

For whatever reason, the HS10 image looks like it was shot at 1600 ISO instead of 200 ISO. Chroma noise on his arms, smearing is evident everywhere ...

But the second image is far worse, despite being a much more pleasing photograph in composition and tone. The dog's fur, his skin, his hair ... all smeared beyond recognition. Very aggressively so ... as if Neat Image were run full blast. And every edge in the image is compromised ... really awful.

So they both suck ... and not just a little bit. The HS10 produced an image with slightly fewer fatal flaws, if that is any consolation.
--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
I took these photos on the same day within 10 minutes of each other, one with the HS10 and one from and older camera. I cant quite make up my mind as to which is the better photo, so any comments are welcome. Tell me what you think and why. I'm not interested in the subject matter so much as the overall tone and look of the two images.

We have a little bit of a debate going here as to which camera produces the best looking photo.
The chap pictured is my son and his new Lab/German Shepard pup "Majik"
Apologies for the rough look of this photo. I think I did something wrong when
I am struggling to believe that you are serious comparing these two images.
Herein lies just one of the reasons you have such problems with people in this forum Kim. The OP asks a very reasonable question, and then you question his sincerity? Why? What purpose does it serve to question his sincerity? Of course he is being serious, that is why he is asking. Perhaps you should just consider removing the above sentence and starting with your answer below. The below is exact and to the point, whereas the above is rude, overbearing, and totally you. Makes absolutely no sense.
For whatever reason, the HS10 image looks like it was shot at 1600 ISO instead of 200 ISO. Chroma noise on his arms, smearing is evident everywhere ...

But the second image is far worse, despite being a much more pleasing photograph in composition and tone. The dog's fur, his skin, his hair ... all smeared beyond recognition. Very aggressively so ... as if Neat Image were run full blast. And every edge in the image is compromised ... really awful.
The above is a very reasonable opinion also, except for the purposeful last two word description of, "really awful". You had already told him the image was "far worse", yet you could not restrain yourself from really letting him have it with the, "really awful" comment.
So they both suck ... and not just a little bit. The HS10 produced an image with slightly fewer fatal flaws, if that is any consolation.
And then the above........... "they both suck". Wow. I hope you raise your kids with more positive feedback than you do the members here.

Perhaps if you can find it in your heart to try to be a little more POSITIVE with people in 2011, you might find that people might respect your knowledge a little more.

That, being my opinion in a sea of opinions.
--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
--
Conrad
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.
 
From a personal point of view, the second image looks much more NATURAL to my eyes. The first image is slightly oversaturated, (and I love saturation...lol).

Now, what other camera did you use? LOL.
I took these photos on the same day within 10 minutes of each other, one with the HS10 and one from and older camera. I cant quite make up my mind as to which is the better photo, so any comments are welcome. Tell me what you think and why. I'm not interested in the subject matter so much as the overall tone and look of the two images.

We have a little bit of a debate going here as to which camera produces the best looking photo.
The chap pictured is my son and his new Lab/German Shepard pup "Majik"

From The HS10





From the old "camera" (non Fuji)

Apologies for the rough look of this photo. I think I did something wrong when converting from tiff to jpeg.





Love dat Fuji :P
http://akiwiretrospective.blogspot.com/
Fuji HS10,Pentax K1000, Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
--
Conrad
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.
 
Ralph was quite clear that this was not about composition. So what is left? Everything I critiqued.

Yet the second image is so technically flawed, that I could not see any reason why it should even be on the table when ignoring composition (which is vastly better in the second image.)

That's the simple truth.

I critiqued a camera very honestly ... you critiqued a person, and motives are never pure when doing that.

Methinks you have things rather backwards ...

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Ralph was quite clear that this was not about composition. So what is left? Everything I critiqued.

Yet the second image is so technically flawed, that I could not see any reason why it should even be on the table when ignoring composition (which is vastly better in the second image.)

That's the simple truth.
And, if you would have stated it that way, I would have seen absolutely no problem with it.
I critiqued a camera very honestly ... you critiqued a person, and motives are never pure when doing that.

Methinks you have things rather backwards ...
Well, then perhaps when Ralph sees some of your photos, or your blog, he should be allowed to use some of the same tones, and words you did to describe your work. Fair enough? How would you feel Kim if he told you that your blog "sucked" and was "really awful"?

Methinks that you would not be real happy with him if he stated those things, and you would probably let him have it. But, maybe I am wrong about you Kim, perhaps you enjoy getting all that negative feedback for some reason.

My opinion is that POSITIVE feedback usually is met with much better results. I am sure your children would agree.
--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
--
Conrad
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.
 
I find both images to be so objectionable in terms of IQ, not composition, that I cannot prefer one over the other.
 
Ralph, for me, it's little bit difficult to compare because they are different in object and angle. May be better if you compare between two similar objects.

For the first pic, did you have your Color setting at high and Chrome color mode? I found that this setting may cause over saturated and noisy photo, especially if the light is not so strong. IMO, CMIIW.
 
I critiqued a camera very honestly ... you critiqued a person, and motives are never pure when doing that.

Methinks you have things rather backwards ...
Well, then perhaps when Ralph sees some of your photos, or your blog, he should be allowed to use some of the same tones, and words you did to describe your work. Fair enough? How would you feel Kim if he told you that your blog "sucked" and was "really awful"?
If I post images with issues like that and ask for technical critique while ignoring composition, then I would expect him to level with me. And anyone else too.
Methinks that you would not be real happy with him if he stated those things, and you would probably let him have it. But, maybe I am wrong about you Kim, perhaps you enjoy getting all that negative feedback for some reason.
Perhaps you are confused here Conrad. Ralph posted the images and stated that he and some others are debating which is better. They are confused over which camera is better. He specifically asked for critiques. And I provided an honest critique without pecking at him as a person, as you are doing with me.

Every once in a while, I post something that everyone agrees is simply terrible. And I get pounded. Very personally and very much without provocation. This tends to happen when I am mislead by my color deficiency, and the results are generally a feeding frenzy. The last time this happened, I did not react in kind, but rather continued to try to explain what I was seeing. That was ignored largely and the insults kept rolling.

This forum has a disease ... we cannot stay on topic because people like you go ape-sh*t over mere language. That second image is awful ... I am not lying. And I am not telling Ralph that his camera's output makes him a bad person.

So why not just relax a bit and get back on topic? Your reputation as forum cop is intact.
My opinion is that POSITIVE feedback usually is met with much better results.
Do as you say, but not as you do. What a hypocrite you have turned out to be.
I am sure your children would agree.
That is a disgustingly low blow ... so we can add bottom-feeder to hypocrite and forum cop.

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
snip
If I post images with issues like that and ask for technical critique while ignoring composition, then I would expect him to level with me. And anyone else too.
You are expecting perfection, and that will not always be the case. Some here are NOT as advanced as you, and honestly need constructive feedback, not to be told their images, "suck" Kim.

Would you have used those words with your wife, or children? If my parents constantly told me how terrible I was growing up when I first started playing baseball, I would not have turned into a Professional Baseball player. I would have quit. But they encouraged me, and they thought me, and they hung with me. That is the POSITIVE feedback I am talking about. Was I ever told that I was doing things wrong? Of course I was. But they never told me I "sucked" or was "awful".
Methinks that you would not be real happy with him if he stated those things, and you would probably let him have it. But, maybe I am wrong about you Kim, perhaps you enjoy getting all that negative feedback for some reason.
Perhaps you are confused here Conrad. Ralph posted the images and stated that he and some others are debating which is better. They are confused over which camera is better. He specifically asked for critiques. And I provided an honest critique without pecking at him as a person, as you are doing with me.
I hope you are capable of accepting the same type of constructive feedback then that you gave him. That is the GOLDEN RULE. If you honestly believe that telling someone their work "sucks" and is "really awful" is appropriate as constructive feedback, then I am truly sorry for you. It is not, under any circumstance.
Every once in a while, I post something that everyone agrees is simply terrible. And I get pounded. Very personally and very much without provocation. This tends to happen when I am mislead by my color deficiency, and the results are generally a feeding frenzy. The last time this happened, I did not react in kind, but rather continued to try to explain what I was seeing. That was ignored largely and the insults kept rolling.
The RULE applies to everyone Kim, not just you. I am not talking about only you here, everybody, (including me) must realize the importance of POSITIVE feedback. I also said that we could not stop it, but we can surely try.

I have a great friend who is color blind that I use to officiate basketball with, and you talk about problems. We did not make fun of him, we helped him during the games. We all laughed about it later, when it was clear he knew we were joking.
This forum has a disease ... we cannot stay on topic because people like you go ape-sh*t over mere language. That second image is awful ... I am not lying. And I am not telling Ralph that his camera's output makes him a bad person.
I wholeheartedly agree that this forum has a disease, that is the sole reason for my Golden Rule post. If you are refuse to be part of the solution, then you must acknowledge to be part of the problem, and that starts with the more professional usage of words. Telling someone their images "suck" and are "really awful" is in no way constructive feedback.

You stated above that people attacked you over your color deficiencies, and then you stated it upset you. So, I know by your own words that you have feelings that get hurt. The same holds true for others when YOU choose to use words and descriptions that offend.

It seriously seems to me that you have been ridiculed so many times around here that you have decided to just fire back at will. Why not ignore those who can't abide by the GOLDEN Rule and be happy within yourself? Is it really so important to gain revenge?

I was taught at a very young age this very important piece of information, and it still holds true today. Here it is.

If you say something nice to someone, they will be your friend. If you want to ridicule, attack or insult someone, they will be your enemy for life. It is YOUR choice to make the decisions. And finally, as Jeff Kent, (former professional baseball player) once said. "I am not here to make friends, I am here to win and make money." He accomplished his goals.

I will respectfully bow out as gracefully as I can in order to not offend any further. That was indeed not my intent.

Conrad.
My opinion is that POSITIVE feedback usually is met with much better results.
Do as you say, but not as you do. What a hypocrite you have turned out to be.
I am sure your children would agree.
That is a disgustingly low blow ... so we can add bottom-feeder to hypocrite and forum cop.

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
--
Conrad
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.
 
When I saw this post last night, I was going to add a reply but the OP asked about image quality only .... and I feel it is actually the composition that ruins one of the photos, not image quality. So, I didn't reply. Additionally, asking us to choose a camera that shows better image quality without using a controlled test subject/environment is unfair as well. This does not give a true representation of either cameras' abilities.

Today, I will reply because, for what it's worth, I agree with Kim and he is getting bashed for being honest and candid about image quality... he didn't use any derogatory words toward the photographer himself, he used adjectives critiquing images... just as the original poster requested! Not only that... I probably would have been even more candid and harsh with my response last night. Both images, when we are talking about image quality, are truly aweful.

First, let me say that this is the type of photo that is really just a memory... a snapshot... so ideal image quality is not important. What is important with any photo, regardless of image quality, is composition. Here we have two images with quite lousy image quality being compared with two very different compositions.

The first image has the usual HS-10 jpeg problems... loss of all detail due to smearing NR and high noise. Also, contrast might be set a bit too high in this photo for my tastes, for this type of photo.

The second image, as Kim stated, does appear as though it was run through a noise reduction program very heavily. Then, in my opinion, it appears that either the NR tried to sharpen entirely too much, or way too much sharpening was added afterward. Due to the shallow DOF, it is impossible to check for noise and/or smearing in the grass as is obvious in the HS-10 image but we can check the hair... both the hair on the guy and the hair on the dog should have at least some clearly defined hair.... not so here. So, is that an image quality problem? Or is it a NR problem? Or is it shakey hands causing overall image softness? I don't know. What I do know is that the resulting image has quite lousy image quality.

Regardless of what appears to be equal poor image quality by both cameras, more than likely both cameras could have captured much better image quality with optimal settings. So, this experiment (if it is one) has very poor controls and is not indicative of showing which camera is better than the other.

But I must again point out that for this type of photo (a snapshot of a memory), the image that will stand out immediately as best to most people is the one with better composition... and we are all probably in agreement on which image that might be.

Patrick
 
From a personal point of view, the second image looks much more NATURAL to my eyes. The first image is slightly oversaturated, (and I love saturation...lol).

Now, what other camera did you use? LOL.
That was my first impression, too. If the OP used the settings he wrote about on his blog site, the HS10's color mode would have been set to "chrome" (which the manual says gives "vivid contrast and color" and "enhanced greens and blues") and with both tone and sharpness set to "hard." Knowing which cameras were used and how both cameras were set would be helpful. The OP's statement, "I think I did something wrong when converting from tiff to jpeg," doesn't help with making a meaningful comparison, either.
 
From a personal point of view, the second image looks much more NATURAL to my eyes. The first image is slightly oversaturated, (and I love saturation...lol).

Now, what other camera did you use? LOL.
That was my first impression, too. If the OP used the settings he wrote about on his blog site, the HS10's color mode would have been set to "chrome" (which the manual says gives "vivid contrast and color" and "enhanced greens and blues") and with both tone and sharpness set to "hard."
I have to disagree with you both about the saturation in the first photo. Across the top of the photo the long grass is a much less vivid colour, similar in colour to the grass in the second photo. The strikingly green field colour in the main part of the 1st image is common in New Zealand, which is very lush, especially in Spring and is pretty much the garden of Eden when it comes to growing pasture or anything else.

The skin tones and dog fur on the first image look far more natural than on the second and the dark and light clothes his son is wearing came out well exposed. I would say he captured and exposed the first scene accurately. He said the second photo is from an old camera, which makes sense.

I would agree with OP that the HS-10 blew the older camera away. No way would Fuji vivid mode turn grass from the colour of the second image into the colour of the first image, those images were taken in two different spots.
 
as a baseball player?

I don't care who you are get off your soap box
you know buckshot, every time i read one of your male ego posts, i think that "the truth" is absolutely right about you. he is beginning to be more believable everyday, and that is flat a scary thought. some of you were just born to be rude and obnoxious.
--
Debbie Renae
 
Ralph, for me, it's little bit difficult to compare because they are different in object and angle. May be better if you compare between two similar objects.
Loekids, I agree - even to my eyes (and I use usually use chrome), the first pic appears very saturated.

However while the composition in the second pic is not good (I shall refrain from using such derogatory words as 'suck'), I like the shallower depth of field, but of course this may be purely down to the angle at which the photo was taken, ie the distance to the background.

So what was the second camera, may I ask?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top