I exported this photo from raw at full size as an sRGB jpeg at level 10 compression. The adjustments I used were -0.2 exposure, +0.4 X3F Fill Light, and a reduction of sharpness (-0.2). I set the noise reduction to the lowest settings (all the way to the left), since it's an ISO 100 photo. Then in GIMP I retouched the sky to get rid of sensor spots and sharpened the whole photo with a setting of about 35, using the sharpening filter (not "Unsharp Mask"). I saved it with a level 95 compression setting, and it ended up being 4.8 MB (not big at all). I like the way it turned out.
Sigma SD1 Merrill & 17-50mm f2.8 EX OS at 40mm 1/250 @ f7.1 ISO 100
This was a handheld shot using OS.
Here is how the photo looked right out of SPP 6.4.0:
Sigma SD1 Merrill & 17-50mm f2.8 EX OS at 40mm 1/250 @ f7.1 ISO 100
What do you think? Did I sharpen too much at some point? I do realize that reducing the sharpening in this conversion from the raw file in SPP by only -0.2 is not much, but I'm pretty happy with the result. I haven't tried reducing sharpening in SPP by -0.5 though. It just seems like that's a bit too much blur to me. I don't see how I could get the image to look better. You gurus probably have some better ideas though, huh?
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
Seems a lot of effort technically for a modest composition
I can't help but feel that photography isn't just about how sharp something is. I appreciate that DPReview is a gear forum and that this is probably the premier place on the internet for arguing about sharpness and halos but 14 or 15 years after the invention of Foveon you'd have thought the conversation would have moved on just a little. Or maybe not!
I know... it's interesting....and a great distraction from the much more difficult process of making memorable images.
For a little light relief from sharpening artefacts you could real about aesthetics, photographic/artistic emotions and the picture making process:
http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/
or
http://guytal.com/wordpress/
--
Galleries and website:
http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
Save
Oh David . . . my photo looks THAT mundane to you, does it? I thought it represented real life pretty well . . . and not that many people get to see such lovely beaches other than in pictures. And if you lived in China you'd probably appreciate that beautiful clear blue sky and those pretty fluffy clouds. Where do you live? Bermuda or something?
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
Sorry, Scott, wasn't trying to insult the picture in particular. I'm just of the view that if manage to come up with a "hail mary" image, then applying huge amounts of technical effort to eke out the last bit of goodness is worth the effort. Other shots while perfectly fine images, might not deserve such commitment to perfection.
But, of course, I also recognise that there is no such thing as universal taste and it is the absolute right of the photographer to decide whether they consider an image worth of exceptional effort.
--
Galleries and website:
http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
Oh, I get it. Well, no exceptional effort here anyway. I was just playing around with sharpening, because I saw lots of interesting details in that particular photo. The distant pier offers lots of opportunity to see the results of sharpening. I find fishing rods of particular interest, knowing how skinny they are. Have you seen my 4x5 scan and sharpening in my gallery? One day I'll use a good lens and shoot that scene with my 4x5 again, using Ektar film. I'll shoot it at the same time with my SD1 Merrill and a good lens (maybe my 70mm f2.8 EX macro). That should be an interesting comparison . . . especially since my newer scanner should do a better job . . . and since then I've learned about wet mounting film, to get a better quality scan. If the 4x5 can match or exceed the quality from the SD1 Merrill, I'll just have to get that 8x10 I've been wanting to buy, because I don't see a new camera coming out any time soon that can double the horizontal and vertical definition of the SD1 Merrill with a good lens on it. If not, I'll have to think about it some more.
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
Onlandscape.co.uk (a subscription magazine) did a big comparison a while back between film of various formats and a Phase One back.
They concluded that drum scanned 10x8 film was equivelent to 627MP!
It's a very comprehensive article:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Tell me what you think.
--
Galleries and website:
http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
Save
I haven't read the article yet, but I want you to know what I believe about large format and any other film. In my estimate, when you use an excellent quality lens and shoot the photo in the best way to get the best detail, a good quality film, like Ektar or Portra should be equivalent to approximately 10 MP per square inch, if scanned properly. I've seen drum scans of 35mm film, which is just over 1 square inch in in size, that looked to be equivalent to comparison photos from a Nikon D3x (both were shot with the same Nikon 50mm lens at f5.6, which makes my 10 MP per square inch estimate very realistic. If indeed film is equivalent to 10 MP for practical use, then an 8x10, which offers 80 square inches of film, is equivalent to 800 MP, once scanned properly . . . if you use a very good lens and don't stop it down too much. (i.e. if you shoot with an f5.6 lens at f8 or f11, rather than the typical f22 or f45 that many large format photographers do). I currently have a Schneider 240mm f5.6 Symmar S, which covers the 8x10 format. I will be using that lens for my tests with my 4x5 camera. If my scans out-resolve my SD1 Merrill, I can's see how an 8x10 wouldn't out-resolve a 100 MP Phase One XF, using the exact same lens, which is far from the World's best or highest resolution 8x10 lens. Well, that's my thinking anyway, and the article you're mentioning seems to support my thinking, given your comment about 627 MP.
I don't believe we're going to see a camera from Sigma that does 4x the image of the SD1 Merrill this year, next year, or the year after, so if/when I get an 8x10 camera that means I'll have the resolution of such a camera for years before it becomes available . . . if the 4x5 out-resolves my SD1 Merrill the way I'll be shooting, developing, and scanning (using a flatbed scanner). We'll see. I'll post samples here, when I get the test done.
Yes, there are other advantages of using a large format camera, which go along with the massive disadvantages of the bulk, weight, slow going, incredibly high expense, etc. Believe me, I wish we could buy a 200 MP digital camera today for a reasonable price. I probably wouldn't even consider buying an 8x10 film camera then. Just the expense is so much than it's going to be cost-prohibitive to shoot a lot of 8x10 photos, unfortunately.
BTW, thanks for the link!
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com
