I also suspect these are identical shots, but even if they aren't, asking for comparisons on 72 DPI images is hardly a valid platform for critical viewing. When critically viewing images, one really needs to print them out using the printer's optimal or highest quality settings.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Filter test for you all---Hoya super pro 1
- Thread starter Micheal-L
- Start date
is that i was extremely careful when taking this shot, and the camera was not bolted to cement, nor would it have to be.
2nd, those of you that picked the second shot to be the one with the filter were correct.
what i find funny is that if someone can't find something to complain about, they'll make up a pixel for pixel overlay claim that is hardly valid for discrediting someones effort.
to the rest of you, i thank you for your participation and hope that we have proved something to ourselves in that a good quality filter does not degrade an image.
2nd, those of you that picked the second shot to be the one with the filter were correct.
what i find funny is that if someone can't find something to complain about, they'll make up a pixel for pixel overlay claim that is hardly valid for discrediting someones effort.
to the rest of you, i thank you for your participation and hope that we have proved something to ourselves in that a good quality filter does not degrade an image.
the pics are only 185 kilo's so you shouldn't have to wait half an hour...........unless .......ah never mind....;-))
- but the front element on a 24/28-70L is the largest
ground aspherical element ever fitted to a canon lens, it's
vulnerable as hell where it is and hideously expensive to replace,
even if there is a minute difference between a plain lens and a
hoya-fitted one, I'm not taking the risk with damaging the coating,
I shoot it in all sorts of conditions and want my 28-70L to last
til long beyond when the 1D, 10D, 1DS etc are distant feint
memories ..
Just a thought - how what was the verdict Mike ??
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
-- Canon EF35-80 F4-5.6 Owners Club Member #3580 -- ;-)
vineviz
Well-known member
You proved nothing of the sort. You only demonstrated that in a carefully controlled test it is possible to fool some people into confusing two nearly identical shots.
In fact, it is virtually impossible to prove that filters do not degrade an image. Even one example of degradation would disprove the theory, while a nearly infinte number of examples of no degradation wouldn't prove a thing.
In any event, by my count, most people who expressed a preference liked the first (unfiltered) shot better.
this is the sort of trash talk you expect to get here at good ol DPR...........BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
The person who said that is one of the more respected long term members on this forum. In addition, he is just a bright guy who by the way doesn't go looking for trouble on this forum.
I not only checked the pixels but then I went ahead and did a binary compare on the JPG itself which includes all the headers. The file are IDENTICAL, not only at the pixel level but the EXIF!!!
So, you took the filter off in ZERO seconds and took the same shot... right! Anyone who has ever tried it knows you will can not get the exact same shot to 8 bit resolution on every pixel (AFTER JPG compression no less)... the shutter isn't even that accurate, let alone the changing light.
Jason
The Big Bad
Senior Member
yes a filter will degrade the image quality a bit. Also a zoom lens degrades the image more than a prime lens.
I still use zoom lens as i find they give great results still. I also have a hoy SMC UV filter on the front of my 24-70L zoom.
Technically my image should be rubbish huh ? It still looks more than good enough to me in all situations though.
Ive seen people state that you shouldnt make any adjustments in PS either as its degrarding the image, even with layers. Well id rather use a curve and some USM and have a shot that looks 50% better than even if im going to lose 1% of image quality for it.
Same goes for a filter. If 1% of image quality loss means that i'm not getting salt spray on my lens, thats worth it.
As long as i cant tell a difference in using one, it stays one. Sometimes even if i know its degrading the conditions mean i still have to keep it on.
We can be technical all day but sometimes just need to go out and take some pictures.
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
I still use zoom lens as i find they give great results still. I also have a hoy SMC UV filter on the front of my 24-70L zoom.
Technically my image should be rubbish huh ? It still looks more than good enough to me in all situations though.
Ive seen people state that you shouldnt make any adjustments in PS either as its degrarding the image, even with layers. Well id rather use a curve and some USM and have a shot that looks 50% better than even if im going to lose 1% of image quality for it.
Same goes for a filter. If 1% of image quality loss means that i'm not getting salt spray on my lens, thats worth it.
As long as i cant tell a difference in using one, it stays one. Sometimes even if i know its degrading the conditions mean i still have to keep it on.
We can be technical all day but sometimes just need to go out and take some pictures.
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
they were Jpeg extracts from their RAW files............this kind of makes me wonder how you can see EXIF info.........
but, if it makes you feel better, then let's say i did what you say and just came here to fool you all...........but then why would i do that.
seems to me that people like you always have to be in the spotlight eh?
but, if it makes you feel better, then let's say i did what you say and just came here to fool you all...........but then why would i do that.
seems to me that people like you always have to be in the spotlight eh?
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
I can't believe you. You come here and try to trick our forum then you have the nerve to bash one of the most respected members (above) because he mentions something sounds fishy?
By the way, here is a download of the exif captured from each file. The exif you apparently didn't know would call you on your charade.
http://www.projectrun.com/exif.txt
It's one thing to try to deceive the forum but then you bash Karl too?
Jason
I would expect such ignorance from someone that would try to fake out this forum. I'm sure you'd be happy to post the raws then. Oh wait, let me guess... "I just deleted them, sorry" or "I don't have enough room to post them."
Yes, I am the one that created the "look at me" thread with the faked pictures.
By the way, here is a download of the exif captured from each file. The exif you apparently didn't know would call you on your charade.
http://www.projectrun.com/exif.txt
It's one thing to try to deceive the forum but then you bash Karl too?
Jason
S
stan
Guest
You are putting a piece of glass over another piece of glass.
whether or not our human eyes can see the difference is another story!
--
-Stan
stanc.net
whether or not our human eyes can see the difference is another story!
--
-Stan
stanc.net
ok pal............these 2 shots are from 2 different files. but you say they are the same?
because you post EXIF from one of the shots twice?
here is the link to the two shots................and i really couldn't give a rats butt what you believe.
http://www.pbase.com/wildsideiii/inbox&page=2
because you post EXIF from one of the shots twice?
here is the link to the two shots................and i really couldn't give a rats butt what you believe.
http://www.pbase.com/wildsideiii/inbox&page=2
seems perhaps you made a mistake with your posts. The EXIF info is in both jpeg files, and is identical date/times (as another poster has pointed out).
Perhaps would be better to make the CRW files available.
On another note, I always use a filter. Hopefully it doesn't cost me too much in image quality. Perhaps, if I was in a studio and did this professionally, I would not. When hiking around with camera, there is always a chance that flying-through-the-air stick gets right into the hood.
Perhaps would be better to make the CRW files available.
On another note, I always use a filter. Hopefully it doesn't cost me too much in image quality. Perhaps, if I was in a studio and did this professionally, I would not. When hiking around with camera, there is always a chance that flying-through-the-air stick gets right into the hood.
vineviz
Well-known member
The fact of the matter is that one photograph in which a filter did not significantly impact the image quality is not nearly sufficient to prove anything universal.
At best, you demonstrated that using a good quality filter doesn't ALWAYS degrade picture quality. This seems like a relatively reasonable thing to assert, and I doubt anyone here would have challenged you to prove it. But thanks anyway.
Demonstrating that filters, even a good quality one, NEVER degrade picture quality is another thing altogether. This is what you haven't proven and, in fact, could never prove.
tasty donuts
Senior Member
stop the games and just tell us. if they really are the same shot then that is lame beyond belief.
p.s. i can't see any difference between the two.
p.s. i can't see any difference between the two.
go here and download the shots yourself, and then prove that they are the same.........
http://www.pbase.com/wildsideiii/inbox&page=2
http://www.pbase.com/wildsideiii/inbox&page=2
vineviz
Well-known member
If you want us to believe you, then give us the .CRW files.
i'll answer you because you don't ever seem to be an agitator like the others.
no, they are not the same shot...........the bozo's that are saying so are claiming that there the same and that the EXIF info is the same, but that is impossible.
you can go here where they are posted and download them and see for yourself that they are not identical...
the 2nd picture is the one with the filter.
sorry for trying to participate on this site as i should have known better.
no, they are not the same shot...........the bozo's that are saying so are claiming that there the same and that the EXIF info is the same, but that is impossible.
you can go here where they are posted and download them and see for yourself that they are not identical...
the 2nd picture is the one with the filter.
sorry for trying to participate on this site as i should have known better.
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
He just changed the second one to a bloated 300+ KB file. Check your cache everyone, the lie will be revealed. Here's are the sizes BEFORE he switched them on us!:
Note they're both 188kB ( I have them archived in a safe spot if anyone needs them):
Now if you check the second one has been STRIPPED of it's exif and is now a bloated 300+ KB!
Jason
P.S. I don't know how to fake IE history, if it's possible
Note they're both 188kB ( I have them archived in a safe spot if anyone needs them):
Now if you check the second one has been STRIPPED of it's exif and is now a bloated 300+ KB!
Jason
P.S. I don't know how to fake IE history, if it's possible
click on each image..........right click on the photo and click on the properties...........one is bigger than the other...........so how can they be the same file?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum