Why do these A7R shots look so awful? Locked
Also - ghohan422
Really, two things. First - when there's a fairly simple camera shake, the "Reduce shake" filter in Photoshop CC is amazing - you just need to really set it carefully.
Then I used a "step sharpening" technique when you apply a sharpen filter, resize down to around 70%, sharpen again... and repeat multiple times. Each time the depth and % of the sharpening is decreased.
The bottom line is that when you sharpen and downsample the A7r images to be in the 18-21MP range - they are insanely detailed - even if you see blur/shake at 36MP - peeping at 100%.
You can make a huge print from that TR file and nobody would ever know the difference.
From time to time, I point my camera at the right things. This is generally when I forget everything I've learned.
I have a very strong interest in the Sony A7 series of cameras - I think they are refreshingly forward-looking, and have enormous potential.
I am curious, however, as to why the images in a certain A7R review (by Trey Ratcliff) look so absolutely awful when viewed at 100%. Take this one, for example:
Go to "Sizes -> Original" (bottom right, next to the "Buy" button). For an ISO 100, f/11 images, this looks dreadful. Is this a bad JPEG engine? Or are the lenses just not up to 36MP? My 12MP Olympus E-5 + SHG glass contains much more actual, crisp detail than this 36MP image - despite the higher noise and poorer dynamic range.
I would love to believe that this person did something really wrong - though, to be honest, most of his images look this mushy - check these out, for example:
I'm in no way insinuating that these are normal - I'd just like to understand why they could look so utterly awful, and would love some links to full-res images that members here feel show the potential of this camera. I'd be embarassed to print these large.
This is the sort of detail I currently get from my 12MP (ugly test shot, was just to evaluate a lens):
(click "Download" on top right)
Some of my work is here - much of which could, I think, benefit with what the A7 has to offer:
Thanks in advance!
I don't know this guy, but these images are horrible - they look like a point and shoot. Perhaps he's stored the lowest quality level of jpeg or post processed the heck out of them.
But I know what you mean - I looked and looked at all the images I could find and it always seemed that they didn't quite measure up. Finally I found some original quality images that satisfied me. I definitely feel that the camera provides equal or better image quality to me D600.
Looking at your images on flickr, you would do well with an A7.
Urgh .. it really gets to me when people start talking about HDR because even here on DPR people seem to be totally clueless on what HDR actually is.
HDR (High Dynamic Range) first of all is a technique to combine more then one exposure to increase the total amount of dynamic range in a single image and thus go beyond what ones sensor can capture.
Photomatix + Photoshop is something that Trey uses to achieve most of his photos. That is only one of a multitude of ways to achieve a HDR.
The problem with applications that does HDR automatically is that they often introduce artifacts and even though an image seem to be artifact free it never really is. That's why many do HDR by combining exposures manually within Photoshop instead. A simple method is to combine a good exposure of the sky with an exposure of the ground by using a gradient and a layer mask.
This is an example of achieving a HDR image without resorting to applications that destroy image quality:
- Fujifilm X-T223.6%
- Nikon D50025.4%
- Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E8.2%
- Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F47.5%
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-G857.2%
- Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art6.7%
- Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art5.1%
- Sony a63006.4%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III3.7%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V6.3%
|Kingfisher by cjf2|
from An A to Z of Subjects- Week 11, K
|Bull Rider Being Launched by RBFresno|
from FX bodies and very high ISO