10D image sharpness

[macgaspode]

not be an increase in artifacts, but the multiple saveas routine
can get pretty ugly. Its almost laike making a copy of a copy of a
copy of a vcr tape. The image gets worse every time.

That's exaclty what I am saying. Maybe I should make some tests to see what happens when I do 2-3 saves in PS Elements' best quality (12).

 

[dhphoto]

If you use the minimum compression in PS there will be no change in the image

Re-saving a jpg in photoshop (at minimum compression) will not
alter your image, it has been proved and re-proved

This is new to me. Can you give me a link to this information on
the web?

My understanding is that jpeg is always lossy compression and
therefore saving images again and again in JPEG after manipulation
will add artefacts each time (and filesize because the file becomes
more and more complex).

 

[halwa]

Group Idiot - Great Post -
You will no doubt get some static from folks about your film to
digital comparison. What I have found is that the majority of people
(and this includes many of my fellow photographers) are

oblivious to the finer details and nuances of a better print. One has to show them the areas of detail, lack of artifacts, smooth tonal gradation, everytime before they can appreciate the
difference between a well captured MF print and a 1D/d1X image...

It constantly amazes me that people often show their best digital shots with

great pride and I have to swallow hard when I see the image - often over processed - with the watercolor look and sharpening halos.

I have more digital equipment at this point than traditional film stuff - because

digital has its advantages. Convenience is a big part of it, as is post processing

flexibility, instant feedback etc.... however, in my view, image quality is not yet one of them.

Someday soon..... until then, I just treat the two as different formats... and use both as appropriate.

Vic

Any ideas?

What makes this subject so controversial and so heated are the
varying definitions of term "Sharpness" and what is expected by any
particular individual. I still do not believe that the 10D is equal
to equivalently-cropped 35mm film (neg or slide) in terms of
resolution, despite what Reichman or others may think or "prove."
Additionally, there are physical elements that enter into the
equation that contribute to a deterioration in the out-of-camera
image detail.

SHARPNESS definition #1:

Typically, this particular question/complaint is posed by those
migrating (upgrading) from one of the highly-capable "prosumer" P&S
digicams. These cameras, as has been pointed out ad nauseam,
heavily process the image internally "on-the-fly" to produce sharp,
colorful, vibrant photos able to be printed directly from the
storage media without user intervention. To this end, they perform
their duty admirably and give the vast majority of their owners
results they consider satisfactory. In light of the fact that you
are comparing your pre-processed 10D images directly to those
produced from your Sony F707, I would submit that you fall into
this category. In short, either learn how to love processing
virtually ALL of your images to some extent, or return your 10D and
stick with the Sony.

SHARPNESS definition #2

We all know the standard dSLR mantra of "doing as little in-camera
processing as possible to allow more flexibility to the
photographer in processing the image." This is, for the most part,
accurate. Preservation of resolution as well as highlight, shadow,
and color detail requires a very light hand in terms of processing
-- one dSLR manufacturers feel is best left to the varying tastes
of the individual owner. However, concerning the 10D there are
other issues involved -- first of which would be a very prominent,
effective AA or "Anti-Aliasing" filter fitted to the imaging
sensor. This dramatically "dulls" image detail captured by the
camera to avoid aliasing problems inherent in CCD/CMOS imagers.
This can ONLY be overcome by applying some form of image sharpening
in post processing. There is no avoiding it -- period.

I personally have experimented by taking the same image, from the
same tripod, using the same lens (a group portrait, in fact) with
both the 10D and a Rebel 2000 with Fuji Provia 200 using 24-70/2.8L
lens. Using standard Photoshop processing (the newly-posted "10D
Finisher" Action), and Genuine Fractals to resize to 300DPI @ 12 x
18, then printing both at 12 x 18 from a Noritsu 2901 (Costco), the
film print CLEARLY held substantially more detail. It was much,
much sharper. I should note that the film slide was scanned by a
commercial service using a very expensive drum scanner ($200K) into
a 130MB TIFF file. I then processed it in PS as well with some
levels and USM. Even downsizing it to the same image size as the
native 10D image conclusively resolved more detail than the
same-sized digital image.

None of this is to say that the 10D can't produce "sharp" images,
because it can and does and I am relatively satisfied with the
results. However it is not the panacea of image quality that some
may tout it to be, and it is decimated by most 35mm and certainly
any Medium Format films -- regardless of what some people claim.
Just because their scanning equipment or technique doesn't CAPTURE
the detail doesn't mean that the film itself doesn't HAVE the
detail. Just reverse the process for proof-positive (print any dSLR
image to slide film and see). Even the mighty 1Ds isn't quite there
yet, regardless of some of the dubious "proof" that some proffer.

In the final analysis, assuming the image was properly captured, a
correctly-processed 10D image will humiliate virtually any
competing image from any P&S camera currently available --
including the F7x7. As to whether you or the others are willing to
invest the necessary time and talent into extracting the best from
those images is your prerogative. One which we are not going to
force upon you, as only you know your preference in this matter.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

 

[dukefleming]

Thank You! I've been wanting to say that for weeks.

The most useful beginner mode on the camera is "P". You can't make any adjustments when in the "Basic" zone. If you want this camera to look and act like a point and shoot, just set the contrast and sharpening to +2 and the selector dial to "P". At least when you are in this mode you can change ISO, or shutter-aperture combinations, or white balance, or drive, Etc.

You may then discover that some of these adjustments are not that hard after all. You may also discover that the sharpening and contrast is too much and learn how in PS.

Sell me your camera if you don't like it. I need another and I'm sure since you don't think it is that good, I will be able to get it for a good price. (-:

Duke

1.) You live with it

2.) you set sharpening +2 and contrast +1. But this does not work
for the "beginner modes" Potrait, Landscape, etc. which makes it
quite useless. Canon did this different on the 300D, there you can
apply these settings to all shooting mode. Would be great if Canon
would make a firmware update because this feature won't hurt
anybody. But I think they won't. Therefore you can

Why use beginner modes anyway? They are practically useless, if you
really have that much of a problem with the camera use 'P'

3.) get a 300D instead

If you really don't want your 10D, I'll buy it cheap

4.) Or you leave the settings and play a little more around in
Photoshop.

Use RAW and get the best out of a fantastic camera, plus you can
afford to make more mistakes and still turn in a decnt job

All this is very frustrating. Canon could have left all
possibilities for professionals (no sharpening, etc.) but put in
some more for starters without no problems. I now go for option 4
but I don't really like to have to convert everything from JPG to
TIFF just get decent pictures even from those I don't have the time
to play around with it all the day.

There is no point whatsoever in converting a jpg to a tiff. Once an
image has been a jpg is has been compressed, you can't get that
detail back by making it into a tiff.

 

[BobbyC]

Try saving and closing, not save as, about 10 times and look closely, it will
degrade the image.

not be an increase in artifacts, but the multiple saveas routine
can get pretty ugly. Its almost laike making a copy of a copy of a
copy of a vcr tape. The image gets worse every time.

That's exaclty what I am saying. Maybe I should make some tests to
see what happens when I do 2-3 saves in PS Elements' best quality
(12).

 

[Howard Rockliffe]

Hey guys,

This image sharpening thing is really interesting. I was a stills photographer 25 years ago and since then I've been a TV cameraman...up until last year when I decided to shift career and take up again with stills. I started with an olympus E20 and have just bought myself a complete Canon outfit comprising of an EOS 30 and a beeeeauuutiful 10D with 28-85 f3.5 lens.

However, I digress. The reason behind why I mention my career in TV is very important. I shot 16MM film and 35MM years ago, until the advent of video and portable single cameras (PSC) in the early 80's. The one main thing that everyone hated about video (and still do to a point) is that video is simply not film, and looks clinical and hard. I know that sounds simplistic but it's really difficult comparing one against the other...because they are quite different. And I think this is the trouble with the sharpness debate... the Canon 10D takes beautiful pictures and much more akin to film than digital (in my opinion) and so if you want clinical, razor edge pictures rather than subtle, smooth film like images then perhaps one should look elsewhere. Having said that though, I have no issues whatsoever with the camera. I've just finished blowing up some shots to 20"x16" and am over the moon with them! My other thought and in agreement with one or two other replies I've read is that it's very easy to blow up a picture on a monitor and start over scrutininising every detail when what you should be doing is viewing the finished print at a realistic distance. Viewing a 10"x8" print from say eighteen inches will be a lot sharper that viewing a 20"x 16" print from the same distance. Have fun...I am!

The most useful beginner mode on the camera is "P". You can't make
any adjustments when in the "Basic" zone. If you want this camera
to look and act like a point and shoot, just set the contrast and
sharpening to +2 and the selector dial to "P". At least when you
are in this mode you can change ISO, or shutter-aperture
combinations, or white balance, or drive, Etc.

You may then discover that some of these adjustments are not that
hard after all. You may also discover that the sharpening and
contrast is too much and learn how in PS.

Sell me your camera if you don't like it. I need another and I'm
sure since you don't think it is that good, I will be able to get
it for a good price. (-:

Duke

1.) You live with it

2.) you set sharpening +2 and contrast +1. But this does not work
for the "beginner modes" Potrait, Landscape, etc. which makes it
quite useless. Canon did this different on the 300D, there you can
apply these settings to all shooting mode. Would be great if Canon
would make a firmware update because this feature won't hurt
anybody. But I think they won't. Therefore you can

Why use beginner modes anyway? They are practically useless, if you
really have that much of a problem with the camera use 'P'

3.) get a 300D instead

If you really don't want your 10D, I'll buy it cheap

4.) Or you leave the settings and play a little more around in
Photoshop.

Use RAW and get the best out of a fantastic camera, plus you can
afford to make more mistakes and still turn in a decnt job

All this is very frustrating. Canon could have left all
possibilities for professionals (no sharpening, etc.) but put in
some more for starters without no problems. I now go for option 4
but I don't really like to have to convert everything from JPG to
TIFF just get decent pictures even from those I don't have the time
to play around with it all the day.

There is no point whatsoever in converting a jpg to a tiff. Once an
image has been a jpg is has been compressed, you can't get that
detail back by making it into a tiff.

 

[Jim Lewis]

nick:

Simon Stanmore has authored a Photoshop action which is free. The link is in this message, and the thread contains a discussion. I haven't tried it yet, 'cause I'm still a wannabe, but as you'll see, users gave it a thumbs up.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5932618

--
Jim Lewis
http://www.pbase.com/pdx_photoman
http://www.jimlewis.info
Canon G2, Elan IIE, FS4000US, Photoshop 7, Epson 2200

 

[dhphoto]

A good point well made.

It is hard not to think of the 10D as simply digital film, but it really isn't. Digital does not respond the same way as film does to over or underexposure, that is why exposure is so critical with digital.

The received wisdom (from no less than Thomas Knoll, author of Photoshop) is that the best results are obtained by using as much of the lighter (right hand) side of the histogram as possible, that is without going over the edge and blowing highlights. This seems to work well, and if used in conjunction with RAW can give up to a stop exposure latitude (which can be beautifully dialled in during the RAW conversion)

The 10D does indeed produce images much more akin to film than the other digitals I have tried, BECAUSE of the softness and tone of the images

It is a dream come true to be using this stuff, I will NEVER use film again!

This image sharpening thing is really interesting. I was a stills
photographer 25 years ago and since then I've been a TV
cameraman...up until last year when I decided to shift career and
take up again with stills. I started with an olympus E20 and have
just bought myself a complete Canon outfit comprising of an EOS 30
and a beeeeauuutiful 10D with 28-85 f3.5 lens.
However, I digress. The reason behind why I mention my career in TV
is very important. I shot 16MM film and 35MM years ago, until the
advent of video and portable single cameras (PSC) in the early
80's. The one main thing that everyone hated about video (and still
do to a point) is that video is simply not film, and looks clinical
and hard. I know that sounds simplistic but it's really difficult
comparing one against the other...because they are quite different.
And I think this is the trouble with the sharpness debate... the
Canon 10D takes beautiful pictures and much more akin to film than
digital (in my opinion) and so if you want clinical, razor edge
pictures rather than subtle, smooth film like images then perhaps
one should look elsewhere. Having said that though, I have no
issues whatsoever with the camera. I've just finished blowing up
some shots to 20"x16" and am over the moon with them! My other
thought and in agreement with one or two other replies I've read is
that it's very easy to blow up a picture on a monitor and start
over scrutininising every detail when what you should be doing is
viewing the finished print at a realistic distance. Viewing a
10"x8" print from say eighteen inches will be a lot sharper that
viewing a 20"x 16" print from the same distance. Have fun...I am!

Thank You! I've been wanting to say that for weeks.

The most useful beginner mode on the camera is "P". You can't make
any adjustments when in the "Basic" zone. If you want this camera
to look and act like a point and shoot, just set the contrast and
sharpening to +2 and the selector dial to "P". At least when you
are in this mode you can change ISO, or shutter-aperture
combinations, or white balance, or drive, Etc.

You may then discover that some of these adjustments are not that
hard after all. You may also discover that the sharpening and
contrast is too much and learn how in PS.

Sell me your camera if you don't like it. I need another and I'm
sure since you don't think it is that good, I will be able to get
it for a good price. (-:

Duke

 

[Andrew Chiciak]

I have been shooting with a D60 for over a year now and have to say that most images I get out of the camera are very satisfyingly sharp without any post process. Unless I have a problem file where the focus is off, or I shook, I don't use much more than .4 .4 65 USM. What happens when you over sharpen digital files like so many of the consumer cameras do is that they take on a very artificial "digital" look which reallty goes against the concept that digital cannot be told from film. My professional digital work cannot be distinguished from my film work.

I would seriously trash that Tamron lens...garbage. Get the Canon 28-135 IS lens. If you get a good one of these, you will be very happy

http://www.echelonphotographers.com

There is a reason the 10D gets all those great reviews, it's a
great camera. It's just and adjustment from P&S cameras, a little
culture shock. You can almost think of a DSLR image as a
"negative", especially so if you shoot RAW images. From that
negative, you have more control over the final image. I too
learned to benefits of Capture One: LE. Used it a few days then
bought it. Now I shot almost all RAW. Sounds scary to some, but
it's not that hard.

VES

This topic gets discussed a lot. Many people making the transition
to the 10D (or any DSLR for that matter) seem surprised by how
"soft" the images appear out of camera. The 10D gives you a better,
unprocessed, artifact-free image to start with. It then requires
some post-processing to get the final result, but that final result
will blow any P&S camera out of the water. And it takes minutes,
not hours to achieve those results in Photoshop; the process can be
automated in many ways with great software tools, like C1LE,
BreezeBrowser, etc. My ideas: read here, learn the tools, and soon
you'll be very happy that you switched to the 10D.

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

--
Andy C

 

[Simon Schmincke]

OMG! what lense did you use?
those are incredibly sharp

First image: 50/1.4 @ f/1.8 (for very narrow depth of field)

Second image: 17-40/4L @ f/5

Third image: 50/1.4 @ f/2.8

i like the first one most, and thats the lense i am going to buy)

 

[zstoja]

This is sharpness:

Nikon F5 (or Sony 717 ?)
http://www.geneeckhart.com/082598B-5.htm

Sony 717 (or Nikon F5 ?)



I afraid that 10d is not able to produce this sharpness even with post processing.
This is big/main reason I plan to buy 828, not 10d.
I am not happy to do so, but it seems must do it and wait for some DSLR.
Soft, soft, soft,... Colours are very good, the best, but soft.
Nikon D100 is OK, but too old to buy now.

I was looking for 10d gallery to find sharpness, but nothing, only the best colours.
If I see any 10d picture with post processing like those 2, I will buy 10d.

"When you look closely, when you see the jagged edges of an over-sharpened image..."

Do previos 2 images over-sharpened?

 

[BobbyC]

That picture is an aperature 2.4, not enough blur for me, first giveaway that it's a point and shoot camera.

 

[zstoja]

That picture is an aperature 2.4, not enough blur for me, first
giveaway that it's a point and shoot camera.

First of all, I do not which picture.
You talk about house behind turtle, or woods behind fontain?
Ok, OK, second one is blur, but first one is not.

Second, I would understand you that you said: "I did not like, it was over-sharpened, ...", but we do not talk about point and shot, we talk about sharpness.

 

[Ben Strasser]

I went back to shooting weddings with 35mm when the Kodak Portra 160NC film hit the market. Excellent fine grain compared to VPS and CPS of the past. I also started using PS around that time because negative cropping of 35mm was difficult to get and expensive. I would have my 35mm negatives processed and scanned into 2 to 3MB files and do my own cropping and retouching in PS. Prior to that I shot MF, so I know what a good print looks like.

I can say, that without a doubt, the digital images from my 2-10D cameras with a little post processing in PS look every bit as good as MF and better than 35mm. Just maybe scanning 35mm to a 18MB file would be better but not worth the cost. I know Labs use interpolation when enlarging prints and very likely do the same with scans. I have had 35mm negatives scanned and 16x20 prints made from them and the grain looks like hell. On the other hand, I have had 24x36 prints made from 10D images and interpolated up to a 160MB file size at 300dpi (shot .jpg fine) and had no grain or pixelation and an image that was every bit as good as MF. Needless to say, I do not agree with GI's statement on 35mm film.

The only problem I see in your analysis is you are comparing a 10d
and a very high end SCAN of film. Have you compared a traditional
film print to a 10d print? I have and get exactly the opposite
results of yours, even other photogs (working pros) have judged the
digital prints to be better.

Now, I should say that my 35mm film scanner produced much better
prints from my film camera than traditional wet prints. I went
digital to eliminate the scanning of the film step (wanna talk
about time in front of the computer just sit down and scan 1 roll
of film with a film scanner). Before that, I printed everything in
house with my beloved enlarger, great prints, but even more time to
process than scanning film and still not get prints as good as the
ones I get from my 10D, or D30 for that matter.

 

[Ben Strasser]

Digital offers options that film cannot, from the action of taking
a photograph to the final print or litho.

Film does not offer the opportunity to select the white balance of
your shot days, weeks or even months after capture. It does not
allow the alteration of speed, contrast, colour, saturation and a
host of other variables. It does not allow the direct and immediate
viewing of the shot, it does not allow prints to be ENTIRELY dust
and newton ring free, forever. It does not need scanning, a huge
time, quality and money saver in itself. It does not promote an
inevitable increase in contrast when printed the way film does.

Digital is simply and vastly superior in every single way to a two
hundred year old hit and miss wet process which, even after only a
few years of development can match or surpass film with ease.

This is coming from an old fogie who started with E-3!

(for those of you who aren't old enough, the predecessor of E-6
slide processing)

After 25 years of professional work, film just doesn't even come
close any more.

The only problem I see in your analysis is you are comparing a 10d
and a very high end SCAN of film. Have you compared a traditional
film print to a 10d print? I have and get exactly the opposite
results of yours, even other photogs (working pros) have judged the
digital prints to be better.

Now, I should say that my 35mm film scanner produced much better
prints from my film camera than traditional wet prints. I went
digital to eliminate the scanning of the film step (wanna talk
about time in front of the computer just sit down and scan 1 roll
of film with a film scanner). Before that, I printed everything in
house with my beloved enlarger, great prints, but even more time to
process than scanning film and still not get prints as good as the
ones I get from my 10D, or D30 for that matter.

 

[James_H]

We should be thankful that the DSLR gives us such control - change settings in the camera, use post-processing in the application of your choice, find the right sharpness for the various subjects that you photograph.

Once you fnd the settings that give you the results you want, you can probably authomate them in your workflow and enjoy!

Jim

 

[BobbyC]

See that's the problem, it's not all about sharpness, there are other factors. I was referring to the fountain shot, which does look oversharpened to me. You are trying to say it's a better camera because of it's super sharpened look, but you ignore other things like extreme depth of field, bokeh, etc...

If you're happy with that look then I say go for it, enjoy life a little. ;o)

That picture is an aperature 2.4, not enough blur for me, first
giveaway that it's a point and shoot camera.

First of all, I do not which picture.
You talk about house behind turtle, or woods behind fontain?
Ok, OK, second one is blur, but first one is not.

Second, I would understand you that you said: "I did not like, it
was over-sharpened, ...", but we do not talk about point and shot,
we talk about sharpness.

 

[zstoja]

There is no sense to think that 717 is better camera than 10d. No way.

What I want to say is that 717 sharpness is much better than 10d produces (even with post processing).
I would not say that fountain is more over sharpened than F5 picture.
I know that I like more sharpness than you, but what is reality about sharpness?

Finally, I think that less 10d sharpness makes 10d so good for less light and think that no way to get both of them soon.
So, I expect similar story about 828 (sharp and not so good for less lights).

Regards,
Zoran

 

[Group Idiot]

I was looking for 10d gallery to find sharpness, but nothing, only
the best colours.
If I see any 10d picture with post processing like those 2, I will
buy 10d.

...would have to perform a direct, side-by-side comparison. There are many here that are former F7x7 owners who could make a better comparison of the two.

However, virtually all of the F7x7 shots I've seen -- at 100% (because it's impossible to tell otherwise) -- have noticeable sharpening artifacts and halos with poor color. Additionally, the detail is lost in the F7x7 shots that the 10D or similar dSLR preserves.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

 

[BobbyC]

Well, I base my sharpness on what I like with film and I see many, many way oversharpened pictures these days, not saying your way is wrong, just not the way I look at it.

I mostly do portraits which do not lend themselves to this ultra sharpened digital look. I also do motorsports and some commercial photography and get much sharper, higher quality pics from digital than I did with film (35mm), after post processing of course.

I was disappointed back when I looked at my first D30 file until I learned about sharpening and why Canon left it up to the artist to decide, but when I started to see the logic, it all came together for me. I've always wanted total control and the Canon DSLR's have given it to me.

There is no sense to think that 717 is better camera than 10d. No way.
What I want to say is that 717 sharpness is much better than 10d
produces (even with post processing).
I would not say that fountain is more over sharpened than F5 picture.
I know that I like more sharpness than you, but what is reality
about sharpness?
Finally, I think that less 10d sharpness makes 10d so good for less
light and think that no way to get both of them soon.
So, I expect similar story about 828 (sharp and not so good for
less lights).

Regards,
Zoran