Want to get more resolution and sharpness out of your 10d?

[John Sheehy]

I uprez all my files because I print large and at 300 dpi.

That's a bad idea. If your image is going to wind up at 200 PPI at print size, and you upsample it so that it will be 300 PPI, you are throwing away some high-frquency detail, unless the image had none to begin with. I don't upsample for printing unless the result would be under 200 PPI or so, and even then I would never target a specific absolute resolution, like 300 PPI. If the inital resolution were to be 170 PPI, I'd exactly double it to 340 PPI. If it were 90 PPI, I'd triple it to 270 PPI. You always lose less detail when you upsample by a full integer ratio. No loss of dynamic range of high frequencies.

--
John

 

[ron purdy]

Thanks for the tip.

 

[John Sheehy]

I uprez all my files because I print large and at 300 dpi.

That's a bad idea. If your image is going to wind up at 200 PPI at
print size, and you upsample it so that it will be 300 PPI, you are
throwing away some high-frquency detail, unless the image had none
to begin with. I don't upsample for printing unless the result
would be under 200 PPI or so, and even then I would never target a
specific absolute resolution, like 300 PPI. If the inital
resolution were to be 170 PPI, I'd exactly double it to 340 PPI.
If it were 90 PPI, I'd triple it to 270 PPI. You always lose less
detail when you upsample by a full integer ratio. No loss of
dynamic range of high frequencies.

BTW, this is only valid for inkjet/bubblejet printers. For dye-sub, you are probably better off converting to its native resolution in software.

--
John

 

[ron purdy]

I have tried all the options you have suggested. I use different setting depending on the desired results.

 

[MAC]

http://home.columbus.rr.com/bobmcelheny/RonP-city.jpg

Breezbrowser, combined, 16 bitt tiff, no sharpening, low contrast

hit with 10dfinisher sharpening action that uses scale up and s-spline down.

converted in adobe rgb, and worked with in adobe rgb in ps7, then saved using

srgb

saved at 10 of 12 jpg to keep file size down

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

 

[Olga Johnson]

I just did a quickie jpg conversion.

http://www.pbase.com/image/21991848/original

Olga

 

[ron purdy]

As far as I can see on my screen, while the Breeze conversions are better than my Breeze conversion, they do not show as much detail as my C1 conversion. Anyone see something different than I do?

 

[ron purdy]

http://www.pbase.com/image/21991705

 

[ron purdy]

Look at the 3 sets of railings on the porches on the big brick building in the forground...

 

[JRG-Imaging]

olga posted the raw, but didnt post the thm file. can you send me the raw and the thm file?

[email protected]

As far as I can see on my screen, while the Breeze conversions are
better than my Breeze conversion, they do not show as much detail
as my C1 conversion. Anyone see something different than I do?

--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson

 

[JRG-Imaging]

here's a full size c1 conversion. no sharpening was done to the file in either conversion or in photoshop. only changed to 8 bit and saved for web.it's a full meg file so it'll be a bit of a download

Use Phase One Capture One. Look at this. The Capture One and Breeze
images are developed from the SAME raw file. Shot with the Canon 50
1.8 Series I.

--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson

 

[ron purdy]

 

[JRG-Imaging]

c1 outputs a sharper image, evenwith sharpening turned off, and pulls outmore detail.

i didnt want to believe it, but i shoot girls. and after using fvu and bb i tried c1. welllll.....on the c1 conversion there were more pores!! bb and fvu actually blur out the fine detail during the raw conversion. why? because that's what the canon sdk does - it's done to hide any possible artifacts and jaggies that the anti aliasing filter couldnt handle.

--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson

 

[Olga Johnson]

And here is a composite of a BB and C1 conversion of the file which I did. (Left is BB, Right is C1, sorry for forgetting to mark it.)

http://www.pbase.com/image/21994285

What all of these exercises show us is what I was saying from the beginning. There are differences between the programs but they depend on the settings you use.

When you first used BB you used default settings which are not optimal. Your settings depend on what your image is and how you want to portray it. And we all consider different settings as optimal for an image.

You should be able to derive the same detail, although you can find differences in many other areas.

Olga

 

[sjstokes]

I hope Photoshop CS handles as well then. I'm using the funny camera-raw hack now, so I imagine my results are more like BB?

 

[JRG-Imaging]

olga, are you actually looking at the pictures?

in your bb conversion, the individual vertical rails are blurred into one, on c1 quite a few are individually visible.

this makes a huge impact on all of your conversions, whether it's landscape or people.

And here is a composite of a BB and C1 conversion of the file which
I did. (Left is BB, Right is C1, sorry for forgetting to mark it.)

http://www.pbase.com/image/21994285

What all of these exercises show us is what I was saying from the
beginning. There are differences between the programs but they
depend on the settings you use.

When you first used BB you used default settings which are not
optimal. Your settings depend on what your image is and how you
want to portray it. And we all consider different settings as
optimal for an image.

You should be able to derive the same detail, although you can find
differences in many other areas.

Olga

--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson

 

[ron purdy]

Just like I asserted in the first place.
Your C1 is on the right side, right?

 

[JRG-Imaging]

acr is substantially noisier conversions and softer than C1's default settings. i did some side by sides for a customer with a d60. was enlightening.

I hope Photoshop CS handles as well then. I'm using the funny
camera-raw hack now, so I imagine my results are more like BB?

--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson

 

[ron purdy]

It's only $100 for the 10d version if you decide to buy it.

 

[JRG-Imaging]

here's a few more points in c1's favor.

it actually rotates the file. no, it doesnt embed an exif rotate flag that only photoshop can read, which the canon sdk does (ie. fvu and bb do) so that if you have an image management program like portfolio you are using to make and distribute cd's you dont have to then re-rotate all of your jpeg conversions. the rotation in c1 is lossless.

you can apply any setting to an entire directory of raws with one click. do you realize howmuch time you save?

you can customize the profiles if you have the full version.

you can create custom white balances with grey cards and save them, then apply them later. for some situations this means you wont always have to use your expodisc or gray card.

c1 is incredibly powerful, as i would expect from a company that had made $30k+ medium format backs and has been working with raw files for over 10 years.

Just like I asserted in the first place.
Your C1 is on the right side, right?

--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson