Taking Pictures with Digital Cameras...

Rip the Jacker

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
5,415
1
76
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?
 

If it looks grainy or washed out, you can use Photoshop to adjust the attributes of the image to get it more balanced. :)
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: ItmPls
Well I got the idea 'cuz of...

1. http://www.sxc.hu/pic/2/l/s/sa/sandralise/334358_1481.jpg

2. My digital camera, Canon A400 sometimes gives blurry pictures but I guess it's because I probably didn't set the right options for the scene.

the reason parts of that photo look soft is because with a P&S digital hell even with a DSLR it would be more or less impossiable to stop down far enough to get that all in perfect sharpness

Hell even f/64 on my 4x5 might not even do it

the main focus point on a P&S cam is in the center, so it will look sharpest, because it is much further away then the water in the front or the mountains on the sides they appear softer
 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
plus it's been jpegged to hell. If you didn't compress that for us, you really should change to the highest quality setting on your camera.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: ItmPls
Well I got the idea 'cuz of...

1. http://www.sxc.hu/pic/2/l/s/sa/sandralise/334358_1481.jpg

2. My digital camera, Canon A400 sometimes gives blurry pictures but I guess it's because I probably didn't set the right options for the scene.

the reason parts of that photo look soft is because with a P&S digital hell even with a DSLR it would be more or less impossiable to stop down far enough to get that all in perfect sharpness

Hell even f/64 on my 4x5 might not even do it

the main focus point on a P&S cam is in the center, so it will look sharpest, because it is much further away then the water in the front or the mountains on the sides they appear softer

You have a Large Format camera? Do you get paid for any of your photos, or do you upload to rootminus1 for free? You're right about the aperture settings though. My D70 can't make that photo look sharp, especially since there will be vignetting at the smallest apertures. How much does a 4x5 with three good primes (they don't even make zooms for a 4x5, do they) cost?
 

Kelemvor

Lifer
May 23, 2002
16,928
8
81
Any time you have a huge picture that's a little blurry and you make it smaller, it will look sharper since it's smaller. But a good camera will have a sharp picture at all sizes which will make it even sharper when you make it smaller as well.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: ItmPls
Well I got the idea 'cuz of...

1. http://www.sxc.hu/pic/2/l/s/sa/sandralise/334358_1481.jpg

2. My digital camera, Canon A400 sometimes gives blurry pictures but I guess it's because I probably didn't set the right options for the scene.

the reason parts of that photo look soft is because with a P&S digital hell even with a DSLR it would be more or less impossiable to stop down far enough to get that all in perfect sharpness

Hell even f/64 on my 4x5 might not even do it

the main focus point on a P&S cam is in the center, so it will look sharpest, because it is much further away then the water in the front or the mountains on the sides they appear softer

You have a Large Format camera? Do you get paid for any of your photos, or do you upload to rootminus1 for free? You're right about the aperture settings though. My D70 can't make that photo look sharp, especially since there will be vignetting at the smallest apertures. How much does a 4x5 with three good primes (they don't even make zooms for a 4x5, do they) cost?

i run rootminus1 so yera everything i upload there is free :D
no i dont get paid for any of my work in the comercial sence, i do sell a photo every now and then tho, but you can feel free to go ahead and just give me some money if you want
:D

Yes i have my own 4x5, none of the pics i have on rootminus1 were taken with it because i dont have a scanner to scan the negatives with, as for the camera itself it can cost as little as 500$ as as much as 4000$ for it with no lenses, the normal lens on a 4x5 camera is a 150mm lens which is about teh same as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, look to pay like 300$ for a cheap one, GOOD ones cost over a grand, 90mm is a wide angle on a 4x5 and they are REALLY expensive think like 2Gs, a 210 is good for studio work and such and you can get a 300mm if you want to get really close to something, but they are fing expensive and more or less dwarf the prices for 35mm stuff

then you gotta factor in Film holders, & film which isnt cheap, A poloroid back and Poloroids if you want them, they are fing expensive also $50+ for 20 of them, color 4x5 print film is expensive and 4x5 chromes are really expensive, however they do look awsome, you will also need a handheld meter, godo spotmeter will run you 300$ used , and lastly you need a heafty tripod as they are heavy, mine weighs somoething liek 10lbs

pick of the beast and its tripod
http://www.rootminus1.com/pics/albums/userpics/10001/DSC_4051.JPG
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,647
1
81
you probably moved while the picture was being taken which leads to blurriness. I cannot tell much from the picture because it's VERY compressed.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: ItmPls
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?

I just took these today with my Canon EOS-20D and new Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Each image consists of two parts. The part on the left is the original image reduced in size. The part on the right is a 100% crop of the original image. No additional alterations or sharpening was done.

Check them out.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being totally satisfied, I rate this Tamron about an 8. It's a little soft at 28.00 mm, F2.8. You can see this in Test 07.

 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
Does your camera have image stabilization?

I have a Panasonic FZ1, and while it's only 2.0 megapixels it produces among the best pics I've ever seen out of a digicam.
 

SSP

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
17,727
0
0
Originally posted by: Wag
Does your camera have image stabilization?

I have a Panasonic FZ1, and while it's only 2.0 megapixels it produces among the best pics I've ever seen out of a digicam.

The A400 doesnt have IS.
 

OffTopic1

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,764
0
0
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: ItmPls
Well I got the idea 'cuz of...

1. http://www.sxc.hu/pic/2/l/s/sa/sandralise/334358_1481.jpg

2. My digital camera, Canon A400 sometimes gives blurry pictures but I guess it's because I probably didn't set the right options for the scene.

the reason parts of that photo look soft is because with a P&S digital hell even with a DSLR it would be more or less impossiable to stop down far enough to get that all in perfect sharpness

Hell even f/64 on my 4x5 might not even do it

the main focus point on a P&S cam is in the center, so it will look sharpest, because it is much further away then the water in the front or the mountains on the sides they appear softer

It is not the stopping down that going to give you sharp image in that photo.

The PS digital lens is a low quality tiny little lens that have resolving problem when come to high details. It could also be that the aperture is wide open, but a closer look at the image shown that the shadow area are broken up due to CCD noise which can be cure by better camera with higher CCD quality (pixels), and a better lens would also help.

Most 35mm best sharpness area is around f5.6~f11, beyond that it gets slightly burrier as the fstop getting smaller, medium format lenses best sharpness is somewhere between f8~f16, and 4x5 is somewhere around f11~f22 (for each stop it is twice the diameter or 4X the area). Therefore, f64 is use only when there no other way to do it (such as can?t move back for longer depth of field or can?t shift the barrel).

The only thing that largeformat have over medium format and 35mm is that it takes less enlargement of the film to make big prints, therefore colour and grain is superb. 35mm & medium format lens resolve power is higher/sharper than large format lenses but because 35mm/med format negs need enlarge to a much higher degree therefore it fall short of quality when compare to large format.
 

OffTopic1

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,764
0
0
You have a Large Format camera? Do you get paid for any of your photos, or do you upload to rootminus1 for free? You're right about the aperture settings though. My D70 can't make that photo look sharp, especially since there will be vignetting at the smallest apertures. How much does a 4x5 with three good primes (they don't even make zooms for a 4x5, do they) cost?

Depends on the makes and type of cameras. You can get good used field cameras with a couples of films back and a standard lens for around $1000 or a bit more, and the price can climb really high pending the lenses that you want. And, rail cameras are even pricier.

In the early 90s I got a good deal on a used Tachihara field camera with 3 lenses for $3000 CAD. However, it wasn't my favorite thing to lug around (camera gears was around 40 lbs large format, 35mm system, tripod, and food/water) even those the prints look great. Another caveat is that each sheet of film is about the same price as a roll of 120 film and I have to use 3 sheets for each shot (+/-1 stop bracket), and I get 10 shots out of a roll of 120. Also, the lens are not anywhere as sharp as 35mm (35mm sharpest, then medium format lens, then come up last is large format).

As time goes by I find that I uses my Mamiya medium format much more over that of the large format because of portability (about 95% more), and the mamiya optics are super when coupe with 25~50 ISO film, therefore I sold my Tachihara for the same price I purchased it for.

Cliff note, Get a Medium format camera and your back will thank you, and you will also enjoy it much more than the large format. The Mamiya lens are of very high quality comparable to the 35mm lenses therefore you don?t give up much compromise when choosing med over large.
 

OffTopic1

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,764
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: ItmPls
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?

I just took these today with my Canon EOS-20D and new Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Each image consists of two parts. The part on the left is the original image reduced in size. The part on the right is a 100% crop of the original image. No additional alterations or sharpening was done.

Check them out.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being totally satisfied, I rate this Tamron about an 8. It's a little soft at 28.00 mm, F2.8. You can see this in Test 07.
It is a bit soft but what do you expect from shots at wide open.
 

MazerRackham

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2002
6,572
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: ItmPls
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?

I just took these today with my Canon EOS-20D and new Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Each image consists of two parts. The part on the left is the original image reduced in size. The part on the right is a 100% crop of the original image. No additional alterations or sharpening was done.

Check them out.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being totally satisfied, I rate this Tamron about an 8. It's a little soft at 28.00 mm, F2.8. You can see this in Test 07.

Hey is this the exact one you got?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...ail&A=showItemLargeImage&Q=&sku=284399

Pics look pretty good!!
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
the thing is how digital cameras work it isn't really single pixel resolution detail thats captured...because theres only one sensor trying to capture color detail that would require 3. so it has to use trickery:p each pixel sensor has only one color filter on it. 2 greens for every blue and red. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera12.htm

theres another sensor that has 3 layers and does capture per pixel color detail, but its not popular or cheap. so you are stuck with getting a high megapixel quality camera and then resizing it down to approximate the same level of color detail youd get with a 3 layer sensor.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: OffTopic
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: ItmPls
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?

I just took these today with my Canon EOS-20D and new Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Each image consists of two parts. The part on the left is the original image reduced in size. The part on the right is a 100% crop of the original image. No additional alterations or sharpening was done.

Check them out.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being totally satisfied, I rate this Tamron about an 8. It's a little soft at 28.00 mm, F2.8. You can see this in Test 07.
It is a bit soft but what do you expect from shots at wide open.

In which tests are they soft?
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: MazerRackham
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: ItmPls
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?

I just took these today with my Canon EOS-20D and new Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Each image consists of two parts. The part on the left is the original image reduced in size. The part on the right is a 100% crop of the original image. No additional alterations or sharpening was done.

Check them out.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being totally satisfied, I rate this Tamron about an 8. It's a little soft at 28.00 mm, F2.8. You can see this in Test 07.

Hey is this the exact one you got?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...ail&A=showItemLargeImage&Q=&sku=284399

Pics look pretty good!!

Yes, that's the one.
 

OffTopic1

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,764
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: OffTopic
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: ItmPls
I'd like to get one thing straight...

When you guys take pictures with your digital camera, transfer the pics to your PC, and view the pictures *WITHOUT RESIZING/EDITING* them, are they *SUPPOSED* to be a little blurry/not perfect and then you resize them (smaller) and that's how they get "good looking" ?

If that's true, the point is to get the largest size and then resize it?

I just took these today with my Canon EOS-20D and new Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Each image consists of two parts. The part on the left is the original image reduced in size. The part on the right is a 100% crop of the original image. No additional alterations or sharpening was done.

Check them out.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being totally satisfied, I rate this Tamron about an 8. It's a little soft at 28.00 mm, F2.8. You can see this in Test 07.
It is a bit soft but what do you expect from shots at wide open.

In which tests are they soft?
All of them are a bit soft, but I assume that lens would deliver great result when close down a stop or 2.

IMHO, most 35mm lens that I came across produce good 8x10 prints, at f:8 many produce acceptable 11x14 prints, and only a few lens produce acceptable result at 16x20. Medium format would do okay up to 16x20 but only few that I have seen produced good 20x30 prints. And the limit of 4x5 is also about 20x30 prints as well. The largest print I have ever done by hand was 4x5 film to 4'x5' print (horiculture spray bottles, sponge, water hose, and squeegee) and the result was good when you view the print from 10' away but it still look soft due to lens quality.