Coney Island Mermaid Parade Pictures

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:59:33 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

I see what you mean, they do look a bit soft when full size.

I have the 18-200 VR also, haven't found mine at all soft but then I haven't
shot the same kind of subject matter so maybe that's the difference. Also I
haven't used that low a resolution. Of course 2.5 MP is more resolution than
most monitors so it might not matter, but I'm wondering if some resolution
isn't lost by what I'd call pixel splitting when you use something less than
max resolution in the camera. Have you tried comparing with a known sharp
lens also at 2.5 MP with all else being the same -- subject matter, cropping
etc.?

Hi Neil,

I test some test pictures in the back yard. I used a cheap tripod, but left
the VR on. The lower resolution ones were sharper! Focal length 60 mm. I
took two sets: (1) ISO 800 F4.76 1/100 and (2) ISO 400 F4.76 1/60. The
first was better. Maybe slight movement in the second?

What is annoying is I sent both the camera and this lens to Nikon. The did
not say what they did, if anything. And I leave for The Netherlands in a
few days.

I do have Active D-Lighting turned on. JPEG compression = quality priority.
People have mentioned sharpening. If there is a setting for this in the
D300 I have not been able to find it. And no such listing is in the index.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:56:26 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

I do have Active D-Lighting turned on. JPEG compression = quality priority.
People have mentioned sharpening. If there is a setting for this in the
D300 I have not been able to find it. And no such listing is in the index.

It's easier to find by searching the PDF version of the manual for
"sharpen". The Image Enhancement chapter (page 147) of the D300's
manual says :

This chapter describes how to optimize sharpening, contrast,
brightness, saturation and hue using Picture Controls, how to
preserve detail in highlights and shadows using active D-Lighting,
and how to choose a color space.

with further information about sharpening on page 152. To adjust,
in the camera's Shooting Menu, select "Set Picture Control", then
select (highlight) one of the options, and finally press the right
arrow (Adjust). This will bring you to the screen that allows you
to modify Sharpening, Saturation and Hue. Contrast and Brightness
may also be adjusted if D-Lighting has been disabled.

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:59:33 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

I see what you mean, they do look a bit soft when full size.

I have the 18-200 VR also, haven't found mine at all soft but then I
haven't
shot the same kind of subject matter so maybe that's the difference. Also
I
haven't used that low a resolution. Of course 2.5 MP is more resolution
than
most monitors so it might not matter, but I'm wondering if some resolution
isn't lost by what I'd call pixel splitting when you use something less
than
max resolution in the camera. Have you tried comparing with a known sharp
lens also at 2.5 MP with all else being the same -- subject matter,
cropping
etc.?

Hi Neil,

I test some test pictures in the back yard. I used a cheap tripod, but
left
the VR on.

Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod? I'm not sure
why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.


The lower resolution ones were sharper! Focal length 60 mm. I
took two sets: (1) ISO 800 F4.76 1/100 and (2) ISO 400 F4.76 1/60. The
first was better. Maybe slight movement in the second?

Were either of those at maximum resolution? . . . I'm still thinking about
what I call pixel splitting (maybe there's a better term for it). What I
mean is, at maximum resolution you get one pixel for each photosite on the
sensor. At any other resolution each pixel has to be divided somehow between
more photosites, and since the pixels are square it seems to me every pixel
would have to be divided between at least four photosites. Of course if the
resolution were *exactly* one-quarter of the maximum, then each pixel should
just fill four photosites and there wouldn't be any further splitting.

So I think it's possible that at the lower resolution you used in that
experiment, that lower resolution still being higher than the resolution of
the monitor you're viewing the images with, it might have been more
favorable to sharpness (due to a difference in pixel splitting) than the
higher resolution you used, *provided* that higher resolution was less than
maximum. I'd be very surprised if any lower resolution could appear sharper
than *maximum* resolution under any circumstances.

But this is just speculation on my part; I've never seen anything written on
the subject.


What is annoying is I sent both the camera and this lens to Nikon. The did
not say what they did, if anything. And I leave for The Netherlands in a
few days.

I do have Active D-Lighting turned on. JPEG compression = quality
priority.
People have mentioned sharpening. If there is a setting for this in the
D300 I have not been able to find it. And no such listing is in the index.

Nikon doesn't make this stuff very easy to find. There is an *indirect*
sharpness control in the D80, which I believe is the same in the D200 and
probably the D300 too.

In the Shooting menu under Optimize Image there are settings for Softer (but
there's no "sharper"), Vivid and More Vivid. According to Simon Stafford's
book on the D80:

Vivid = normal contrast, enhanced saturation, medium high sharpness

More Vivid = more contrast, enhanced saturation, high sharpness

There actually is a direct control for sharpness, but it's in the B&W
sub-menu ( ! ) and therefore I assume has no effect when shooting in color.

Neil

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod?

recent vr/is lenses can detect when they are on a tripod. older ones
can't and it should be turned off.

I'm not sure
why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.

that's exactly what happens. the vr/is system compensates for motion,
and when there isn't any, it can make things worse. but even on a
tripod, stabilization can sometimes be useful, particularly on a tripod
that isn't very sturdy.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:12 -0700, nospam wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:

Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod?

recent vr/is lenses can detect when they are on a tripod. older ones
can't and it should be turned off.

I'm not sure
why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.

that's exactly what happens. the vr/is system compensates for motion,
and when there isn't any, it can make things worse. but even on a
tripod, stabilization can sometimes be useful, particularly on a tripod
that isn't very sturdy.

This was a cheap tripod, plus my pressing the shutter undoubtedly caused
some motion.

I've never gone for anything fancy, as I primarily bicycle to my picture
taking, or I'm taking parades, and I either am not going to spend the time,
or a tripod is unworkable.

And remember, everything I take is for the web.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:59:20 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

"Don Wiss" wrote:
I test some test pictures in the back yard. I used a cheap tripod, but
left
the VR on.

Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod? I'm not sure
why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort of
suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.

I've also heard this. That is why I noted that I left it on. To do it
really right I should figure out the remote shutter release.

The lower resolution ones were sharper! Focal length 60 mm. I
took two sets: (1) ISO 800 F4.76 1/100 and (2) ISO 400 F4.76 1/60. The
first was better. Maybe slight movement in the second?

Were either of those at maximum resolution? . . .

I took six pictures. The three resolutions and the two ISO settings. The
maximum resolution ones where the worst.

I'm still thinking about
what I call pixel splitting (maybe there's a better term for it). What I
mean is, at maximum resolution you get one pixel for each photosite on the
sensor. At any other resolution each pixel has to be divided somehow between
more photosites, and since the pixels are square it seems to me every pixel
would have to be divided between at least four photosites. Of course if the
resolution were *exactly* one-quarter of the maximum, then each pixel should
just fill four photosites and there wouldn't be any further splitting.

But it would be combining. At 1/4 (low) resolution wouldn't it be four
pixels combined into one pixel in the saved image?

Nikon doesn't make this stuff very easy to find. There is an *indirect*
sharpness control in the D80, which I believe is the same in the D200 and
probably the D300 too.

Meaning the word sharpen isn't relevant enough to index.

In the Shooting menu under Optimize Image there are settings for Softer (but
there's no "sharper"), Vivid and More Vivid.

Not there on the D300. Nikon wants a high learning curve each time you
upgrade your camera. ASAAR has the location.

I'll switch to there...

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:34:11 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:56:26 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

I do have Active D-Lighting turned on. JPEG compression = quality priority.
People have mentioned sharpening. If there is a setting for this in the
D300 I have not been able to find it. And no such listing is in the index.

It's easier to find by searching the PDF version of the manual for
"sharpen". The Image Enhancement chapter (page 147) of the D300's
manual says :

Maybe I should stick the PDF on my hard drive.

This chapter describes how to optimize sharpening, contrast,
brightness, saturation and hue using Picture Controls, how to
preserve detail in highlights and shadows using active D-Lighting,
and how to choose a color space.

with further information about sharpening on page 152. To adjust,
in the camera's Shooting Menu, select "Set Picture Control", then
select (highlight) one of the options, and finally press the right
arrow (Adjust). This will bring you to the screen that allows you
to modify Sharpening, Saturation and Hue. Contrast and Brightness
may also be adjusted if D-Lighting has been disabled.

Okay. I'm there. And surprise. Under Standard Sharpening it is slightly
towards the minus. There is no block at zero, so it was 1 1/2 blocks
towards the minus. I also see there is an automatic setting I can use. It
is night now, and no time for testing. I will have some time to play before
I leave. What is the default? The manual doesn't say.

This thread has turned out to be very helpful (besides getting to promote
my fleshy pictures). Thanks.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:54:59 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

Okay. I'm there. And surprise. Under Standard Sharpening it is slightly
towards the minus. There is no block at zero, so it was 1 1/2 blocks
towards the minus. I also see there is an automatic setting I can use. It
is night now, and no time for testing. I will have some time to play before
I leave. What is the default? The manual doesn't say.

There are 11 sharpening values to select from, Automatic and 0
through 9. From your description, I think that your D300 was set to
the default value of '3'. You can use the Trashcan Button to reset
the selected option to its default value.


This thread has turned out to be very helpful (besides getting to promote
my fleshy pictures). Thanks.

You're welcome. Somehow though, the pictures come across as
wholesomely fleshy, lacking the seedy raunch reminiscent of the old,
pre Disney, pre-sterile Times Square. People could bring their kids
to the Mermaid Parade, and many did!

I liked the PJ aspect of your parade shots, especially ordering
them with the times that they were shot. There were some very nice
parade images posted in DPReview's Nikon forums, but now they can
only be found on the poster's web pages or as remnants in DPR's
search index. Too much flesh, I guess. Lovely shots, though. With
their forum names (Anthony718 and DezM) it shouldn't be too hard for
anyone interested to find their Mermaid Parade photos.

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:59:20 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

"Don Wiss" wrote:
I test some test pictures in the back yard. I used a cheap tripod, but
left
the VR on.

Isn't VR always supposed to be turned off when using a tripod? I'm not
sure
why that is, but my guess is it's not just to save battery power. It sort
of
suggests that VR may be "inventing" motion to correct when there really
isn't any, and thus giving less sharp results.

I've also heard this. That is why I noted that I left it on. To do it
really right I should figure out the remote shutter release.

The lower resolution ones were sharper! Focal length 60 mm. I
took two sets: (1) ISO 800 F4.76 1/100 and (2) ISO 400 F4.76 1/60. The
first was better. Maybe slight movement in the second?

Were either of those at maximum resolution? . . .

I took six pictures. The three resolutions and the two ISO settings. The
maximum resolution ones where the worst.

Huh. That really surprises me.


I'm still thinking about
what I call pixel splitting (maybe there's a better term for it). What I
mean is, at maximum resolution you get one pixel for each photosite on the
sensor. At any other resolution each pixel has to be divided somehow
between
more photosites, and since the pixels are square it seems to me every
pixel
would have to be divided between at least four photosites. Of course if
the
resolution were *exactly* one-quarter of the maximum, then each pixel
should
just fill four photosites and there wouldn't be any further splitting.

But it would be combining.

It would be combining sensor photosites to make each pixel, yes. But usually
not in an even way as it would at max resolution.


At 1/4 (low) resolution wouldn't it be four
pixels combined into one pixel in the saved image?

Sure. But there wouldn't be any dividing of pixels between additional
photosites. Again, it's just speculation on my part (as to loss of quality
from this) and I could be all wet. I'm thinking of the generally accepted
idea that LCD monitor quality is always optimum at max resolution, which I'm
assuming is because at lower resolutions the image pixels are divided
between monitor elements (unless exactly 1/4 of max res). For example, a
1280 x 1024 LCD monitor running at 1024 x 768 has poorer image quality than
a 1024 x 768 LCD at max res. This does seem to be the case on my own LCD
monitors; text is not as sharp at the lower resolution as it is on another
monitor for which that resolution is the maximum.

But I'm not at all sure that this principle applies to camera sensors as
well. It's just my assumption that it does, and I could be all wrong. I'll
really have to do some experimenting on this.


Nikon doesn't make this stuff very easy to find. There is an *indirect*
sharpness control in the D80, which I believe is the same in the D200 and
probably the D300 too.

Meaning the word sharpen isn't relevant enough to index.

In the Shooting menu under Optimize Image there are settings for Softer
(but
there's no "sharper"), Vivid and More Vivid.

Not there on the D300. Nikon wants a high learning curve each time you
upgrade your camera. ASAAR has the location.

Yes, I just read that. Very interesting. It sure is odd that they don't put
it in the index.

Neil



I'll switch to there...

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).