Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview?

I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their quality
seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras they "test".
I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need sharpening to
make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very sharp.

I'm curious too about the shadow vs brightness detail or dynamic range. The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is the over
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

I'd really like to know how likely their workflow. They don't seem to make
any note of it.

Alien Jones wrote:
I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their quality
seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras they "test".
I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need sharpening to
make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very sharp.

I'm curious too about the shadow vs brightness detail or dynamic range. The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is the over
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

I'd really like to know how likely their workflow. They don't seem to make
any note of it.


I know that it would be terrific to think that there's a conspiracy
theory at DPReview...
But, did you ever consider the possibility that the problem is you?

D-MAC wrote:
On Sep 26, 6:22?pm, Me wrote:
Alien Jones wrote:
I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their quality
seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras they "test".
I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need sharpening to
make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very sharp.

I'm curious too about the shadow vs brightness detail or dynamic range. The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is the over
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

I'd really like to know how likely their workflow. They don't seem to make
any note of it.

I know that it would be terrific to think that there's a conspiracy
theory at DPReview...
But, did you ever consider the possibility that the problem is you?

What problem?
If DPreview edit there images, they are hardly indicative of what a
purchaser of a camera might expect to obtain if they take photos and
then plug their cameras into a kiosk for prints.

The very least dpreview could do is explain that their images are not
from the camera but the computer of a very experienced photo editor.
This itself would provide credibility to their reviews.

The whole concept of a review is for people to make a judgement based
on what the reviewer has to say and show as results from the camera.
There should not be thousands of dollars worth of computers and
software between what the camera produces and what DPreview display as
examples from those cameras.

It would be nice for a change to be able to ask a simple question here
without the chipmunks chiming in with their rendition RTFM.

Many DSLRs come with a variety of modes of jpeg production each of
which often has a variety of adjustments the user can make to them,
two typical adjustments being the amount of sharpening and the amount
of colour saturation. Because they usually have a wider dynamic range
in their images than a P&S camera they usually produce softer lower
contrast images because that preserves more adjustability in the
image. It's a trivial matter to change the adjustable parameters to
produce the typically punchier images a P&S camera produces.

It's also a trivial matter to make the same changes in an image editor
in a computer. You don't need thousands of pounds worth of software or
great expertise. These are very simple adjustments which can very
easily be made with widely available free software. In some cases
these editors are provided with a single keypress which can produce
the standard punchy P&S look.

The images which Dpreview uses in its DSLR resolution tests of cameras
(rather than lenses) are produced by using standard lenses of very
high quality because they want to find out what the camera is
ultimately capable of, not all it can manage to do when hobbled with
one or another cheap lens. They specify these lenses in the
test. These lenses will produce much sharper images than the cheap kit
zoom lens often sold as a package deal with a DSLR.

The whole point of a DSLR is that it has a much greater range of
adaptability and adjustment than a P&S camera, because quite apart
from being able to change lenses, you can change its operating
parameters, its jpeg compression parameters, and so on, over a much
wider range than is possible with a P&S camera.

If you want the sharpest punchiest images just by pressing the shutter
button straight out of the box without reading the manual and
adjusting anything then quite apart from the considerable extra cost
the results from many DSLRs will disappoint.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

Alien Jones wrote:
I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their quality
seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras they "test".
I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need sharpening to
make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very sharp.

The usually explain what settings they use to get the pictures. They
also make sure that the image is focussed and they use a good-quality
tripod.

You'd be surprised at how much difference doing that can make.

I'm curious too about the shadow vs brightness detail or dynamic range. The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is the over
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

Oh? Did you do a ccontrolled test? Or is this purely subjective?

--
Ray Fischer

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

Alien Jones wrote:
I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their
quality seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras
they "test". I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need
sharpening to make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very
sharp.

The usually explain what settings they use to get the pictures. They
also make sure that the image is focussed and they use a good-quality
tripod.

You'd be surprised at how much difference doing that can make.

I'm curious too about the shadow vs brightness detail or dynamic
range. The only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's
D60 is the over saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

Oh? Did you do a ccontrolled test? Or is this purely subjective?



I guess, I'd guess.

I was actually hoping for some definitave information. It looks like no one
knows or if they do are not saying.

RichA wrote in
:


The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is
the o
ver
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

Oh? *Did you do a ccontrolled test? *Or is this purely subjective?

--
Ray Fischer * * * *
*

It's plain to anyone who has used the lower end Nikons at all. I've
used the D40, 50, 60 and they are all like that. What's a low-end
Nikon without "Velvia" green?


So how come the DPreview test shots are so subdued in comparison?

Alien Jones wrote:
RichA wrote in

The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is
the o
ver
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

Oh? *Did you do a ccontrolled test? *Or is this purely subjective?

It's plain to anyone who has used the lower end Nikons at all. I've
used the D40, 50, 60 and they are all like that. What's a low-end
Nikon without "Velvia" green?


So how come the DPreview test shots are so subdued in comparison?

The settings of your web browser would be my guess.

--
Ray Fischer

RichA wrote:


It's plain to anyone who has used the lower end Nikons at all. I've
used the D40, 50, 60 and they are all like that. What's a low-end
Nikon without "Velvia" green?


Is this jpg output? I'm a Canon person, with a 30D. I use raw output.

But if you use jpg and set for landscape, it too has Velvia greens. The
Canon Digital Photo Professional raw convertor also does this if set
for landscape.

Doug McDonald

"Alien Jones" wrote in message
...
I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their quality
seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras they "test".
I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need sharpening to
make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very sharp.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Here is a link to a cropped but still
rather large Canon 40D jpeg that has NOT BEEN sharpened:
http://home.comcast.net/~cschuler/noblue.jpg

Now, how does one view such a file? Is it sharp enough? Sharp enough for
what purpose?

wrote in


- Show quoted text -

Thanks for a well thought out response. I am sorry to say it
will be ignored or rejected by so many who prefer a conspiracy theory
over real life.

I wasn't looking for conjecture. I am looking for facts.
My wife's camera cost a few hundred bucks but the lenses she used are from
my D3 wedding studio cameras and cost many times more than the her camera.

I also have a 40D Canon with some "L" glass and equally good Sigma glass.

My question was not about how I can get pictures of the quality DPreview
display. I'm a working Professional and I regularly do but I use a workflow
consisting of a couple of thousand dollars worth of software and a Pro
grade monitor costing an arm and a leg too. (Samsung XL20)

What I'm trying to discover is why stock standard Canon and Nikon cameras
using the best glass available, canot produce the picture quality DPreview
claim to be representative examples of the cameras they test straight out
of the camera.

Having said that, I can't help wonder if it is deceptive to show an array
of photos that have been processed to a relatively high and consistant
standard of colour/contrast/shadow detail/gama levels and not tell would-be
buyers that they will need to use software enhancement to get the same
results?

No conspiricy, no conjecture, just a relevant question that needs to be
answered if DPreview are to retain credibility in the market place.