If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
In article , David Taylor says...
On 11/01/2014 21:00, John Keiser wrote: I'd be pleased with the shots. Which, if any, were any taken at the longer focal lengths? I don't think any of those were, John. I have put up some originals (likely out of the camera) shots at or very near 810 mm focal length he http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2012/09...0mm-shots.html Be warned of the JPEG artefacts on the images, not visible in normal viewing, only if pixel peeping. This is an 18 MB camera (4896 a 3672 pixels). I would have preferred fewer pixels, to be honest! The sharpness actually is quite good, at least in the train picture and the anno 1671 one. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
In article , David Taylor
wrote: Be warned of the JPEG artefacts on the images, not visible in normal viewing, only if pixel peeping. This is an 18 MB camera (4896 a 3672 pixels). I would have preferred fewer pixels, to be honest! So why not lower the file size by reducing the resolution rather than increasing the jpg compression? i.e., make them 2448 x 1836 (50%) -- m-m photo gallery: http://mhmyers.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Mort says... I said trouwen (to marry) instead of vertrouwen (to trust), to a lady fiend, and it was uncomfortable when I realized my error and quickly explained. There is a similar word in German ("trauen"), spelled differently but pronounced in the same way. The meaning can be both trust and marry. Thank you, and now I must be doubly careful, for I am dating a German-born lady. Mort Linder |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
On 12/01/2014 21:43, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor wrote: Be warned of the JPEG artefacts on the images, not visible in normal viewing, only if pixel peeping. This is an 18 MB camera (4896 a 3672 pixels). I would have preferred fewer pixels, to be honest! So why not lower the file size by reducing the resolution rather than increasing the jpg compression? i.e., make them 2448 x 1836 (50%) Partially, because there is no choice of JPEG quality on this camera (or if there is, I didn't find it on a quick look through the menus), and in the past I have found that reducing resolution /after/ JPEG compression will mean that at least some of the JPEG artefacts will be reduced by the resolution reduction (i.e. interpolation) and hence you get a better quality final image. Keeping more information appears to benefit the end result. In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
In article , David Taylor
wrote: In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved. -- Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing. Did you hand-hold those long shots? -- m-m photo gallery: http://mhmyers.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor wrote: In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved. -- Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing. Did you hand-hold those long shots? No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You can't always, of course. No tripods, all hand-held or braced against the nearest convenient object. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
On 1/13/2014 10:27 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote: In article , David Taylor wrote: In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved. -- Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing. Did you hand-hold those long shots? No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You can't always, of course. I too try, but once PS came along I reacted like a kid in a candy store. No tripods, all hand-held or braced against the nearest convenient object. -- PeterN |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
On 2014-01-14 19:40:07 +0000, PeterN said:
On 1/13/2014 10:27 AM, David Taylor wrote: On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote: In article , David Taylor wrote: In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved. -- Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing. Did you hand-hold those long shots? No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You can't always, of course. I too try, but once PS came along I reacted like a kid in a candy store. Aah! The digital darkroom, a wonderful thing. Just note David is telling us he used to shoot slides. With that there was little to no, user processing, only getting it right in the camera. He didn't even have the fun of a wet darkroom to consider, just whatever the lab returned to him. When photographers say: "I try to get everything right in-camera." They actually mean; "I try to get everything right in-camera, but mostly I have to fix things in Photoshop." When photographers say; "I only carry out minimal post-processing." They actually mean: "Photoshop confuses the heck out of me. I can move those sliders around a bit, but I really have no idea of what I am doing." As much as some of the "getting it right in the camera" school try to hold to film shooting convention, there isn't a direct extrapolation from film to digital. Once basic exposure settings are dealt with, if the shooter is shooting JPEG he is going to have to contend with WB, saturation, sharpening, and a few other things which can be done in the camera. However, if he is shooting RAW, there will be a computer in workflow. No tripods, all hand-held or braced against the nearest convenient object. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Mort says... I said trouwen (to marry) instead of vertrouwen (to trust), to a lady fiend, and it was uncomfortable when I realized my error and quickly explained. There is a similar word in German ("trauen"), spelled differently but pronounced in the same way. The meaning can be both trust and marry. To make it more complicated, there is a German word "heiraten" which means to marry. At my late stage in life, I'll remain a single widower. Regards, Mort Linder |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
50x and 60x zoom cameras
On 1/14/2014 4:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-14 19:40:07 +0000, PeterN said: On 1/13/2014 10:27 AM, David Taylor wrote: On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote: In article , David Taylor wrote: In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved. -- Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing. Did you hand-hold those long shots? No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You can't always, of course. I too try, but once PS came along I reacted like a kid in a candy store. Aah! The digital darkroom, a wonderful thing. Just note David is telling us he used to shoot slides. With that there was little to no, user processing, only getting it right in the camera. He didn't even have the fun of a wet darkroom to consider, just whatever the lab returned to him. He did, to a limited extent, if he made Cibachrome prints. When photographers say: "I try to get everything right in-camera." They actually mean; "I try to get everything right in-camera, but mostly I have to fix things in Photoshop." Hard to agree. Even members of the f64 school recognize that most images need post, to one degree or another. the best practice is to try to get it as close to "right" as possible. And not be sloppy about such things as exposure, light direction, contrast, light color, etc. There are times in the field that one has little choice but top take what he can get, and then fix. However the better the in-camera image, the less work in post. When photographers say; "I only carry out minimal post-processing." They actually mean: "Photoshop confuses the heck out of me. I can move those sliders around a bit, but I really have no idea of what I am doing." G As much as some of the "getting it right in the camera" school try to hold to film shooting convention, there isn't a direct extrapolation from film to digital. Once basic exposure settings are dealt with, if the shooter is shooting JPEG he is going to have to contend with WB, saturation, sharpening, and a few other things which can be done in the camera. However, if he is shooting RAW, there will be a computer in workflow. snip -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P&S digital cameras with mechanical zoom | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 7 | April 2nd 05 10:03 AM |
P&S digital cameras with mechanical zoom | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 0 | April 1st 05 04:29 PM |
Olympus D-490 Zoom: These are great little cameras | news.optonline.net | Digital Photography | 0 | March 15th 05 06:23 AM |
3 to 5MP, 7 to 12x zoom digital cameras - any recommendations ? | dylan | Digital Photography | 14 | February 25th 05 08:09 PM |
High zoom cameras | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 34 | July 22nd 04 09:57 AM |