The only situation where things look bad

As far as I can see, the only time I've seen digital
images where things look "bad" is where you shoot
things like tree limbs against a bright sky background.
The lack of resolution (if they are far enough away)
mixed with (?) seems to render them really ugly, messy,
if you will. In fact, this is where digital seems to
fall down when it is compared to film, at the point where
resolution cannot match the details you are imaging.
The only solution seems to be to print images such that
the smallest thing you see is clearly resolved and the
"mess" is below the level of the printer to print.
For example;
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43590130

This is a crop of a 100% 8 meg image, if printed would
be 45" x 34." What is visible is on the edge of resolution.
That, coupled with what I think is residual chromatic aberration
has rendered the details "ugly." But, if you reduce the image
size to the point where the branches are just resolved, the image
looks good. From what I can tell, that would be at approximately 16"
x 12." I think were the weakness of digital comes in is in the
interaction of the sky background with the smallest tree branches.
A sort of "bleeding" takes place that makes them poorly resolved.
This kind of image degradation you do not see with (for instance)
macro shots.
-Rich

"RichA" wrote in message
...
As far as I can see, the only time I've seen digital
images where things look "bad" is where you shoot

So? And? Your point?
H.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:18:43 -0400, Ed Ruf
wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:17:00 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA
wrote:

As far as I can see, the only time I've seen digital
images where things look "bad"

....snip and what does this have to do with dslrs? The Olympus C-8080WZ is
not one.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

The problem effects them as well, especially since the 8080 lens
has higher resolution than most DSLR kit lenses and it's
sensor is 8 meg.
-Rich

For example;
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/43590130
This is a crop of a 100% 8 meg image, if printed would
be 45" x 34."

Yes, that's a highly realistic size for enlargement from an 8Mp image
and going up close to check out the detail...... Sheesh.

The example actually shows very good performance under those conditions
- the 8080WZ is one of the best lens/sensor combinations for
controlling the 'purple fringe' issue (that's why I bought one..!).
See reviews all over the web to back that up. And you WOULD see the
same problem in macro shots, if they had very strongly lit backgrounds
and very thin dark detail in silhouette. But macro shots, just like
portraits, very rarely look like that. Funny, isn't it...

Lastly, it is, as pointed out by Ed, not a DSLR, and this is not a big
deal with dslrs. But it's one more post for your statistics - Yaaay!!

RichA wrote:



This is a crop of a 100% 8 meg image, if printed would
be 45" x 34."

Which is why looking at 100% crops to determine "image quality" is silly at
best, unless you are an engineer rather than a photographer.

Unless of course you plan on making prints that large from an 8MP dSLR which
IMHO isn't being realistic, you need at LEAST 6X7 medium format to go that
large and really need a 4X5 LF camera.

--

Stacey

RichA wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:18:43 -0400, Ed Ruf
wrote:


On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:17:00 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA
wrote:


As far as I can see, the only time I've seen digital
images where things look "bad"

....snip and what does this have to do with dslrs? The Olympus C-8080WZ is
not one.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


The problem effects them as well, especially since the 8080 lens
has higher resolution than most DSLR kit lenses and it's
sensor is 8 meg.
-Rich


One of the negatives from a c8080WZ review:
"Tough competition from D-SLRs; spend just a little more, get a much
better camera (esp. in terms of photo quality)"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ol...8080wz-review/
Of course they might be terribly wrong, and you might be incredibly right.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:34:51 -0400, Stacey wrote:

looking at 100% crops to determine "image quality" is silly at best [...]

Gee Stacey, I didn't know you felt that way.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:58:05 +1200, Frederick
wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:18:43 -0400, Ed Ruf
wrote:


On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:17:00 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA
wrote:


As far as I can see, the only time I've seen digital
images where things look "bad"

....snip and what does this have to do with dslrs? The Olympus C-8080WZ is
not one.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


The problem effects them as well, especially since the 8080 lens
has higher resolution than most DSLR kit lenses and it's
sensor is 8 meg.
-Rich


One of the negatives from a c8080WZ review:
"Tough competition from D-SLRs; spend just a little more, get a much
better camera (esp. in terms of photo quality)"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ol...8080wz-review/
Of course they might be terribly wrong, and you might be incredibly right.

But then now that Olympus is burning off the old lines, you can
buy it for around $525.00.
-Rich