Hey George, here's a full-res Canon photo for you to critique.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sjs031, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. sjs031

    sjs031 Guest

    Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    and that your Sigma could do a better job with.

    -Steve

    http://homepage.mac.com/sjs/Jelly_Beans.jpg

    Full EXIF:

    Make Canon
    Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
    Orientation top, left side
    X Resolution 1/72 inches
    Y Resolution 1/72 inches
    Resolution Unit Inches
    Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
    Date/Time 2004:02:05 22:36:44
    Unknown tag (0x013c) Mac OS X 10.3.1
    YCbCr Positioning Center of pixel array
    Exposure Time 0.01 sec
    F-Number F18
    ISO Speed Ratings 200
    Exif Version 2.20
    Date/Time Original 2003:11:27 09:56:40
    Date/Time Digitized 2003:11:27 09:56:40
    Components Configuration YCbCr
    Compressed Bits Per Pixel 3 bits/pixel
    Shutter Speed Value 1/64 sec
    Aperture Value F18
    Exposure Bias Value 0
    Max Aperture Value F1.8
    Metering Mode Multi-segment
    Flash No flash fired
    Focal Length 50.0 mm
    User Comment
    FlashPix Version 1.00
    Color Space Undefined
    Exif Image Width 2730 pixels
    Exif Image Height 2048 pixels
    Focal Plane X Resolution 446/1536000 inches
    Focal Plane Y Resolution 119/409600 inches
    Focal Plane Resolution Unit Inches
    Sensing Method One-chip color area sensor
    File Source Digital Still Camera (DSC)
    Unknown tag (0xa401) 0
    Unknown tag (0xa402) 0
    Unknown tag (0xa403) 0
    Unknown tag (0xa406) 0
    Compression JPEG compression
    Thumbnail Offset 1094 bytes
    Thumbnail Length 10205 bytes
    Thumbnail Data [10205 bytes of thumbnail data]
     
    sjs031, Feb 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mmmmhh
     
    Guenter Fieblinger, Feb 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sjs031 wrote:
    > Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    > other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    > and that your Sigma could do a better job with.
    >
    > -Steve
    >
    > http://homepage.mac.com/sjs/Jelly_Beans.jpg


    What the hell can we tell from a dish of jelly beans???

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Feb 6, 2004
    #3
  4. "sjs031" <> wrote in message
    news:050220042250254346%...
    > Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    > other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    > and that your Sigma could do a better job with.


    I wouldn't attach much value to anything GP has to say.

    However, if you don't mind me commenting, you could have sharpened the
    image a bit better (than default sharpening) if you'd shot it as a Raw,
    before creating a JPEG. Also, F18 is a very small aperture, which cause the
    image sharpness to be restricted by lens diffraction (the sweet spot is
    probably close to F8). Personally I would have tried reducing the lighting
    contrast a bit, but overall it looks decent enough, nothing wrong with your
    camera ;-).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 6, 2004
    #4
  5. sjs031

    Chris Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:Y7MUb.51322$...
    > > http://homepage.mac.com/sjs/Jelly_Beans.jpg

    >
    > What the hell can we tell from a dish of jelly beans???


    Primarily, you can tell the camera's ability to handle contrast in color.
    Many cameras get "confused" with some color mix in the view. It's not
    always the case, but shooting a scene with color variety or texture variety
    is a great test of a camera's potential.

    It might be a better sample pic if you threw in some gummi bears, gummi
    worms, and chocolates. That'd make for a texture test as well.
     
    Chris, Feb 6, 2004
    #5
  6. sjs031

    Chris Guest

    "sjs031" <> wrote in message
    news:050220042250254346%...
    > Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    > other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    > and that your Sigma could do a better job with.


    I'm not George, but I think it's a pretty damn good capture, even on default
    settings.
    I responded to the other poster regarding a texture test might be better as
    well, but that was before I saw the picture. There's not only color
    contrast, but some texture variables as well. I think a capture like this
    would be a pretty good test of a camera's abilities.

    This camera seems to have passed the test as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Chris, Feb 6, 2004
    #6
  7. sjs031

    AArDvarK Guest

    I agree, and I would like to see George mimick
    this image as close as possible with his Sigma,
    just to compare.

    So Steve you put this image through Mac PS-CS,
    what did you do with the image? What were the
    functions you applied to it? Every detail has to
    be known.

    The real test of a camera is that it is straight from
    the camera with no changes whatsoever. No chal-
    lenge on that to you Steve ...

    George would have to do the same thing here,
    in order to meet the challenge. He would need
    to follow every setting seen in your posted EXIF,
    including flash length and would need to know
    the distances set, of camera from subject.

    It is a very nice picture, nice detail and color,
    although I think the lighting from the left is
    too intense.

    George ... go buy some jelly-bellies ... meet this
    challenge with your Sigma ... ?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Alex
    no email

    "sjs031" <> wrote in message news:050220042250254346%...
    > Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    > other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    > and that your Sigma could do a better job with.
    >
    > -Steve
    >
    > http://homepage.mac.com/sjs/Jelly_Beans.jpg
    >
    > Full EXIF:
    >
    > Make Canon
    > Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
    > Orientation top, left side
    > X Resolution 1/72 inches
    > Y Resolution 1/72 inches
    > Resolution Unit Inches
    > Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
    > Date/Time 2004:02:05 22:36:44
    > Unknown tag (0x013c) Mac OS X 10.3.1
    > YCbCr Positioning Center of pixel array
    > Exposure Time 0.01 sec
    > F-Number F18
    > ISO Speed Ratings 200
    > Exif Version 2.20
    > Date/Time Original 2003:11:27 09:56:40
    > Date/Time Digitized 2003:11:27 09:56:40
    > Components Configuration YCbCr
    > Compressed Bits Per Pixel 3 bits/pixel
    > Shutter Speed Value 1/64 sec
    > Aperture Value F18
    > Exposure Bias Value 0
    > Max Aperture Value F1.8
    > Metering Mode Multi-segment
    > Flash No flash fired
    > Focal Length 50.0 mm
    > User Comment
    > FlashPix Version 1.00
    > Color Space Undefined
    > Exif Image Width 2730 pixels
    > Exif Image Height 2048 pixels
    > Focal Plane X Resolution 446/1536000 inches
    > Focal Plane Y Resolution 119/409600 inches
    > Focal Plane Resolution Unit Inches
    > Sensing Method One-chip color area sensor
    > File Source Digital Still Camera (DSC)
    > Unknown tag (0xa401) 0
    > Unknown tag (0xa402) 0
    > Unknown tag (0xa403) 0
    > Unknown tag (0xa406) 0
    > Compression JPEG compression
    > Thumbnail Offset 1094 bytes
    > Thumbnail Length 10205 bytes
    > Thumbnail Data [10205 bytes of thumbnail data]
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 6, 2004
    #7
  8. sjs031

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:

    > "sjs031" <> wrote in message
    > news:050220042250254346%...
    >
    >>Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    >>other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    >>and that your Sigma could do a better job with.

    >
    >
    > I wouldn't attach much value to anything GP has to say.
    >
    > However, if you don't mind me commenting, you could have sharpened the
    > image a bit better (than default sharpening) if you'd shot it as a Raw,
    > before creating a JPEG. Also, F18 is a very small aperture, which cause the
    > image sharpness to be restricted by lens diffraction (the sweet spot is
    > probably close to F8). Personally I would have tried reducing the lighting
    > contrast a bit, but overall it looks decent enough, nothing wrong with your
    > camera ;-).
    >
    > Bart
    >
    >

    Isn't it amusing that the Foveon takes its name from the 'fovea', which
    is the blind spot in the eye? Perhaps those who named it missed that
    little aspect of the name...
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 6, 2004
    #8
  9. sjs031

    AArDvarK Guest

    And Steve I have another test for you, on
    color moire´ concerning folding cloth that
    has tight patterns like paisley or plaids, best
    is dark colors with subtle color shifts in
    the pattern. The Kodak DCS 14n definitely
    failed this test, and they show it on their
    website with their own example image.
    The point being is that both the 14n and
    300D use a CMOS sensor, although they
    are entirely different products.

    The cloth must be folding backwards circ-
    ularly and somewhat widely. If you need
    the example, I'll send/email you the sample
    for your observation, prepared in CS ... ?
    Or you can grab their .DCR (raw) plugin
    for PS.
    --
    Sincerely,
    Alex

    "sjs031" <> wrote in message news:050220042250254346%...
    > Looks pretty sharp to me, and I don't see any weird color fringing or
    > other strange artifacts. I'd like to know what you find to be at fault
    > and that your Sigma could do a better job with.
    >
    > -Steve
    >
    > http://homepage.mac.com/sjs/Jelly_Beans.jpg
    >
    > Full EXIF:
    >
    > Make Canon
    > Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
    > Orientation top, left side
    > X Resolution 1/72 inches
    > Y Resolution 1/72 inches
    > Resolution Unit Inches
    > Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
    > Date/Time 2004:02:05 22:36:44
    > Unknown tag (0x013c) Mac OS X 10.3.1
    > YCbCr Positioning Center of pixel array
    > Exposure Time 0.01 sec
    > F-Number F18
    > ISO Speed Ratings 200
    > Exif Version 2.20
    > Date/Time Original 2003:11:27 09:56:40
    > Date/Time Digitized 2003:11:27 09:56:40
    > Components Configuration YCbCr
    > Compressed Bits Per Pixel 3 bits/pixel
    > Shutter Speed Value 1/64 sec
    > Aperture Value F18
    > Exposure Bias Value 0
    > Max Aperture Value F1.8
    > Metering Mode Multi-segment
    > Flash No flash fired
    > Focal Length 50.0 mm
    > User Comment
    > FlashPix Version 1.00
    > Color Space Undefined
    > Exif Image Width 2730 pixels
    > Exif Image Height 2048 pixels
    > Focal Plane X Resolution 446/1536000 inches
    > Focal Plane Y Resolution 119/409600 inches
    > Focal Plane Resolution Unit Inches
    > Sensing Method One-chip color area sensor
    > File Source Digital Still Camera (DSC)
    > Unknown tag (0xa401) 0
    > Unknown tag (0xa402) 0
    > Unknown tag (0xa403) 0
    > Unknown tag (0xa406) 0
    > Compression JPEG compression
    > Thumbnail Offset 1094 bytes
    > Thumbnail Length 10205 bytes
    > Thumbnail Data [10205 bytes of thumbnail data]
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 6, 2004
    #9
  10. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:Y7MUb.51322$...
    > What the hell can we tell from a dish of jelly beans???


    My long-term future, according to my mystic at least...

    Although she does have a bit of a sweet tooth, and she hasn't got a
    prediction right yet. I really shouldn't trust a Medium who is closer to a
    Small.

    --
    Here lies the late Martin Francis
    He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
    But he did take some photographs once.
     
    Martin Francis, Feb 6, 2004
    #10
  11. sjs031

    Jürgen Eidt Guest

    fovea centralis (was: Re: Hey George, here's a full-res Canon photo for you to critique.)

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message news:

    > Isn't it amusing that the Foveon takes its name from the 'fovea', which
    > is the blind spot in the eye? Perhaps those who named it missed that
    > little aspect of the name...


    fovea centralis is the area of best (color) vision

    --
    Regards
    Jürgen

    http://cpicture.de/en
     
    Jürgen Eidt, Feb 6, 2004
    #11
  12. Ron Hunter <> writes:

    >Isn't it amusing that the Foveon takes its name from the 'fovea', which
    >is the blind spot in the eye? Perhaps those who named it missed that
    >little aspect of the name...


    The blind spot is where the optic nerve enters. This is off to one side
    of the fovea. The fovea is the area of best resolution at the centre of
    the visual field.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Feb 6, 2004
    #12
  13. sjs031

    Larry Guest

    In article <c00unv$4i8$>,
    says...
    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    > news:Y7MUb.51322$...
    > > What the hell can we tell from a dish of jelly beans???

    >
    > My long-term future, according to my mystic at least...
    >
    > Although she does have a bit of a sweet tooth, and she hasn't got a
    > prediction right yet. I really shouldn't trust a Medium who is closer to a
    > Small.
    >
    > --
    > Here lies the late Martin Francis
    > He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
    > But he did take some photographs once.
    >
    >
    >


    Hell, my medium is closer to an "Extra Large"... maybe from eating Jelly
    Bellies.


    Larry
     
    Larry, Feb 6, 2004
    #13
  14. sjs031

    Guest

    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    > Isn't it amusing that the Foveon takes its name from the 'fovea', which
    > is the blind spot in the eye? Perhaps those who named it missed that
    > little aspect of the name...


    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/retina.html

    In the middle of the retina is a small dimple called
    the fovea or fovea centralis. It is the center of the
    eye's sharpest vision and the location of most color perception.
     
    , Feb 6, 2004
    #14
  15. sjs031

    Guest

    sjs031 <> wrote:

    >[...]


    You must understand that Preddy is thoroughly disingenuous. I advise
    you laugh at him and its kooky antics than submit to his shoe-banging
    demands.

    Nice image though. I agree with Mr. van der Wolf: move to f/5.6 or
    f/8. You should be able to pull an image out of your Rebel that needs
    little to no USM if you take good care with the (manual) focus.
     
    , Feb 6, 2004
    #15
  16. sjs031

    sjs031 Guest

    In article <iZRUb.7980$IF1.2536@fed1read01>, AArDvarK
    <> wrote:

    > I agree, and I would like to see George mimick
    > this image as close as possible with his Sigma,
    > just to compare.
    >
    > So Steve you put this image through Mac PS-CS,
    > what did you do with the image? What were the
    > functions you applied to it? Every detail has to
    > be known.

    I shot it as an in-camera compressed JPG (not RAW) and in Photoshop dit
    nothibng to it but crop a little of the right and left sides to make
    the picture closer to a 4x4 aspect ratio.

    That's it. no USM, nothing else in PS.

    Steve

    >
    > The real test of a camera is that it is straight from
    > the camera with no changes whatsoever. No chal-
    > lenge on that to you Steve ...
    >
    > George would have to do the same thing here,
    > in order to meet the challenge. He would need
    > to follow every setting seen in your posted EXIF,
    > including flash length and would need to know
    > the distances set, of camera from subject.
    >
    > It is a very nice picture, nice detail and color,
    > although I think the lighting from the left is
    > too intense.
    >
    > George ... go buy some jelly-bellies ... meet this
    > challenge with your Sigma ... ?
    >
    > --
    > Sincerely,
    > Alex
    > no email
     
    sjs031, Feb 7, 2004
    #16
  17. sjs031

    sjs031 Guest

    wow. I can't type for shit.

    4x3 ratio....

    -Steve

    In article <060220041927201640%>, sjs031
    <> wrote:

    > In article <iZRUb.7980$IF1.2536@fed1read01>, AArDvarK
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I agree, and I would like to see George mimick
    > > this image as close as possible with his Sigma,
    > > just to compare.
    > >
    > > So Steve you put this image through Mac PS-CS,
    > > what did you do with the image? What were the
    > > functions you applied to it? Every detail has to
    > > be known.

    > I shot it as an in-camera compressed JPG (not RAW) and in Photoshop dit
    > nothibng to it but crop a little of the right and left sides to make
    > the picture closer to a 4x4 aspect ratio.
    >
    > That's it. no USM, nothing else in PS.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    > >
    > > The real test of a camera is that it is straight from
    > > the camera with no changes whatsoever. No chal-
    > > lenge on that to you Steve ...
    > >
    > > George would have to do the same thing here,
    > > in order to meet the challenge. He would need
    > > to follow every setting seen in your posted EXIF,
    > > including flash length and would need to know
    > > the distances set, of camera from subject.
    > >
    > > It is a very nice picture, nice detail and color,
    > > although I think the lighting from the left is
    > > too intense.
    > >
    > > George ... go buy some jelly-bellies ... meet this
    > > challenge with your Sigma ... ?
    > >
    > > --
    > > Sincerely,
    > > Alex
    > > no email
     
    sjs031, Feb 7, 2004
    #17
  18. Is it snowing there also? We are in full time 4x4.

    Steve

    "sjs031" <> wrote in message news:060220042104414105%...
    > wow. I can't type for shit.
    >
    > 4x3 ratio....
    >
    > -Steve
    >
    > In article <060220041927201640%>, sjs031
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <iZRUb.7980$IF1.2536@fed1read01>, AArDvarK
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > I agree, and I would like to see George mimick
    > > > this image as close as possible with his Sigma,
    > > > just to compare.
    > > >
    > > > So Steve you put this image through Mac PS-CS,
    > > > what did you do with the image? What were the
    > > > functions you applied to it? Every detail has to
    > > > be known.

    > > I shot it as an in-camera compressed JPG (not RAW) and in Photoshop dit
    > > nothibng to it but crop a little of the right and left sides to make
    > > the picture closer to a 4x4 aspect ratio.
    > >
    > > That's it. no USM, nothing else in PS.
    > >
    > > Steve
    > >
    > > >
    > > > The real test of a camera is that it is straight from
    > > > the camera with no changes whatsoever. No chal-
    > > > lenge on that to you Steve ...
    > > >
    > > > George would have to do the same thing here,
    > > > in order to meet the challenge. He would need
    > > > to follow every setting seen in your posted EXIF,
    > > > including flash length and would need to know
    > > > the distances set, of camera from subject.
    > > >
    > > > It is a very nice picture, nice detail and color,
    > > > although I think the lighting from the left is
    > > > too intense.
    > > >
    > > > George ... go buy some jelly-bellies ... meet this
    > > > challenge with your Sigma ... ?
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Sincerely,
    > > > Alex
    > > > no email
     
    Steve Colburn, Feb 7, 2004
    #18
  19. sjs031

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "AArDvarK" <> stated that:

    >I agree, and I would like to see George mimick
    >this image as close as possible with his Sigma,
    >just to compare.


    As far as I've been able to tell from the links he posts here, 'George'
    doesn't actually take real photos with his precious SD9, just poor
    quality test shots of coins or inkjet-printed 'test charts'.

    >George ... go buy some jelly-bellies ... meet this
    >challenge with your Sigma ... ?


    He won't do it. He knows his photos are laughable by comparison to the
    shots other people here take.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Feb 8, 2004
    #19
  20. sjs031

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:

    >sjs031 <> wrote:
    >
    >>[...]

    >
    >You must understand that Preddy is thoroughly disingenuous. I advise
    >you laugh at him and its kooky antics than submit to his shoe-banging
    >demands.
    >
    >Nice image though. I agree with Mr. van der Wolf: move to f/5.6 or
    >f/8. You should be able to pull an image out of your Rebel that needs
    >little to no USM if you take good care with the (manual) focus.


    Yep, agreed. With any of the really good Canon lenses & a tripod, you
    should be able to get a shot like that that won't need any sharpening at
    all.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Feb 8, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frank B

    Canon 10D Full Res 24-85, 28-135 IS Samples

    Frank B, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    766
    Frank B
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. gt

    full digital zoom on high res cameras?

    gt, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    314
  3. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    517
    David J Taylor
    Feb 2, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,001
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Ron Williams

    HEY HEY HEY hold up......

    Ron Williams, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: MCSA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    Ron Williams
    Aug 11, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page