There's something about this photo...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by wayne, Feb 17, 2006.

  1. wayne

    wayne Guest

    A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    monitor.
    Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    over 700K.

    http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg

    Thanks,
    Wayne
     
    wayne, Feb 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wayne

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:49:11 -1000, in rec.photo.digital wayne
    <> wrote:

    >A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    >camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    >it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    >wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    >monitor.
    >
    >Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    >like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    >have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    >away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    >photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    >than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    >over 700K.
    >
    >http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg


    Seems like he forgot he had the ISO cranked up. Look at the exif info.
    Shot at ISO1600 with flash, heavens only knows why?
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Feb 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wayne

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:49:11 -1000, wayne <> wrote:

    >A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    >camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    >it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    >wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    >monitor.
    >Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    >like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    >have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    >away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    >photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    >than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    >over 700K.
    >
    >http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Wayne


    Looks like noise to me.
    Was it shot at a high ISO?

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 17, 2006
    #3
  4. wayne

    reboot Guest

    "wayne" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    > camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    > it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    > wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    > monitor.


    > http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg


    It looks like it's been interpolated up. It is not very sharp at all, even
    in the full view. When viewing a smaller image, it might look better in
    increments of powers of -2 so that the monitor pixels 'line up' with the
    originals.
     
    reboot, Feb 17, 2006
    #4
  5. wayne

    Monkee Guest

    "wayne" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    > camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    > it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    > wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    > monitor.
    > Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    > like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    > have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    > away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    > photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    > than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    > over 700K.
    >
    > http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Wayne


    Fuji Finepix S9000 (known as 9500 in Europe) - for some reason the
    photograph has been taken at 1600 iso resulting in a very noisy image - not
    sure why either.
     
    Monkee, Feb 17, 2006
    #5
  6. wayne

    Phil Guest

    This is not a sharpness problem, it is a noise problem (high 'film' speed
    (ISO)).


    "wayne" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    > camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    > it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    > wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    > monitor.
    > Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    > like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    > have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    > away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    > photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    > than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    > over 700K.
    >
    > http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Wayne
     
    Phil, Feb 17, 2006
    #6
  7. wayne

    Monkee Guest

    "wayne" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    > camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    > it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    > wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    > monitor.
    > Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    > like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    > have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    > away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    > photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    > than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    > over 700K.
    >
    > http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Wayne


    Additionally - your(his?) website suggests you(he?) are passionate about
    photography??
     
    Monkee, Feb 17, 2006
    #7
  8. wayne

    reboot Guest

    "Ed Ruf" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Seems like he forgot he had the ISO cranked up. Look at the exif info.
    > Shot at ISO1600 with flash, heavens only knows why?


    And a F/3.7 (probably wide open). Over-cranked and possibly over-exposed.
    That will sure create noise.
     
    reboot, Feb 17, 2006
    #8
  9. wayne

    Phil Guest

    Na, not wide open.


    "reboot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > And a F/3.7 (probably wide open). Over-cranked and possibly over-exposed.
    > That will sure create noise.
    >
    >
     
    Phil, Feb 17, 2006
    #9
  10. wayne

    Phil Guest

    Uh?!?


    "reboot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > It looks like it's been interpolated up. It is not very sharp at all, even
    > in the full view. When viewing a smaller image, it might look better in
    > increments of powers of -2 so that the monitor pixels 'line up' with the
    > originals.
    >
    >
     
    Phil, Feb 17, 2006
    #10
  11. wayne

    wayne Guest

    On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:25:00 +0000, Phil wrote:

    > This is not a sharpness problem, it is a noise problem (high 'film' speed
    > (ISO)).
    >


    Yes, after reading up on this ISO, I tend to agree with you.

    Wayne
     
    wayne, Feb 17, 2006
    #11
  12. wayne

    wayne Guest

    On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:16:45 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    >
    > Looks like noise to me.
    > Was it shot at a high ISO?


    1600
     
    wayne, Feb 17, 2006
    #12
  13. wayne

    acl Guest

    reboot wrote:
    > It looks like it's been interpolated up. It is not very sharp at all, even
    > in the full view. When viewing a smaller image, it might look better in
    > increments of powers of -2 so that the monitor pixels 'line up' with the
    > originals.
    >


    It may or may not have been interpolated, but it's fairly obvious what
    the problem is: shot at ISO 1600. I don't know what the photographer
    thought he was doing. If your friend actually paid for this, well, he's
    been had.
     
    acl, Feb 17, 2006
    #13
  14. wayne

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    On 17 Feb 2006 in rec.photo.digital, wayne wrote:

    > I think the photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much
    > about the camera other than it looked like a pro model (not point
    > and shoot).


    Camera Make: FUJIFILM
    Camera Model: FinePix S9000
    Image Date: 2006:02:13 19:14:00
    Flash Used: Yes (Manual)
    Focal Length: 19.0mm (35mm equivalent: 88mm)
    CCD Width: 7.78mm
    Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
    Aperture: f/3.7
    ISO equiv: 1600
    White Balance: Auto
    Metering Mode: Matrix
    Exposure: program (Auto)

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp

    Fujifilm has today announced what it sees as competition to entry
    level DSLRs with the 9 million pixel FinePix S9000 Zoom (US) S9500
    Zoom (Europe). It features a 10.7x optical zoom (28-300mm) (with no
    image stabilization), ISO from 80 to 1600, twist-barrel zoom
    control, a tiltable 1.8-inch LCD, plus a 640 x 480 movie mode.
    Fujifilm sees the S9000 Zoom as the point where compact and DSLRs
    meet ...

    Sensor:

    • 1/1.6" Type CCD
    • 9.2 million pixels total
    • 9.0 million effective pixels

    http://www.photo.net/equipment/fuji/fuji_s9000.html

    The sensor size is designated as 1/1.6", which corresponds to
    approximately 8mm wide by 6mm high (4:3 aspect ratio), still
    significantly smaller than DSLR sensors (typically something like
    22mm wide by 15mm high).

    Draw your own conclusions.

    --
    Joe Makowiec
    http://makowiec.org/
    Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
     
    Joe Makowiec, Feb 17, 2006
    #14
  15. wayne

    Beach Bum Guest

    Beach Bum, Feb 17, 2006
    #15
  16. >
    > Additionally - your(his?) website suggests you(he?) are passionate about
    > photography??


    I am passionate about women....that doesn't mean I undertand them or am able
    to work them to the best advantage.

    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Feb 17, 2006
    #16
  17. wayne

    Martin Brown Guest

    Ed Ruf wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:49:11 -1000, in rec.photo.digital wayne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    >>camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    >>it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    >>wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    >>monitor.
    >>
    >>Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    >>like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    >>have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    >>away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    >>photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    >>than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    >>over 700K.
    >>
    >>http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg

    >
    >
    > Seems like he forgot he had the ISO cranked up. Look at the exif info.
    > Shot at ISO1600 with flash, heavens only knows why?


    Shooting by available light might not be unreasonable in a church. My
    local vicar insists on no flash during the ceremony. And it is fair game
    to use high ISO for that, but not at the reception!

    But if this is the original image from the camera (which claims to be a
    FinePix S9000) it is only 3Mpixel (not a pro resolution) compressed with
    a fairly brutal IJG quality ~84 or PsPro 16. It is hard to imagine how
    any professional wedding photographer would shoot in JPEG at anything
    less than highest quality. Or is this the highest quality for an S9000?

    I still find it hard to belive the S9000 is this bad even at ISO1600.
    Could there be one of those horrible vaseline soaked soft gunge filters
    in place for the atmospheric wedding effect? Are these the proofs?

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 17, 2006
    #17
  18. wayne

    John Fryatt Guest

    Phil wrote:
    > Na, not wide open.
    >
    >
    > "reboot" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> And a F/3.7 (probably wide open). Over-cranked and possibly over-exposed.
    >> That will sure create noise.


    It probably is wide-open, as the focal length is 19mm and the max
    aperture reduces as you zoom toward the longer end.
     
    John Fryatt, Feb 17, 2006
    #18
  19. wayne

    Phil Guest

    Depends on the women. Further north you go...



    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    news:KcqJf.14$yt2.6@trndny04...
    > >
    > > Additionally - your(his?) website suggests you(he?) are passionate about
    > > photography??

    >
    > I am passionate about women....that doesn't mean I undertand them or am

    able
    > to work them to the best advantage.
    >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Phil, Feb 17, 2006
    #19
  20. wayne <> wrote:
    >A friend of mine recently got married and the photographer used a digital
    >camera for the shots. Here's a sample photo (actual size). When I look at
    >it full size, it doesn't look sharp. Another friend says there's nothing
    >wrong with it; I think he's viewing it at a smaller size that fits on his
    >monitor.
    >Anyway, the event is now over and there's no going back. What I'd
    >like to know is what's wrong with this photo (if anything) and what could
    >have caused it? All of the photos look like this sample, even the far
    >away shots. Could this be a result of a faulty copying to CD? I think the
    >photographer used a Fuji digital. I don't know much about the camera other
    >than it looked like a pro model (not point and shoot). The photo size is
    >over 700K.
    >
    >http://mysite.verizon.net/res6oc93/photo/dscf0122.jpg


    Here's the pertinent EXIF data from that image (with much snipped),

    ExifTool Version Number : 5.62
    File Name : dscf0122.jpg
    File Size : 751KB
    Date/Time Of Digitization : 2006:02:13 19:14:00
    File Type : JPEG
    Camera Model Name : FinePix S9000
    Aperture : 3.7
    Exposure Program : Program AE
    ISO Speed : 1600
    Shutter Speed Value : 1/64
    Aperture Value : 3.7
    Exposure Compensation : 0
    Max Aperture Value : 2.8
    Metering Mode : Multi-segment
    Flash : On
    Focal Length : 19.0mm
    Image Quality : NORMAL
    White Balance : Auto
    Fuji Flash Mode : On
    Flash Strength : 0
    Macro : Off
    Focus Mode : Auto
    Image Size : 2048x1536
    Shutter Speed : 1/60
    Focal Length : 19.0mm (35mm equivalent: 84.5mm)

    There are a *number* of obvious problems! Using ISO 1600 with
    fill flash on a stationary object is a poor choice, which
    suggests the photographer did not have enough familiarity with
    the camera to change appropriate configuration when the scenes
    changed. We can't tell if he used a tripod, but certainly for
    this shot (he should have, and) if the camera had been on a
    tripod it would have been possible to shoot with ISO 100 and a
    much slower shutter speed.

    And I would argue also for either a wider angle lense or an even
    slower shutter speed to allow stopping down the lense for better
    depth of field. That or composing the image to exclude as much
    of the background as possible and center only on the piece in
    focus.

    Beyond that are other indications of the same lack of
    familiarity (or simple incompetence with a digital camera).
    Shooting a wedding with JPEG is not good, and then setting
    "Image Quality" set to "NORMAL" is just horrible! ("BEST" or
    "FINE" or whatever the camera can do would have been more
    appropriate, though I'd argue against shooting in JPEG at all.)

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd Davidson, Feb 17, 2006
    #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. Mark N

    is there something wrong with my lens???

    Mark N, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    422
    Fred McKenzie
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. Nivek

    there is something weird floating in my toilet

    Nivek, Apr 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Nivek
    Apr 8, 2004
  3. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    488
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Feb 28, 2006
  4. Wereo_SUPREME

    There's something wrong with the Gogg

    Wereo_SUPREME, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    591
    Wereo_SUPREME
    Apr 26, 2007
  5. pour-lay

    Is there something crap about Slingshot?

    pour-lay, Nov 22, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    315
    pour-lay
    Nov 22, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page