JPG vs TIFF Resolution Test

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jerry McG, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. X3F uses lossless compression.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 27, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Are you saying that normal peoples' perception of Foveon superiority is
    irrelevant?
     
    George Preddy, Dec 27, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. New term, sound the alarm!
     
    George Preddy, Dec 27, 2003
  4. ....1/3rd spectrum...
    This proves you are wrong...
    http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html

    Respond with data only. I already know your opinion.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 27, 2003
  5. flowing.

    I'm flattered.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 27, 2003
  6. Jerry McG

    Jeff Shoaf Guest

    Jeff Shoaf, Dec 27, 2003
  7. Jerry McG

    Larry Lynch Guest

    Looks near PERFECT to me!
     
    Larry Lynch, Dec 27, 2003
  8. It's a very nice picture, I like the composition. If I'd critique anything
    I might move the cross away from dead center, maybe up a tad to make a bit
    more room for the tassles and move the dominant element more towards the
    rule of thirds, even though I think there plenty of times to screw the rule
    of thirds.

    If you want an honest critique of the camera, I think both the 300D and the
    lens let the pic down. The oversharpened jaggies in the rope fibers are
    distracting, and the resolution seems awfully coarse anyhow so I would have
    probably left it soft. Some areas of the wood look hazy, maybe from noise
    reduction, which is odd for ISO 100. I don't think the resolution would be
    near sufficient to see a human hair or to count eyelashes, for example,
    which I think would be more than a reasonable request at 320mm effective,
    full frame. I think the DR is lacking too, the lighting doesn't seem harsh
    enough to lose the color detail in the left side of the rope. But maybe the
    exposure was pulled back in RAW.

    As for the your 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens test gallery. Seriously, I'd take the
    lens back. The sharpness on the edges is very poor for a center glass
    shooter, especially apparent in the statue picture which almost looks like
    an oil painting effect was applied in the corners, and even in the cross pic
    the left side is a blur but should be coming more into focus. The Snail pic
    exhibits fairly serious inverted bokeh at the top, left, and right, making
    the lens distracting for shallow DOF shots with a busy background, which I
    would think would be key for a fast 70-200/2.8 (sports shots, etc). The
    Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX is less than half the price (though still pricey at
    $700) and it's a real gem corner to corner with superb bokeh and beautiful
    contrast and color. You might give one a try if you can't find a better
    Canon sample, it might just be that one.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 27, 2003
  9. Jerry McG

    Noel Guest

    Steve, you are not NORMAL, not by any means. You are a fool, an
    imbecile, a childish twit, anything but normal.
     
    Noel, Dec 27, 2003
  10. Jerry McG

    Chris Brown Guest

    This from Mr "slam the sharpening slider over to the right" himself. Pot,
    meet kettle.
     
    Chris Brown, Dec 27, 2003
  11. Jerry McG

    Jeff Shoaf Guest

    That's pretty much what I expected from you...
     
    Jeff Shoaf, Dec 27, 2003
  12. Jerry McG

    Jeff Shoaf Guest

    Thanks!
     
    Jeff Shoaf, Dec 27, 2003
  13. Jerry McG

    JPS Guest

    In message <bsjas4$r5f$>,
    I don't know, Steve, you snipped the context off.

    I believe I was talking about the fact that *any* image from a 6.3MP
    Bayer DSLR will deteriorate dramatically if you downsample it to 1.58MP.
    You don't need any special images from me to prove that. I don't have a
    special 10D that makes sharper images than other people's 10Ds.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 27, 2003
  14. Jerry McG

    JPS Guest

    In message <bsjaud$r74$>,
    I know it does, and if you understood what I was talking about (as
    opposed to RGB graphics being a total "black box" to you), you would
    have known that this is precisely *why* I have come to that conclusion.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 27, 2003
  15. Jerry McG

    Noel Guest

    If you are going to take good photographs, yes, RAW is very useful.
    However, your mediocre compositions don't warrant such extravagance,
    as no amount of additional colour depth will save them. For all your
    bluster about prosumer and pro quality, your work could easily be
    bettered by someone with an entry-level P&S.

    Why don't you go back to foaming at the mouth in
    comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, Steve?
     
    Noel, Dec 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.