Image quality

[Leon]

there are a few threads on here asking about what camera ect.... as  said in the post unless you are printing huge prints where are you going to display them...does the pixel count matter that muck really?

 

here are 2 sites acquaintances of mine run, yes it's motorsport based but please have a look at the quality of the pictures. 

 

http://tfrenegade.com/

 

http://exiledmedia.co.uk/front/

 

and my own page .. http://www.leonwallphotography.co.uk/

 

what's my point?   all taken on Canon 1100D's 10.1 MP 

 

THE only thing these camera's have against them is speed, I have met the limits of my camera a few times with it's 3FPS  but most of you will never meed something that does 10FPS unless you tent to spray and prey.

 

 

just my opinion...

Edited December 12, 2014 by Leon

[JHFoto]

I really like the images on your website.........................

[Leon]

I really like the images on your website.........................

thanks, the quality one them is massively reduced, someone I know made it for free for me so I can't complain. 

have look through my Flickr there are loads on there

[Paul80]

Hi

 

I sometimes suspect that theses days we actually accept a lower quality of image from our modern digital cameras. (Tin Hat On) and heading for the door

 

In the 70's & 80's the test of a lens and film was how sharp the image was when printed to 20x16 inches, in the digital age the benchmark seems to have changed to A4.

 

I know I have negatives shot in the 80's that are much sharper than images I produced on highend Canon Cameras with L series lenses.

 

It used to be accepted that images produced by digital cameras always needed some form of sharpening because of the way the Image was produced and processed.  Not sure if that's still true though but suspect it is, not that anyone will admit to it though

 

Paul

[kev7d]

 It used to be accepted that images produced by digital cameras always needed some form of sharpening because of the way the Image was produced and processed.  Not sure if that's still true though but suspect it is, not that anyone will admit to it though

 

 

 

 

I admit to applying a touch of sharpening to a lot of images.

[ChrisLumix]

Hi

 

I sometimes suspect that theses days we actually accept a lower quality of image from our modern digital cameras. (Tin Hat On) and heading for the door

 

In the 70's & 80's the test of a lens and film was how sharp the image was when printed to 20x16 inches, in the digital age the benchmark seems to have changed to A4.

 

I know I have negatives shot in the 80's that are much sharper than images I produced on highend Canon Cameras with L series lenses.

 

It used to be accepted that images produced by digital cameras always needed some form of sharpening because of the way the Image was produced and processed.  Not sure if that's still true though but suspect it is, not that anyone will admit to it though

 

Paul

 

Hmm. I have my doubts about this? I do remember the photography world of the 70s and 80s with great affection, but I seem to remember the standard for prints was 10 x 8 inches? Yes, you could go bigger but that was kind of the measure, unless my memory is faulty.

 

I do like the 'grain' that film emulsions gave, far superior to my mind than digital 'noise'. However, grain was the enemy of sharpness and to keep it down you had to limit ISO to between 25 - 100 for colour transparencies, 125 - 400 for B&W, and 100 - 200 for colour prints. I remember the elation in the late 80s when Fuji came out with colour print 400 ISO film that had no more grain than 100 - how liberated we suddenly felt!

 

You're probably right about digital lenses, but don't forget that zooms were always a compromise, and now they go from super wide to extreme telephoto in the same lens. Sharpness is bound to suffer. I don't believe top quality primes are any worse now than then? Though it would be worth seeing if the "world's best lens" of that time - the Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.7 - has been bettered?

Edited December 14, 2014 by ChrisLumix

[Thunderer]

Hi

 

I sometimes suspect that theses days we actually accept a lower quality of image from our modern digital cameras. (Tin Hat On) and heading for the door

 

In the 70's & 80's the test of a lens and film was how sharp the image was when printed to 20x16 inches, in the digital age the benchmark seems to have changed to A4.

 

I know I have negatives shot in the 80's that are much sharper than images I produced on highend Canon Cameras with L series lenses.

 

It used to be accepted that images produced by digital cameras always needed some form of sharpening because of the way the Image was produced and processed.  Not sure if that's still true though but suspect it is, not that anyone will admit to it though

 

Paul

The laws of physics and optics have not changed. Digital images need sharpening which may well be done by the camera when processing raw files into jogs. If you use raw files then sharpening is a normal processing action by the photographer/printer. Why would it be a question of needing to admit anything? After all techniques were used in film days to enhance apparent sharpness eg dilute ID11 1+3 to enhance acutance rather than use stock or 1+1

For what it is worth my view is that very sharp A3 prints can be routinely made from digital files whereas it was difficult from 35mm and MF film but OK from 4" x 5" negs. But tonality is another matter.

Jeff

[Karenp]

Do you ever go to BTCC events Leon?

[Black Pearl]

You don't have to 'admit' that digital files need to be sharpened but you do need to 'understand' why they do and just as importantly how to sharpen them.

 

Most smaller format digital sensors have an anti aliasing filter in front of them that deliberately softens the image - medium format sensors don't and a few of the latest very high resolution Sony sensors used in their, Nikon and Pentax bodies don't either. You get an increase in sharpness/detail captured but run the risk of moire appearing in your shots. Even though most if not all good RAW processing software has a moire removal tool it is still common place for manufacturers to deal with it in the capture stage by using an AA filter in front of the sensor.

 

So now that you know your image is inherently soft at the pixel level you need to know how to deal with it. There are two stages to sharpening, both need to be done and both have an impact on the final image. 

 

1. Capture sharpening. This is generally a high percentage/very low width sharpening applied to the RAW data. It is designed to 'put back' the slight softness caused by the AA filter so you can edit it at a fine (high magnification) level without causing artefacts. Your RAW converter will tend to do this by default so you can almost forget about it but it is worth checking to see if it is switched on and you might want to fine tune it to personal tastes.

 

2. Output Sharpening. This is the one most people get wrong. You need to sharpen the image at the very last stage, after all of your processing, tweaking, mucking about whatever you want to call it and AFTER it has been resized for its intended final use. AFTER being the important word. You need to sharpen a file that is sized for the web in an entirely different way to one that will be printed and the one to be printed needs to be sharpened to differing degrees depending on the print size, the paper to be used and even the printer itself. How much is right and the right way to do this could fill half the internet but so long as you understand that sharpening isn't a fixed thing and you need to do this to every file, your images should be tack sharp when presented.

 

 

Film by the way is still the sharpest means of capturing detail but MF backs are catching and catching up fast: http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

[Graham]

I think that this is one of those subjects that people sometimes get so hung up on that they forget something vastly more important. The quality of an image should not necessarily be judged on its technical quality but it's esthetic appeal.

When I started in film back in the 70's, Kodachrome slide film at 25 ASA (ISO) was regarded as the sharpest colour film available to the masses. A great friend of mine, sadly passed on many years ago, shot thousands of slides on his Nikons in his home studio at f5.6 which he considered the sweet spot for his prime lenses, he would never have a zoom in his kit as he considered them "inferior in so many ways". These slides were projected in a darkened room to about 4 feet wide using a Leica projector.

We're they sharp? I honestly cannot remember. They were in focus and the detail was clear but to be honest, pretty boring two light paper background shot. The only thing of interest was if the subject was appealing or not.

At that time, I mainly shot in B&W as I could not afford a colour darkroom. My cameras were the usual subjects for the day starting off with a Zenith and, initially, ending up with an Olympus OM 1 with a couple of lenses. I started using Ilford FP4 but the lure of photo heros like Baily soon had me using Tri X pushed to 1600 ASA to get the grain and contrast. I used this in just about everything from landscape to portraiture and most were printed at 10 x 8 with the odd one at 16 x 20. Were they sharp? Probably not but my focus (pardon the pun) was on getting the grain sharp.

One of the things I found then was that people didn't get hung up on sharpness as much as they do now. In fact, it was when the first digital cameras came out that the technical quality of photos was first discussed in the circles I moved in. I well remember being in a great old camera shop in Sheffield and being shown the new digital wonder. Frankly it was rubbish. I don't remember much about it but it was obvious that prints above 5 inches were just impossible.

It was at that time that image technical quality came to the for and I got a bit hung up on it. I decided that my pictures were rubbish and I needed the cameras of my heroes if I was to take pictures like them. I had discovered Cartier Bresson and I wanted to emulate his style but I had just gone over to medium format so it was time to revert to the simple smaller 35mm and my heart was set on a Leica. Eventually, in that same shop in Sheffield, I handed over £6,500 and walked away with a small carrier bag containing a black Leica body, a 50, 35 and 135 lenses. It was only as I walked back to Pond Street Bus Station that I realised I had no film! A quick call into Jessops on the way for a pack of FP4 sorted that and over the next few weeks, I shot thousands of negatives on that simply gorgeous camera.

The outcome was that the pictures were rubbish, I was gutted and sold on the Leica and my darkroom within a few months of buying it. That is when I gave up for the first time. But it wasn't the camera that was rubbish, it was me.

I now look at Cartier Bresson images, still one of my heroes, and realise that, technically, they are not that great. In fact, I would put my 6 mp Nikon D 40 against his Leica and, technically, it would be close but I will never take images as good as him because I am not as good as him no matter what the camera and that is what matters in my opinion.

A great photographer can take great photos with anything, me? Well, I will 'upgrade' my D 40 one day as the low light capability is not as good as the the newer 'entry level' Nikons but I will not go for a pro camera as it will not take better pictures for me, I have to learn to do that first.

[Black Pearl]

I do believe that's going into my top 10 list of 'most sensible things' I've read this year.

[ChrisLumix]

I agree with just about everything you said Graham, and our paths weren't so very different, except that I never had the money to afford a Leica! I can also affirm that Kodachrome 25 was an awesome film, even used in my Zorki 4. I still have the slides and they still have the original colour and are as sharp as like.

 

The problem NOW is that people are indeed 'hung up' on sharpness, and you see so many over-sharpened pictures around. I've been guilty of it too, and I now try to leave pictures to reassess after first impressions. And then when I come to sharpen a decent picture, I will use Photoshop's High Pass filter ... at the end of other processing of course! I still think that all zoom lens output needs to be sharpened, but the gap with primes - especially for short zooms - isn't as great as it was in the 80s. 

[Korky]

I agree too, Graham. It's just so bloody easy to allow the camera manufacturers and photographic magazines to con you into thinking that expensive camera equals better pictures.

 

And I love Cartier Bresson too. I saw an exhibition of his work when I was in California a few years ago. Astoundingly good!

 

Korky

[Leon]

Do you ever go to BTCC events Leon?

been to a few yes, and covered Tom ingram at herewood as the "official" photographer, have a look through my flickr..

[Karenp]

been to a few yes, and covered Tom ingram at herewood as the "official" photographer, have a look through my flickr..

Tom Ingram made his debut this year didn't he? 

[Thunderer]

I agree with just about everything you said Graham, and our paths weren't so very different, except that I never had the money to afford a Leica! I can also affirm that Kodachrome 25 was an awesome film, even used in my Zorki 4. I still have the slides and they still have the original colour and are as sharp as like.

 

The problem NOW is that people are indeed 'hung up' on sharpness, and you see so many over-sharpened pictures around. I've been guilty of it too, and I now try to leave pictures to reassess after first impressions. And then when I come to sharpen a decent picture, I will use Photoshop's High Pass filter ... at the end of other processing of course! I still think that all zoom lens output needs to be sharpened, but the gap with primes - especially for short zooms - isn't as great as it was in the 80s.

You talk about K25. Us old folk remember when K25 replaced K10 and being a bit surprised that saturation seemed to have been toned down. The assumption was that quality had been sacrificed for speed !

Sad to say my pictures are no better now than when I was in my early teens shooting K10 on my Retinette 1a ( f3.5 50mm fixed lens and shutter speeds 1/30 to 1/250 ) and exposure calculated by reference to month, time of day, quality of light, film speed, direction of light and subject, but now technical quality is better and there are far more shooting options.

Tonality and smoothness seem as important as sharpness in assessing technical quality but those are two qualities difficult to assess on most screens.

Jeff

[ChrisLumix]

You talk about K25. Us old folk remember when K25 replaced K10 and being a bit surprised that saturation seemed to have been toned down. The assumption was that quality had been sacrificed for speed !

Sad to say my pictures are no better now than when I was in my early teens shooting K10 on my Retinette 1a ( f3.5 50mm fixed lens and shutter speeds 1/30 to 1/250 ) and exposure calculated by reference to month, time of day, quality of light, film speed, direction of light and subject, but now technical quality is better and there are far more shooting options.

Tonality and smoothness seem as important as sharpness in assessing technical quality but those are two qualities difficult to assess on most screens.

Jeff

 

My dad had a Retinette 1b !!! I think that was the one that had 'match needle' exposure metering? (Sorry, that wasn't intended to make you feel even older!) I have to say I never even heard of Kodachrome 10 until you just mentioned it. My thought is that film emulsions had improved to the point where they could more than double the speed with little or no drop in quality?

 

Dad used Agfa slide film, but sadly it doesn't have the archive quality of Kodachrome and many of his slides have deteriorated over 50 years

[Thunderer]

My dad had a Retinette 1b !!! I think that was the one that had 'match needle' exposure metering? (Sorry, that wasn't intended to make you feel even older!) I have to say I never even heard of Kodachrome 10 until you just mentioned it. My thought is that film emulsions had improved to the point where they could more than double the speed with little or no drop in quality?

 

Dad used Agfa slide film, but sadly it doesn't have the archive quality of Kodachrome and many of his slides have deteriorated over 50 years

My mother got a 1b after I got the 1a. The great advances were indeed the built in meter with match needle exposure settings plus expanding shutter speeds to 1/15 and 1/500 and an f2.8 lens.

Agfa slide film ..... Hmm. Lurid greens and fading within a couple of years. Strange how the German cameras were regarded as superior eg Retinettes to Leicas but colour films were very inferior.

Kodak K10 and 25 were superb and indeed my interest in photography was attending in about 1958 a slide show of an RAF Himalayan mountain expedition taken on Kodachrome.

I moved on to medium format by saving my wages from working in a market garden ( my back still aches with the thoughts of picking French beans all morning ) for 12.5 pence per hour and buying a Rolleiflex Auto for not much money and selling it on because it didn't have flash synchro. What an idiot I was ( still am )

Jeff

[ChrisLumix]

My mother got a 1b after I got the 1a. The great advances were indeed the built in meter with match needle exposure settings plus expanding shutter speeds to 1/15 and 1/500 and an f2.8 lens.

Agfa slide film ..... Hmm. Lurid greens and fading within a couple of years. Strange how the German cameras were regarded as superior eg Retinettes to Leicas but colour films were very inferior.

Kodak K10 and 25 were superb and indeed my interest in photography was attending in about 1958 a slide show of an RAF Himalayan mountain expedition taken on Kodachrome.

I moved on to medium format by saving my wages from working in a market garden ( my back still aches with the thoughts of picking French beans all morning ) for 12.5 pence per hour and buying a Rolleiflex Auto for not much money and selling it on because it didn't have flash synchro. What an idiot I was ( still am )

Jeff

 

I never found Agfa colours bad - in fact, very good. It's just that they didn't last long.

 

Rolleiflex - you mean the 6x6cm twin lens reflex? I don't think you were an idiot! Those were good wedding cameras especially on a tripod, but really inflexible compared to 35mm. Yes, great quality, but you couldn't take it everywhere, nor change lenses.

[Thunderer]

I never found Agfa colours bad - in fact, very good. It's just that they didn't last long.

 

Rolleiflex - you mean the 6x6cm twin lens reflex? I don't think you were an idiot! Those were good wedding cameras especially on a tripod, but really inflexible compared to 35mm. Yes, great quality, but you couldn't take it everywhere, nor change lenses.

Yes. a TLR. A very strong but light simple construction with fixed lens. I don't remember there were zoom lenses in those days but the first zoom lens seemed to sacrifice everything for convenience. Photographers pretty well accepted fixed lenses and worked around the limitations and with the benefits.

The daft thing Idid was sell it. It would have been a good investment.

I returned many years later to a Mamiya TLR. A much heavier machine but it had interchangeable lenses. But also a good tool. I had necessarily to work slowly so my photos were much more considered.

Jeff

[ChrisLumix]

I was sometimes tempted by the much greater quality of medium format, but I think I'd have gone for the 'Hasselblad' SLR option (by which I mean a Bronica or similar!). I did once own a TLR but it was one of those cheapo Russian Lubitel things : surprisingly soft lens for a Russian made camera. Transparencies were a different matter though - 6x6 Kodachrome... mmmm, lovely.

[Thunderer]

I was sometimes tempted by the much greater quality of medium format, but I think I'd have gone for the 'Hasselblad' SLR option (by which I mean a Bronica or similar!). I did once own a TLR but it was one of those cheapo Russian Lubitel things : surprisingly soft lens for a Russian made camera. Transparencies were a different matter though - 6x6 Kodachrome... mmmm, lovely.

Blimey.

You have been stalking me!

I had a Lubitel. Lens was mostly good but had a soft area. The camera disintegrated on me.

After the Mamiya I got a Bronica 645 format SLR with three prime lenses. An excellent camera.

Then I was persuaded, with a bit of financial help, to sell my Bronica and darkroom stuff and get an Alpha 100 to use with my Minolta lenses.

With 20/20 hindsight I should have stayed with film and got a digi bridge camera for convenience and holiday snaps.

Ah well upwards and onwards with technology??

Jeff

[Graham]

Ahh, the Lubitel.... I bought mine from a beach front kiosk at Mabelthorpe on my honeymoon!! I remember taking some dark, late evening shots of fishermen sat around a small lake with their lamps glowing. It actually worked! Not bad, very cheap, but I remember it was so hard to focus. If I remember correctly, it didn't have a full screen for focusing just a centre spot.

Just as an aside, the camera didn't last that long, neither did the marriage come to think of it............

[FUJI]

All this talk about, lenses, sensors, pixels, cameras, lenses, flashes, lights, do this, do that........surely the QUALITY of any image, IS in the eye of the viewer.......I know, that I can be moved by the subject and not by the pixel count.

Yes! I do realise, that good equipment can help a photographer to potentially shoot better shots ....technically that is.

I guess our best examples are the superb results from BPs iPhone............Leica, Nikon..........Lumix, Olympus......big sensor, little sensor.......Prime vs Zoom.......he can, and does top these, when Hes'e on form.

FUJI

[Leon]

never been an Iphone fan, this was taken on a Sony C902 quite a few years ago 8MP at it's best?

 

 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Leon