 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
chrisbet
|
Picking up on JK's comment about rubbish phone images. One of the reasons I got a Samsung was the reputed quality of the camera and I would be interested in views on the quality of this image ....  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Print 6"x4", 8"x10" or A4, and A3 and see the difference. I will guess that at A4 it will start to look 'blotchy'. APS-C or DX can print very nicely up to 30"x40" from a sharp and well exposed image. FF or FX especially with the latest sensors can stand scrutiny at closer than reasonable viewing distance at very large print sizes. One of my D800 images was printed 90" x 40" and it looked superb. The new D850 and Z7 should yield even better results. I am currently shooting Cornish landscapes and I dont shoot on blue sky sunny days but prefer the atmosphere from overcast or threatening rain days so IQ is a little compromised sometimes. These are all shot on my Z7 but unfortunately large prints 90" x 40" are expensive so I dont tend to do them routinely unless commissioned but instead proof at A4 or A3 and mount on slightly smaller than A2 boards. I am building up a small set of images (20-30) that I will print as soon as I get my act together. I need to get a new batch of A3+ paper and profile it with the ink batch that I have for my Canon printer. Then I print them all in a day. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Those are some Serious Blow-Ups...my quality criteria are for FF full image up to A2...but have Not reached that size in years , after all, even the main wedding photo ( Bride & Groom ) is Seldom larger than an A4..a long time ago Imade one in A3 size..and that`s Big !! Are You planning on a display in a Gallery ? |
|||||||||
jk
|
chrisbet wrote:Picking up on JK's comment about rubbish phone images.Yes looks good on screen on my ipad but as soon as I start to zoom it starts to mush! I think that the shots Apple show for their adverts are misleading. Mobile phone cameras are 'optimised' for shooting at 3-10ft. Also their output is designed for the phone screen not large prints. Need to be careful as yes it is possible to produce exceptional images but it is the exception not the rule. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
chrisbet wrote:I would be interested in views on the quality of this image .... While the initial impact of the image is impressive, a longer look reveals weaknesses. I would have either relocated or removed the intruding blade of grass. The bokeh is poor to say the least, a consequence of the effectively short focal length. It isn't practical or truly realistic to introduce bokeh in post process, apart from the tedium, the results don't look as good as a proper bokeh. More of a concern is the lack of micro contrast and the movement blur in some parts of the flower, in fact some of the flower esp. at 3-4 o'clock from centre are approaching mush, I think it's over exposure due to the reflective fluorescent elements of the petals of the flower, is yellow blown in the histogram? Strong direct sunshine isn't your friend for flower photography, less strong, more diffused lighting would be better, a white fine mesh screen to shade the flower can work well. On a trip to Cambridge university botanic garden some years ago, the sun was so strong I had my son Michael hold a white towel to shade the flowers for this exact reason. Even a recent, top DSLR lens and sensor would struggle to produce a perfect image in that light. You will get far more micro detail and texture with less harsh light. Post processing, esp. with the latest Lightroom auto and detail extraction/enhancement would improve the impact considerably but I think it would struggle with the mushy area, it looks over exposed to me, there is far better definition where the lighting is more shaded/less direct. Bright flowers are not easy! Flowers are intended to attract flying insects, the brighter the better, you should see the same flower in UV. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Food for thought, but no flower images... Mainly landscapes. I still think flower images (especially dandelions in full Sun are DSLR territory). Link to Photography Life article. Note to Chris: First use of this link feature, can only paste once, if having pasted the link url, you leave the 'insert link' panel to go copy the description for pasting, the panel evaporates. Perhaps I'm just lazy!  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Just picking up on some of the comments made. I agree that phone images when subjected to the same enlargement or scrutiny as camera images will fall short. But they aren't meant to be viewed on anything more than a phone, iPad etc. Not sure the manufacturers would talk so highly of their cameras performance if relating it to viewing on 40†HD TVs. They are merely comparing their product to competitions product performance. I agree with Roberts comments about the impact of unfavourable lighting for flowers and the enhancements possible from good Bokeh. That said, the close proximity of the background to the flowerhead reduces the potential for good Bokeh even with a good lens. I'm not sure it would be any better. Post production Digital Bokeh can be quite good but the flat nature of this subject make it doubly difficult to get a better more realistic effect. We've for some years made photo books of our various holidays. I suppose modern equivalents of the photoalbums of yesterday but without the photos dropping out and with an element of better design and layout. Without exception, the main photos are from our digital cameras. Photos from phones are used but are always supporting roles on the pages ie smaller. And that way they do work and contribute to the record of an occasion. It's a fact that the smaller the sensor the more artefacts will play a part in lessening the quality. A slight improvement in control of both flower and background focus.....but at least I've tucked the grass behind for you Robert.   |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |