http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2512530
Here is another 100% crop, again, there are some tiny jpeg artifacts in there that are the result of "save for web". PHoto.net doesnt allow the uploading of photoshop jpegs due to preview data which apparently causes images to upset internet explorer. -el gringo -----Original Message----- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing? Yeah - sorry about the nuts & all that. However, Jostein had already stated in the thread that he had used CS RAW, Capture One etc and was STILL unhappy with the results. And while the tripod comment is perfectly valid in a general sense, it read as though it was directed as Jos which would be ridiculous - as is the suggestion that he might not have covered all his bases. It was clear from the thread that he had put a lot of thought and effort into resolving this one before raising it on the list. Your shot seems pretty sharp to me, given the web etc etc - but lack of sharpness could be more evident on a side by side and with finer detail. The lettering on the lens seens to have some nasty edges for some reason - possibly jpg artifacts as you suggest... I think the *istD is sharp *enough* for me (given the compromises it has to make) but I don't argue whether or not it is as sharp as the competition, and personally don't really care. > -----Original Message----- > From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 July 2004 16:26 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing? > > > Well this thread went nuts... Anyhow... > > It's not because I'm a better photographer. If you want > sharper images, shoot RAW, use PS CS to convert, enhance > sharpness using the RAW converter. (Better than turning up > sharpness in camera.) > > This is a random shot I picked. It's not particularly > amazing, it's just a normal shot, which is the best shot to > illustrate my point because a guy can get a shot like this > anytime without too much trouble. > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2512107 > > 100% crop of 1-sec exposure, indoors, on a tripod, with the > SMC-F 50mm 1.7 at F4. The near side of the lens is slightly > out of focus, and the far side in focus, the near side of the > filter box it is sitting on is also in focus. There is no > USM, so if I wanted to, this could be made "sharper" without > inducing too many sharpening artifacts. There are some Jpeg > compression artifacts around some edges and lettering that > are the result of "save for web", though I used the maximum setting. > > I did not mean the tripod comment as an insult. Just to > point out that if you are looking for the sharpest possible > pictures, you need to cover all your bases before you start > pointing fingers. > > Someone also mentioned the lack of detail in landscapes, > which is something I have to agree with. I don't think a 6MP > digital camera is really up to shooting quality landscapes if > you intend to view them at a larger size. I'm thinking 10MP > or higher should be enough to start better resolving those > distant trees, etc. > > > > -el gringo > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *istD anti-aliasing? > > > > Find my replies interspersed, gringo. > > > I can produce files as sharp as anything with my istD and photoshop > > CS. > > You're obviously a better photographer than me, then. Care to > show some pics? > > > You are probably the type that > > Thanks for bringing this discussion up to a personal level. > > > > > I know that sounds a little harsh, but the sharpness issue > has gone on > > for too long, I'm sick of the same tired arguments. > > So I'm making you sick. Well thanks for letting me know. > Can't promise that I won't do it again, though. There are so > many things that I need to learn. > > > Maybe you should use a tripod?? > > Maybe I do. > Thanks for being constructive in your critisism of my frustration. > > Jostein > > >
