These were shot as RAW and the same settings used for each conversion. I then cropped, enlarged and saved for web, also keeping settings the same. To crop I used the method Jostein used yesterday, set rulers to pixels, draw a crop box correctly sized and then align it. Nothing was done in PS after the conversion except the crop, resize and save for web at full size and 60%. I can put the RAW files up for d'load if you'd like to play with them.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: The DA retested and loved again! > > > On 4 Apr 2005 at 19:36, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > Here's different subject matter to compare the DA 16-45/4 > > and the M28/3.5. > > The DA faired much better this time, nearly the equal of the 28. > > Maybe it just doesn't like shingles? > > > > This is a large page so it will take a bit of time to load. > > http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/28vsDA/Da_28.htm > > Interesting, were the images unmodified in camera jpgs? > > How easy would it be to make a crop from the very left edge of the frame > showing the detail on the car-park/overhead conveyor? Are you > using PS actions > to generate the test crops/enlargements? > > The reason I tend to be more critical of WA lenses is that I tend > to use them > where the entire frame is important, my images tend to be far more centre > centric when shooting longer lenses. There seems to be far more > variation in WA > lenses particularly at the edges than in medium to tele lenses > particularly WRT > CA and edge sharpness so I'm always interested to see how lenses > compare in > this respect, thanks for putting the effort in. > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
