Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?  (Read 36974 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #140 on: March 05, 2014, 11:52:43 AM »

Paul,

Thanks for your effort. Synn has also posted an improved image, I will check out as soon I can.

Synn says the P45+ image can take more sharpening before it breaks up, could explain some things.

I need to repeat the printing experiment to find out the differences show in small prints (like A2), I have little doubts the difference is significant at larger sizes.

Best regards
Erik




Eric:

I downloaded one of the P45+ dng files and looked at it Lightroom 5.3.  The dng had your original settings and all I did was decrease the detail slider (I believe you had it on 100%) and backed it off to around 50% and then added a bit more from the sharpening slider.  I exported the image at 300dpi, which is what I do for everything I work with.  (I will print from either PS or LR and most times will select 180 or 240 for the print output),  On the P45+ image I would have picked 240 if I was going to make a print.

After export, I used Focus Magic to give the image a bit more sharpening to my like.  I prefer this method and get very good results when printed with either my 9900 or 7800 Epson.  I did not upgrez this image to anything larger than what the default image was at 300 dpi. 

Net, your P45+ image looks great, the areas that were in the focus plane of the camera/lens are very very sharp.  The growth rings on the cut tree to the left and the lichens on the center rocks all look very good.  The overall image looks very good to me nice shadow detail and no noise to speak of.   With the Hassi Zeiss lenses you are getting some great fine details.  The other thing that caught my eye was the small ferns towards to the top, even though these were a bit past the focus point, they still resolved very well also, with detail extending into the individual fern fronds.  Also the out of focus areas have an excellent transition, note the pine tree trunk on the right of the image. No smearing or increase in noise artifact, which I tended to get with my Mamiya 35mm AF or 28mm AF and the P45+

I attached a crop below from the center. 

Paul C


paul ross jones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #141 on: March 05, 2014, 01:42:44 PM »

Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/

I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.

paul

Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 850
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #142 on: March 05, 2014, 02:18:52 PM »

Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/

I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.

paul



Awesome work! And you are right about shallow DOF. I can get shallower DoF with my 5D3 and 50 1.2L than with My Hasselblad H and 80mm f2.8 Lens. No question about it.

But I can dial down my strobes (w/ a soft box) down to about f2.8 max no problem at 4 feet without having to use ND and with the leaf shutter I can control daylight easier (again without having to use ND) so when using mixed light MF digital is more convenient for me. Obviously with ND filters one can make the 35mm camera work in similar situations.

What matters most to me is the way the OOF areas are rendered (Bokeh) when using a particular lens. That varies a lot. I love the look of cinema lenses in that regard, specially the Cooke S4/S5's and of course the Arri Master Primes. But all those are cost prohibitive for me even to rent. And being PL mount they require adapted bodies.


Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #143 on: March 05, 2014, 02:47:56 PM »

Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/

3 (the man showing the leather) and 12, 13, 14 (the middle age scenes)? But I am not sure about 23 (city) and 27 (car circuit) either.


Quote
I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.


Indeed. The shallowest depth of field can be had on 24x36 camera, because of the very fast lenses unique to this format.

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #144 on: March 05, 2014, 03:01:53 PM »

Hi,

I also like the images a lot.

Aside from bokeh, do you have an idea if there is a visible difference between MFD and high end DSLR in print sizes up to A2/17"?

Best regards
Erik

Awesome work! And you are right about shallow DOF. I can get shallower DoF with my 5D3 and 50 1.2L than with My Hasselblad H and 80mm f2.8 Lens. No question about it.

But I can dial down my strobes (w/ a soft box) down to about f2.8 max no problem at 4 feet without having to use ND and with the leaf shutter I can control daylight easier (again without having to use ND) so when using mixed light MF digital is more convenient for me. Obviously with ND filters one can make the 35mm camera work in similar situations.

What matters most to me is the way the OOF areas are rendered (Bokeh) when using a particular lens. That varies a lot. I love the look of cinema lenses in that regard, specially the Cooke S4/S5's and of course the Arri Master Primes. But all those are cost prohibitive for me even to rent. And being PL mount they require adapted bodies.



« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:12:03 PM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #145 on: March 05, 2014, 03:31:39 PM »

Update: Raw images posted here (as DNG): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/

I have been playing with the files as well. I agree that they may need a bit of sharpening, but I think that the problem lies somewhere else.

I think that the problem is the light. This is taken in a forest. The light in forests has a strong green cast. It has been my experience that MF cameras do not react positively to bad light. The effects are unpredictable and can include decreased sharpness. Here, the image does not look real, even when sharpened: the structure of wood, dead leaves and the granite stone look plasticy for example.

May I suggest that we try a different subject, taken under a more standard daylight?

Edit:
I suggest something more simple like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/12955758833/sizes/o/ (warning: large image!). That picture is not very interesting, but the plants (nettles) on the front appear real to me and you probably can find nettles where you live for comparison. This is about the default treatment from Phocus, with a tiny bit of sharpening added.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 03:48:26 PM by jerome_m »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #146 on: March 05, 2014, 03:57:20 PM »

Hi,

I may agree. Synn has posted an image, I still have to "swallow it". For me the subject was very low tone, but very, very saturated green with very little yellow. I am still looking at it, I don't know. In a way I feel that I don't want to sharpen over the edge. Where goes the line between under-sharpened and over-shapened?!

I don't really shoot test shots outdoors. What I do is essentially is to shoot for my pleasure. Some times, like here,  I shoot with both cameras. Comparison stuff, that is something I shoot home.

You also asked about keeper/to shot rate. The way it is, I shoot differently with MF and DSLR. For instance I do some "street shooting" with the DSLR, and many of the images I like best are "street shoots" with the DSLR.

I looked at the "keepers" from July 2013. It was a wide mix of all cameras I have from RX 100 to P45. End of this year I will know more.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. What I find missing right now is long exposures, not very long but say in 1" to 60".  Thinking about building a long exposure box. Two buttons, expose with and without delay and a wheel for exposure time. A solid metal box, permanently mounted to the camera. ;-)





I have been playing with the files as well. I agree that they may need a bit of sharpening, but I think that the problem lies somewhere else.

I think that the problem is the light. This is taken in a forest. The light in forests has a strong green cast. It has been my experience that MF cameras do not react positively to bad light. The effects are unpredictable and can include decreased sharpness. Here, the image does not look real, even when sharpened: the structure of wood, dead leaves and the granite stone look plasticy for example.

May I suggest that we try a different subject, taken under a more standard daylight?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 04:07:02 PM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #147 on: March 05, 2014, 03:59:20 PM »




MF can sometime have a painterly look to it all its own.  I dodn't have a DB, but i have a couple of 40mp 645D's. Here is a comparison of sample photos taken with the Leica 35mm Film Camera - Kodak Easy Share 6mp PS -Epson RD1 6mp Rangefinder - Olympus PEN E-PM1 - Sony RX-100 20.2mp - Fuji X100 12mp - Fuji X-E1 16mp - Leica M240 24mp - Leica Monochrom 18mp - Pentax 645D 40mp

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

(First section is SFW. Second section has some NSFW images.)

« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 04:01:24 PM by iluvmycam »
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 850
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #148 on: March 05, 2014, 04:11:55 PM »

Hi,

I also like the images a lot.

Aside from bokeh, do you have an idea if there is a visible difference between MFD and high end DSLR in print sizes up to A2/17"?

Best regards
Erik


Again, If I compare almost every wide angle landscape scene that I have made with the Rodenstock 40mm HR and the IQ160 back to the best I have ever done with the Canon 5D3 the Answer is yes. Without a doubt if I look closely at the print. The larger the print the less close I have to be to tell the difference. Anything less than absolutely flawless technique and the best lenses on the DSLR and forget about it. My MFD rig blows it away even if I am not totally perfect using it. Also the MFD file prints are quite "crisp" even with zero sharpening. The DSLR files usually require careful sharpening. But a big difference that I constantly see in favor of the MFD files is the color gradations in skies. DSLR files break up very easily in post processing in that area.

Obviously, with amazing post processing a talented post person can make almost any file look awesome. But they can't make up detail that is not there in the original file unless they actually paint the stuff in.

It is my experience that to see a significant difference in resolution between two cameras, given equally good lenses and technique, you need to just about double the megapixel count. That is just my rule of thumb from using a bunch of digital cameras over the years. Nothing scientific.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #149 on: March 05, 2014, 04:13:00 PM »

I may agree. Synn has posted an image, I still have to "swallow it". For me the subject was very low tone, but very, very saturated green with very little yellow. I am still looking at it, I don't know. In a way I feel that I don't want to sharpen over the edge. Where goes the line between under-sharpened and over-shapened?!

Neither what you have done nor what Synn has done appears natural to me. Synn's result is more pleasing but looks artificial. It would make a nice print, though.

But we are not trying to print here, but to find out whether your camera and lenses work correctly. For that, I suggest trying a more standard subject.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2014, 04:14:55 PM »

It is my experience that to see a significant difference in resolution between two cameras, given equally good lenses and technique, you need to just about double the megapixel count. That is just my rule of thumb from using a bunch of digital cameras over the years. Nothing scientific.

This is my experience as well: double the count.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2014, 04:33:14 PM »

Hi,

The thread is actually about making a decently small print, like A2.

Paul and Synn seems to feel camera, lens and focusing is OK. Paul suggests slightly different sharpening. Both Synn and Paul suggest FocusMagick. I may feel I prefer less sharpening. I do have FocusMagick since a couple of years, but I feel it may go over the edge. Quite possible that less sharpening in LR5/CR/C1 and FocusMagick is better, but I prefer a parametric workflow and I prefer it very strongly.Ideological stuff, sanity not involved!

Best regards
Erik

Neither what you have done nor what Synn has done appears natural to me. Synn's result is more pleasing but looks artificial. It would make a nice print, though.

But we are not trying to print here, but to find out whether your camera and lenses work correctly. For that, I suggest trying a more standard subject.

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2014, 05:55:35 PM »

The point of posting sharpened and non sharpened versions was to show that there's a lot more that can be done with erik's files than his conversions have shown so far. The point is also that when processed properly, prints from 39MP MFD files do look better than with a 24MP DSLR. Sharpness is only one part of the equation and this can be done to taste.

so is WB for that matter. Yellow grass or green, the points still stand.

Erik, all I hope to achieve with that demo is to make you open your eyes a bit and realize that MFD is capable of delivering much better results than what you have managed to get out of the files so far. Perhaps this will make you stop generalizing every possible scenario for comparing MFD and 35mm based on your suboptimal workflow. What I fail to understand is that you are interested in objective analysis, but when shown a better workflow, you stick to personal preferences that most certainly adds bias and user error to the equation. It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.

I do agree with Jerome though, the lighting in the scene is suboptimal. The solution is not to shoot a test chart, but just to shoot real life scenes in better light. It helps one develop as a photographer too.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 08:29:08 PM by synn »
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
    • some work
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2014, 09:53:29 PM »

+1
Logged
Geoff

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 981
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2014, 10:18:17 PM »

It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.

+1.  At the end of day everybody should shoot what makes him happy and what inspires him and if that's a Sony then that is a Sony.

Why all these posts that don't prove anything?  Sell the damned thing, make a trip with the $15K, take pictures with your Sony and be happy!!!
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:57:22 PM by JV »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #155 on: March 06, 2014, 01:07:24 AM »

Hi,

There are two bits to it. One is that we may have different preferences on sharpening. I felt that yours is a bit over the edge. I have tested both your sharpening and Paul's. I am quite happy with Paul's settings in LR, but sharpening image in FM may go over the edge. FM can choose different settings, of course.

It's good to have found out that the deficiency Eric, Synn and Jerome and some others have found seems to be lack of sharpening. I can look more into that, a good learning experience.

The other point is that any improved sharpening I can also apply to the DSLR image, so the difference will still be small. I actually tested using Capture One this time but didn't go to print, as colour from the two cameras was much different in C1. In LR both cameras gave essentially identical colour, with the same WB. I guess it is due to my DCP profile for the P45+.

I would also make a point on "MP" both Ken R and Jerome makes the point that about twice the resolution is needed for a significant difference in print. It happened in this case as the DSLR was cropped down to 20MP and the P45+ image was stitched from two images and was 40 MP after cropping. The subject didn't fit within the FOV of the 120 lens and I could not move back.

Jerome and Synn say that bad light doesn't work well with MF. This was heavy overcast with very lush greens. I don't really like the idea of a camera that doesn't work in the forrest under overcast conditions. That is stuff I like to shoot! Jerome and Synn perhaps suggest acceptable light is light overcast with some hazed sunlight?

As I also said several times the prints are very similar when viewed with the naked eye, but a 5.5x loupe shows a very significant advantage for the P45+. So the differences are carried over to the print.

Eyesight is involved of course. Young eyes may see a difference although elderly may not. I have tested with a somewhat younger friend experienced in the area. I guess that you need experienced observers, as the DoF in the MF image is quite thin, making most parts of the image being sharper.

A bit of a side note, someone mentioned that a technical camera with the best wide angles doesn't need sharpening. I have seen that in Doug Peterson's library images. Those images were very sharp even without sharpening. Combination of very sharp lens and no OLP filtering. Really Right Stuff.

I absolutely agree with JV-s point. Shooting opportunities like travel are probably a better spending than a MFD equipment if printed reasonably small.

This is what I found.

I guess it's time for me to end this thread. I will not lock it, comments are welcome. But I feel the issue has been explored to enough depth.

Best regards
Erik

The point of posting sharpened and non sharpened versions was to show that there's a lot more that can be done with erik's files than his conversions have shown so far. The point is also that when processed properly, prints from 39MP MFD files do look better than with a 24MP DSLR. Sharpness is only one part of the equation and this can be done to taste.

so is WB for that matter. Yellow grass or green, the points still stand.

Erik, all I hope to achieve with that demo is to make you open your eyes a bit and realize that MFD is capable of delivering much better results than what you have managed to get out of the files so far. Perhaps this will make you stop generalizing every possible scenario for comparing MFD and 35mm based on your suboptimal workflow. What I fail to understand is that you are interested in objective analysis, but when shown a better workflow, you stick to personal preferences that most certainly adds bias and user error to the equation. It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.

I do agree with Jerome though, the lighting in the scene is suboptimal. The solution is not to shoot a test chart, but just to shoot real life scenes in better light. It helps one develop as a photographer too.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 01:39:37 AM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #156 on: March 06, 2014, 01:27:41 AM »


The other point is that any improved sharpening I can also apply to the DSLR image, so the difference will still be small.


You're still not reading what I am saying. The problem is not the sharpening. You can apply as much or as little as you want (Which is why I posted sharpened and unsharpened versions for your reference). Why are you talking as if the unsharpened version doesn't exist?

The problem is that your MFD workflow is flawed right from the start. You're using an inferior RAW processor, you're applying all the wrong settings in it and you're getting dud output. Which is not a problem by itself, but then you extrapolate that in every single thread saying that this is the best that can be achieved with MFD, ANY MFD by anyone; period. Which is just flat out wrong.


Jerome and Synn say that bad light doesn't work well with MF. This was heavy overcast with very lush greens. I don't really like the idea of a camera that doesn't work in the forrest under overcast conditions. That is stuff I like to shoot! Jerome and Synn perhaps suggest acceptable light is light overcast with some hazed sunlight?


This is also not what I said. I asked you to look for good light as a photographer to make pleasing images, which also happen to be good test images.

This isn't a forest, but it's a test scene I shot under overcast conditions and it happens to have quite a bit of greenery in it. I just processed it using a better workflow. (And please don't start the Kodak/ Dalsa thing again. Send me a Kodak sensor back and I will send back a  similarly processed file).



Cameras can be used under a variety of lighting conditions. MFD is no exception. It just so happens that no matter what camera you use, you get better results with better light. And understanding good light is an important part of being a photographer.


As I also said several times the prints are very similar when viewed with the naked eye

Again, prints made with your heavily flawed workflow. Why are you STILL not getting this? Doesn't matter how good the viewer's eyesight is; you're delivering a flawed product for him to view.


I guess it's time for me to end this thread. I will not lock it, comments are welcome. But I feel the issue has been explored to enough depth.

That's perfectly OK, but please don't start yet another thread comparing (for whatever reasons) images from two systems processed with flawed workflow that seriously negates the image quality advantage one has over the other. We can only point out these things to you so many times.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 01:29:17 AM by synn »
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #157 on: March 06, 2014, 01:57:03 AM »

Just to make some points clear:
-I do not prefer images with more sharpening. I find the sharper image here unnatural. I even posted a picture of mine with what I consider more natural sharpness.
-the picture is actually nice. The light on the moss is nice. This is actually an image that you could print and hang on a wall. I am not saying that the light is bad, I am saying that the light is not adapted if one wants to judge sharpness at the pixel level
-we still do not know whether your camera, lenses and software work properly. I would still appreciate a simple picture of natural subjects (grass, nettles, stones) taken in flat daylight similar to the one I posted as example.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #158 on: March 06, 2014, 02:09:29 AM »

Hi,

Thanks, your points make sense.

Best regards
Erik

Just to make some points clear:
-I do not prefer images with more sharpening. I find the sharper image here unnatural. I even posted a picture of mine with what I consider more natural sharpness.
-the picture is actually nice. The light on the moss is nice. This is actually an image that you could print and hang on a wall. I am not saying that the light is bad, I am saying that the light is not adapted if one wants to judge sharpness at the pixel level
-we still do not know whether your camera, lenses and software work properly. I would still appreciate a simple picture of natural subjects (grass, nettles, stones) taken in flat daylight similar to the one I posted as example.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5977
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #159 on: March 06, 2014, 03:21:45 AM »

-we still do not know whether your camera, lenses and software work properly. I would still appreciate a simple picture of natural subjects (grass, nettles, stones) taken in flat daylight similar to the one I posted as example.

Hi Jerome,

I agree with the first part of your comment. However, while good natural subject rendering is the goal, I do not think that natural objects are good for isolating the issues. I think a few test shots of a Star target will give a much less ambiguous basis for analysis of the root causes(es).

I had a look at the Raw files that Erik posted, and had a very hard job achieving a good(!) looking sharpening that also holds up on enlargement. Horrible sharpening is easy, but natural sharpening was much harder. The results seem to lack real sharpness, but with aliasing added as a sort of compromise. Sharpening tends to 'enhance' the aliasing and stairstepping artifacts more than real sharpness. It's unclear to me whether the exposure time (and perhaps camera vibrations) is a cause, or the lens is not up to the challenge, or something else is spoiling a good party, but when I compare the almost razor sharp results from my 1Ds3 with AA-filter with what I see from Erik's camera+back, I'm disappointed in what the DB produces.

I also get much better demosaicing results from the same file with Capture One Pro, compared to ACR, allowing much more sharpening (e.g. with FocusMagic, or Topaz Labs Detail) before the image falls apart. Sharpening of Non-AA-filtered images is more difficult, but such images usually also require less sharpening, unlike Erik's images.

Color rendering and tonality are something that can be adjusted quite well in Capture One, but we know that Erik prefers the LR workflow.

I'd suggest a more methodical, objective, and quantifiable, analysis to isolate the Root causes before shooting all sorts of wind-blown variable lighting natural subjects, but that's just how I'd approach it.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 15   Go Up