645D vs 1DSmk3 vs D3X

[Schewe]

Adobe's workflow is only one of many...what you call Capture sharpening is a set of parameters applied to the preview in the raw converter (e.g. Lightroom). These will be provided by the software provider, sometimes after working/ testing with some files and sometimes as a "reasonable compromise"

What was described; capture, creative and output sharpening is not an "Adobe workflow" as you say but a sharpening workflow worked out as a multi-pass sharpening workflow by the late Bruce Fraser...yes, Adobe has adopted the sharpening workflow concept into Camera Raw and Lightroom, but it isn't an Adobe thingie...

C1 can do capture sharpening just fine and in the new C1 6, it can do output sharpening upon printing. The local creative sharpening is somewhat limited however. But for optimal final image quality, I seriously doubt any single sharpening workflow will be superior to a multi-pass sharpening workflow...oh, and it ain't a "reasonable compromise" as you call it but an optimal workflow for IQ. See Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow by Bruce Fraser.

[ErikKaffehr]

Bill,

I tried to attach the images but they simple didn't show up. Did it the way you suggested.

I will dig into the issue with differences in print, because I made some experiments earlier where I could see little difference in A2 prints between 12 MP APS-C and 24 MP full frame, although the full frame files were obviously much better. I think that processing pipeline really matters and so does processing.

I'll post my findings on my own web page. Guess it will take a couple of days.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
 
I agree that the Imatest results for the D3x are odd and likely related to processing of the JPEGs, probably sharpening. The Pentax resolution series had a raw file (DNG), but I was unable to locate a raw file for the Nikon D3x series so that I could do my own processing.

The new software has a number of frustrations. If you use the insert image icon on the toolbar, it merely inserts an image tag in the file for linking to an image on your own server. It is easier to use the attachment option at the bottom of the screen, as shown below. For anything including text or line graphics, it is best to use GIF or PNG. Unfortunately, the image does not appear in the preview and you have no control over the location of the attachment on the screen.  

Regards,

Bill

[eronald]

I just did a portrait by tungsten with the old 1Ds and old 85/1.2, to check. It gave me something I don't think I can reproduce with anything with a smaller sensor, and I don't think anything else at all. The only word I have is film-like. Like old 35mm film. I have other cameras, but this one is unique.

Edmund

Edmund, honestly the only cameras that the old 1ds can "get" a run for its money today, are: 12mp, 500 bucks APSc consumer DSLR.

Of course the pictures it can take are as good today are they were more than good enough back then.
IMO the 1ds was the first digital camera worth buying for replacing film on my work flow.

[yaya]

What was described; capture, creative and output sharpening is not an "Adobe workflow" as you say but a sharpening workflow worked out as a multi-pass sharpening workflow by the late Bruce Fraser...yes, Adobe has adopted the sharpening workflow concept into Camera Raw and Lightroom, but it isn't an Adobe thingie...

C1 can do capture sharpening just fine and in the new C1 6, it can do output sharpening upon printing. The local creative sharpening is somewhat limited however. But for optimal final image quality, I seriously doubt any single sharpening workflow will be superior to a multi-pass sharpening workflow...oh, and it ain't a "reasonable compromise" as you call it but an optimal workflow for IQ. See Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow by Bruce Fraser.

I don't think we are in disagreement here...we're just looking at it from different angles...

IMO there is no such thing as "optimal workflow for IQ"...it might be optimal for SOME applications. In today's commercial world, workflow wise, a lot of the "creative sharpening" is done by retouchers on an already processed image, meaning that "capture sharpening" is either done by the photographer or not and that "output sharpening" is either done by the retoucher or by someone else afterwards, yet it is still "optimal" and is based on multiple software solutions.

That's what I meant when I said that Adobe's workflow is only one of many. Also if the math involved in one workflow is better than the other and is based on less steps and still provides better final results then which one is the more "optimal"? I don't think there is one answer...