Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview?

I'm curious about the images dpreview put up as examples. Their quality
seems to be a lot better than you get from any of the cameras they "test".
I've yet to see a Canon generated image that doesn't need sharpening to
make it look sharp yet all dpreview's images are very sharp.

I'm curious too about the shadow vs brightness detail or dynamic range. The
only thing in common thier D60 examples have with my wife's D60 is the over
saturation of colour most Nikon CCD cameras produce.

I'd really like to know how likely their workflow. They don't seem to make
any note of it.

 

I know that it would be terrific to think that there's a conspiracy
theory at DPReview...
But, did you ever consider the possibility that the problem is you?

 

What problem?
If DPreview edit there images, they are hardly indicative of what a
purchaser of a camera might expect to obtain if they take photos and
then plug their cameras into a kiosk for prints.

The very least dpreview could do is explain that their images are not
from the camera but the computer of a very experienced photo editor.
This itself would provide credibility to their reviews.

The whole concept of a review is for people to make a judgement based
on what the reviewer has to say and show as results from the camera.
There should not be thousands of dollars worth of computers and
software between what the camera produces and what DPreview display as
examples from those cameras.

It would be nice for a change to be able to ask a simple question here
without the chipmunks chiming in with their rendition RTFM.

 

Many DSLRs come with a variety of modes of jpeg production each of
which often has a variety of adjustments the user can make to them,
two typical adjustments being the amount of sharpening and the amount
of colour saturation. Because they usually have a wider dynamic range
in their images than a P&S camera they usually produce softer lower
contrast images because that preserves more adjustability in the
image. It's a trivial matter to change the adjustable parameters to
produce the typically punchier images a P&S camera produces.

It's also a trivial matter to make the same changes in an image editor
in a computer. You don't need thousands of pounds worth of software or
great expertise. These are very simple adjustments which can very
easily be made with widely available free software. In some cases
these editors are provided with a single keypress which can produce
the standard punchy P&S look.

The images which Dpreview uses in its DSLR resolution tests of cameras
(rather than lenses) are produced by using standard lenses of very
high quality because they want to find out what the camera is
ultimately capable of, not all it can manage to do when hobbled with
one or another cheap lens. They specify these lenses in the
test. These lenses will produce much sharper images than the cheap kit
zoom lens often sold as a package deal with a DSLR.

The whole point of a DSLR is that it has a much greater range of
adaptability and adjustment than a P&S camera, because quite apart
from being able to change lenses, you can change its operating
parameters, its jpeg compression parameters, and so on, over a much
wider range than is possible with a P&S camera.

If you want the sharpest punchiest images just by pressing the shutter
button straight out of the box without reading the manual and
adjusting anything then quite apart from the considerable extra cost
the results from many DSLRs will disappoint.

 

The usually explain what settings they use to get the pictures. They
also make sure that the image is focussed and they use a good-quality
tripod.

You'd be surprised at how much difference doing that can make.

Oh? Did you do a ccontrolled test? Or is this purely subjective?

 

(Ray Fischer) wrote in

I guess, I'd guess.

I was actually hoping for some definitave information. It looks like no one
knows or if they do are not saying.

 

It's plain to anyone who has used the lower end Nikons at all. I've
used the D40, 50, 60 and they are all like that. What's a low-end
Nikon without "Velvia" green?

 

So how come the DPreview test shots are so subdued in comparison?

 

Good question.

 

It a conspiracy!!!!!! The get millions of dollars per test from
Canon.

 

Thanks for a well thought out response. I am sorry to say it
will be ignored or rejected by so many who prefer a conspiracy theory
over real life.

 

The settings of your web browser would be my guess.

 

wrote in

I wasn't looking for conjecture. I am looking for facts.
My wife's camera cost a few hundred bucks but the lenses she used are from
my D3 wedding studio cameras and cost many times more than the her camera.

I also have a 40D Canon with some "L" glass and equally good Sigma glass.

My question was not about how I can get pictures of the quality DPreview
display. I'm a working Professional and I regularly do but I use a workflow
consisting of a couple of thousand dollars worth of software and a Pro
grade monitor costing an arm and a leg too. (Samsung XL20)

What I'm trying to discover is why stock standard Canon and Nikon cameras
using the best glass available, canot produce the picture quality DPreview
claim to be representative examples of the cameras they test straight out
of the camera.

Having said that, I can't help wonder if it is deceptive to show an array
of photos that have been processed to a relatively high and consistant
standard of colour/contrast/shadow detail/gama levels and not tell would-be
buyers that they will need to use software enhancement to get the same
results?

No conspiricy, no conjecture, just a relevant question that needs to be
answered if DPreview are to retain credibility in the market place.

 

Give an example. What do you see that you can't emulate? I see things
differently with dpreview, I often wonder how such crap images got to
used to represent a new camera. Some of it's ok, much of it is pathetic
considering they always use top quality lenses. They seem incapable of
managing DOF, it always is exaggerated to the extent that the image is
something the average non-photographer would discard. I know that if I
handed over a portrait with only one third of the subject's face in
focus that I probably wouldn't get paid. The dpreviewers wouldn't know
bokeh from a hole in the ground.

 

I don't see anything I can't emulate Peter. I see examples that the
cameras in question simply cannot produce. Those examples are products
of post shoot manipulation, not representitive examples of what a buyer
of one of those cameras can expect to obtain if they plug their camera
into a kiosk and make prints... 70% of digital camera owners do this.

As for the photographic quality... As far as I know, no one at DPreview
is a professional photographer so I class their examples as happy
snaps... Ones looking way too good for the description.

As for portraits...
My mentor way back in 1962 told me that the eye is the point of focus.
All else can benefit from not being in focus. It helps hide skin
blemishes. Any aperture wider than F5.8 - 100mm FL or longer (MF camera)
is going to produce a side on portrait with some of it out of focus.
Focus on the close eye for clear skin and the far eye for marked skin...
It still hold true today.

 

They use tripods and make sure that the subject is correctly focused.

 

I'd be very interested in their reply Gerald. I asked the same question
earlier this year and got a reply extolling the virtues of presenting
images they processed to a standard they had developed after years of
testing.

I partly agree that to keep faith with camera makers they cannot be seen to
rubbish any products beyond touching on the good, bad and maybe ugly. The
real truth about all sorts of publishers is they don't produce a "review"
for their readers but to attract advertisers and they most certainly (as
has recently been shown in France when Canon withdrew all their advertising
from a major magazine) cannot afford to dump on a camera when they get
significant funding and pre-release information from a maker.

All that considered, they still have a duty of care not to present any
camera as producing images that are mostly a work of post processing
instead of the camera.

 

I'm curious as to why you say "CMOS". Is this not a generic problem
that equally afflicts CCD sensors?

 

I'm sure they do, but aren't you talking about DSLRs? Do 70% of DSLR
owners just plug their camera into a kiosk and make prints? If they
do, why on earth did they buy a DSLR? A DSLR is a highly adjustable
machine which is designed to offer the user a great deal of latitude
in photographic conditions and processing options both in-camera and
in-computer. I'd be surprised if for any particular DSLR with kit lens
there didn't exist at least a few expensive (but still significantly
cheaper than the DSLR) P&S cameras which would offer distinctly better
image quality straight out of the box on default settings and plugged
into a kiosk printer.

For example, most kiosk printing folk like images with high
sharpening, vivid colour, and high contrast, so P&S cameras tend to
have default settings which produce that. But the internal camera JPEG
processing which produces that kind of image loses some of the
adjustability which a DSLR offers, e.g. some fine high resolution
detail is obscured by sharpening artefacts, and the high contrast and
vivid colours lose dynamic range and colour adjustability. So the
default settings for an out-of-camera DSLR JPEG tend to be softer and
less vivid precisely because that preserves more of the image
adjustability that the DSLR type of camera is aimed at producing.

Why would someone who wants to make prints by plugging into a kiosk
buy a DSLR in the first place? It's more difficult to use, more
expensive, bigger and heavier, and is unlikely to produce the best
kiosk print quality on default settings straight out of the camera.

You mention using thousands of dollars worth of software and a very
expensive high quality monitor to do your own image editing. I'm sure
you're aware that you can do very effective DSLR image processing
using completely free image editors and standard monitors. Not as good
as your expensive stuff, but more than good enough to get better
images out of a DSLR than you could from a P&S. You don't need
sophisticated image editing skills either. Most of the free image
editing software these days comes with simple automatic one-button or
one-slider options which will produce the kind of vivid sharp snappy
images the P&S kiosk printing camera user expects.

But the question remains why such a user would buy a DSLR in the first
place. It's a bit like someone buying a sports car and then
complaining about the difficulty of packing the children and a week's
shopping into it.

I'd be interested to see some examples of these very good DPreview
images compared to the best you can get straight out of the
camera. It's true I haven't a got a Nikon or a Canon, only lowly Sony
cameras, but given the appropriate settings of in-camera JPEG
processing I haven't found any difficulty in producing images straight
out of camera of the quality shown in DPreview's reviews of my
cameras, which are close to the quality of the comparable Nikon and
Canon DSLR images that DPreview ranks beside their Sony camera images
in their comparative reviews.

Are you suggesting there is some very special sophisticated tarting up
going on behind the scenes when they produce images from Canon and
Nikon DSLRs?

 

Rubbish. In most cases a *competent* photographer could equal their DSLR
results with an upper range point & shoot. No PP needed.

You don't really have anywhere near as much practical experience as you
pretend to, do you?

I asked you for specific examples, you declined to provide them. You are
just blowing wind aren't you? I have yet to be impressed by a dpreview
sample, manipulated or not.

What an idiotic thing to utter. They make their living with a camera,
that makes them professional. It doesn't make them exceptional or even
good, but it does make them professional.

Your mentor?

Well, I've got news for you grasshopper, when someone who is panting and
furiously manipulating their penis with one hand tells you something,
chances are is just another wanker doing what they do best.

Nonetheless, it is remarkably obvious that you learned some things from
him. A shame that they weren't photography related.

Have you ever considered saving up for a photography course? This is
2008, not 1898.

I can see why you aren't paying taxes. You have to earn before you owe
tax. Before you can earn, you really need to learn.

Peter