The only situation where things look bad

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, May 19, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    As far as I can see, the only time I've seen digital
    images where things look "bad" is where you shoot
    things like tree limbs against a bright sky background.
    The lack of resolution (if they are far enough away)
    mixed with (?) seems to render them really ugly, messy,
    if you will. In fact, this is where digital seems to
    fall down when it is compared to film, at the point where
    resolution cannot match the details you are imaging.
    The only solution seems to be to print images such that
    the smallest thing you see is clearly resolved and the
    "mess" is below the level of the printer to print.
    For example;

    This is a crop of a 100% 8 meg image, if printed would
    be 45" x 34." What is visible is on the edge of resolution.
    That, coupled with what I think is residual chromatic aberration
    has rendered the details "ugly." But, if you reduce the image
    size to the point where the branches are just resolved, the image
    looks good. From what I can tell, that would be at approximately 16"
    x 12." I think were the weakness of digital comes in is in the
    interaction of the sky background with the smallest tree branches.
    A sort of "bleeding" takes place that makes them poorly resolved.
    This kind of image degradation you do not see with (for instance)
    macro shots.
    RichA, May 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Hannah Guest

    So? And? Your point?
    Hannah, May 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Ed Ruf Guest

    .....snip and what does this have to do with dslrs? The Olympus C-8080WZ is
    not one.
    Ed Ruf, May 19, 2005
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The problem effects them as well, especially since the 8080 lens
    has higher resolution than most DSLR kit lenses and it's
    sensor is 8 meg.
    RichA, May 20, 2005
  5. RichA

    Chrlz Guest

    For example;
    Yes, that's a highly realistic size for enlargement from an 8Mp image
    and going up close to check out the detail...... Sheesh.

    The example actually shows very good performance under those conditions
    - the 8080WZ is one of the best lens/sensor combinations for
    controlling the 'purple fringe' issue (that's why I bought one..!).
    See reviews all over the web to back that up. And you WOULD see the
    same problem in macro shots, if they had very strongly lit backgrounds
    and very thin dark detail in silhouette. But macro shots, just like
    portraits, very rarely look like that. Funny, isn't it...

    Lastly, it is, as pointed out by Ed, not a DSLR, and this is not a big
    deal with dslrs. But it's one more post for your statistics - Yaaay!!
    Chrlz, May 20, 2005
  6. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    RichA wrote:

    Which is why looking at 100% crops to determine "image quality" is silly at
    best, unless you are an engineer rather than a photographer.

    Unless of course you plan on making prints that large from an 8MP dSLR which
    IMHO isn't being realistic, you need at LEAST 6X7 medium format to go that
    large and really need a 4X5 LF camera.
    Stacey, May 20, 2005
  7. RichA

    Frederick Guest

    One of the negatives from a c8080WZ review:
    "Tough competition from D-SLRs; spend just a little more, get a much
    better camera (esp. in terms of photo quality)"
    Of course they might be terribly wrong, and you might be incredibly right.
    Frederick, May 20, 2005
  8. Gee Stacey, I didn't know you felt that way.
    Ben Rosengart, May 20, 2005
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    But then now that Olympus is burning off the old lines, you can
    buy it for around $525.00.
    RichA, May 20, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.