focal length, f stop, ss?
Has anyone else been playing with Helicon Focus?
D700 FX, tomorrow or next week?
Must be one of the most common rumors, what happened to the 5D update??? . Seems like Nikon's rumors beat Samsung's announcements to market faster than any or the former's vaporware SSD's.
...did you shot handheld or on tripod, and why ISO100, I would have done ISO200 and 1/400th, or manually focused on the tomato in the center front that seems out of focus, used F11 & 1/200-400, ISO400 for the multishot? Either way, wonder if the wind might have had anything to do with slight, very slight lack of sharpness overall with the 1/200th & 140mm FL? Which lens was it again?
Nikon D700 & one of their new TS-E lenses like the $1.7k 90mm would have taken a wicked sharp, max DOF image under same conditions., in just one image, done. Move on to the next image, and so on.
It is useful for some particular purposes, but I have been using PS for that since the 90s. Ideally the DOF of each frame should overlap. Major differences in focus distance will create artifacts from the difference in viewing angle/magnification and often look unnatural as well. Make sure to use a sturdy tripod.
Nikon D700 & one of their new TS-E lenses like the $1.7k 90mm would have taken a wicked sharp, max DOF image under same conditions., in just one image, done. Move on to the next image, and so on.
Did I miss something? When did a Tilt & Shift lens become the ultimate photographers tool?
The $3k D700 has been announced today!
The D700 pre-production preview on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/
Canon, where are thou 5D Mk II? The gauntlet has been thrown down by Nikon. You must awaken from your slumber to vanquish the beast!
I quite like that shot. Nice composition and light. Some technical critique might include exposure / contrast / sharpness. I would prefer maybe 1/2 of a stop less exposure, greater contrast, and more clarity / local contrast / sharpness.
The D700 joins the D3 as a fully-fledged 'professional' model; it has the same tank-like build quality (though we're sure the pop-up flash will cause a few raised eyebrows), and gets you the full pro service from Nikon. And the pricing (around $2999) reflects this; anyone hoping for an 'affordable' semi-pro full frame Nikon SLR will have to wait until the cost of producing such large sensors falls considerably.
Uhh... You can get the 5D for under $2k without a rebate. linkWith rebate you can get the 5D for <$2k, the rumored <$2k price on Sony's 24MP A900 should provide some healthy price competition, and that's at the heart of the equation.
It looks terrible (oversharpened / too much JPEG compression) on my screen here.No problem. I re-did it in Photoshop so it has better technical quality:
What lens did you use btw? The image looks a little blurry.
What lens did you use btw? The image looks a little blurry.
I have a better analogy. The picture looks aliased. Like it was resized using nearest neighbor instead of bicubic.Oversharpened? Yeah, I can see that. It partly depends on what viewing distance you use, but I admit that it is a little oversharpened. For a small image that's been downsized / downsampled quite a bit, it's difficult to retain detail and contrast. You need to sharpen it as much as you can without inducing too much artifacting. I went a little too far using a standard set of actions that probably isn't 100% appropriate for this image.
Downsampling a 12 MP JPEG does not make for a great image, but I tried to reconstruct the fine detail as best I could in the tiny 800 x 570 image. I don't know how much success you've had with downsampling landscape photos, but it's not easy to strike the right balance of sharpness vs artifacting, especially when you don't know the viewing distance that it will be viewed at.
Also, if you take an slightly blurry image devoid of fine detail, it looks a bit unnatural when you sharpen and have an imbalance of excessive medium and low frequency contrast without the corresponding high frequency detail. It looks a little pixelated and, well, oversharpened.
Eh... well, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I took great pains to avoid aliasing when downsampling from 4890 x 3456 to 800 x 670 (17 MP to 0.5 MP) (trust me, I have done extensive testing with many, many filters / interpolation algorithms for resizing to minimize aliasing and artifacts while maximizing resolution and contrast retention). What you're seeing is (1) a blurry source image, (2) a lot of the original pixel structure, resolution, and contrast being thrown out during the downsampling, and (3) excessive sharpening applied at the end to compensate. And the consequences are what I described in my previous post.
Better yet, try downsizing to 16% of the original image size and tell me how it looks
The download was <9MB? Is that what you meant?
IMO, the pic was worth the day. But, of course, the photograper is always wanting more.
1600x1200 is tricky to post in the forum, how about 640x480?