| Home | Community Forum | Photo Quiz | Espaņol
Learn Digital Photography with Geoff Lawrence eBook


'32 Ford Two-Window Coupe
Click on image to view larger image

honez



Registered: August 2008
Posts: 708
users gallery
I found this lurking in an old folder from a car show I went to back in May 2009. I didn't do much with it then because it had lots of people milling around in the background. My masking is a lot better these days, so I decided to do some post work and clean it up.
· Date: Thu August 26, 2010 · Views: 5224 · Tags: 1 · Filesize: 118.7kb, 546.4kb · Dimensions: 910 x 1000 ·
Keywords: Ford Coupe Hotrod
Show EXIF Info


kdlaz

Registered: February 2010
Posts: 452
Fri August 27, 2010 4:45am

Hi honez, I think that your efforts are worth. Nice shot!!!
Kev

Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
Thu September 2, 2010 1:22pm

I always dig your car shots...and maintain that you can probably sell quite a few images - IF you niche-market them accordingly. I'm sure that many owners would love high quality prints of their hot machines, plus large posters for the garage area, etc to show them off to visitors, etc.


I think you would require a FX level camera tho - so that high quality 24 x 30 size images could be made and still maintain optimal IQ etc.


Good stuff bro.
honez

Registered: August 2008
Posts: 708
Thu September 2, 2010 5:25pm

Funny you should say that Kev, I'm just about to ditch APS-C and go full frame.
geofflaw
Site Admin

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,451
Thu September 2, 2010 6:06pm

You're obviously making too much money. Let us know how you get on. I'll hate it if you really love the full frame 'cos that will make me want one as well. I'm hoping you spend all that money and say "Well to be honest, I can't really tell the difference."
Kev

Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
Fri September 3, 2010 11:16am

Geoff, I have a friend who has two Nikon D3X bodies (24mp) and there definitely is an IQ difference. One won't of course be able to properly appreciate it by viewing web-pics...on the net, but the FX certainly produces more detail in the shadow regions...and generally speaking (to me) has that extra punch-vibe...that only Medium Format offered...back in the days.


I think it's that same old gear thing....an FX setup won't make a great photo or composition...but when one does get all the ingredients spot on...then the higher IQ performance will simply create a better end result.


I also think it's especially important with detailed images...such as macro, etc...because the MTF transitional regions appear to have more definition and detail, etc.


Simply put...it just brings out more of what's there.


Is FX any sharper, crisper, etc? - no, with regard to this aspect I don't think it's any different at all. Except of course when enlarging images beyond say 16 x 24, etc.
honez

Registered: August 2008
Posts: 708
Fri September 3, 2010 11:46am

For me it's about noise and lens choice.
I love my 10-22 EF-S wide angle (16-35mm after the crop effect), but I'm regularly frustrated by the almost-but-not-quite-good-enough IQ it gives. When I do go full frame the first thing I'm getting is the 16-35mm L series lens.
Combine that with ISO 50 and the larger sensor and I'll be very happy.
I've had my grubby hands on that particular set up a couple of times and been blown away by the difference at 100%.
Web resolution doesn't do it justice, but printed and framed it's got the detail, crispness and clarity without looking artificially sharpened and manufactured.
I'm not saying that APS-C bodies and lenses aren't good, it's just I'm seeing and getting frustrated in some circumstances where they start to reach their limits.
geofflaw
Site Admin

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,451
Fri September 3, 2010 2:36pm

A wise old guy (a fellow of the Royal Photographic Society no less) once said to me "Photographers tend to smell pictures rather than look at them." By which he meant that we are obsessed with the detail, the grain (noise) the sharpness and clarity, the saturation and the contrast, the detail in the shadow areas, rather than standing back and looking at the picture itself. Of course we should produce the best quality pictures we can, but this shouldn't become an end in itself. We still need to take interesting pictures.


Back in the day, I went through the whole gamut of camera formats in the search for ultimate quality. I had a Hassleblad (Hasselblad?), a Mamiya 6x7cm camera and a Cambo 5x4 inch rail camera. I managed to stop before I got to 10x8 inch format, god knows what a sheet of film costs for one of those. The point is, when I look at my framed prints on the wall, I can't really tell which were taken with which camera. I can just about tell the 5x4 from the 35mm, but there is not enough difference for me to actually dislike the 35mm stuff and wish I had shot it on a larger format.


The other thing I take issue with is that it suddenly starts to matter when you produce larger print sizes. Yes it does if grain and detail is what you are looking at, rather than the content of the picture. If you can hold an A4 print in your hand and it looks OK, then a 24 sheet poster on a billboard will look OK from the other side of the street, which is where it is meant to be viewed from. The purpose of producing larger prints is so that the picture can be viewed from farther away.


As I said, been there, done that, got the bank loan. And I'm hoping to avoid doing it again. My god! I've almost written a blog post.
honez

Registered: August 2008
Posts: 708
Fri September 3, 2010 6:56pm

LOL. Something else to note here though Geoff, is the (apparent to me at least) increased Dynamic range of the full frame sensors. As you've probably noticed, dynamic range is something I'm particularly keen on in my subjects of choice, and the larger sensor has the potential to reduce and/or minimise post-processing and tonemapping to capture the dynamic range I'm after. Image stacking and HDR merging can add noise and reduce sharpness -- especially when using noise reduction filters to remove unwanted added tonemapped noise -- so a single, or at least minimised stack of images would help here.
I've certainly seen this in practise, so it's not a theoretical exercise.
The image above ('32 2 windows coupe) for example, was captured on my old 450D APS-C using a four image stack and processed in Photomatix. The amount of noise after tonemapping the 4 images resulted in a significant increase in noise which I minimised with Noiseninja, but required some sharpening to remove hard edge softening. All of the steps reduced the overall IQ. A full frame sensor would have captured the range I was after in less shots, probably two, immediately halving any added noise and post-processing cleanup. Being more careful and selective in the range I choose to capture, I could potentially get away with one shot.
Anyway, sorry to be prattling on. The long and short of it is the subject matter I favour is pretty well suited to full frame and it'll lessen my dependence on artificially extending the DR of my camera to get the effect I'm after.
That and my wife said okay.


At the risk of taking this further than a blog entry, here's a readable article on the differences between APS-C and full frame which gives some good arguments for both formats. http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm#dr
geofflaw
Site Admin

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,451
Fri September 3, 2010 8:44pm

Hmm, yes. I'll give you dynamic range. It's something I've noticed about DSLRs, they don't seem able to capture the same dynamic range as the old film cameras. Kev is always banging on about not taking pictures in full sunlight, and he's right, but I don't remember having the same trouble with my 35mm film camera, even with transparency stock.


What I have also noticed, with my Canon 7d, is that, not only can I take decent pictures at higher ISO settings, but those pictures seem to have a much more WSYWYG feel to them. In other words they are giving me the same contrast that I see with my eyes.


However, I thought that this effect was as a result of the increase in pixels, not the size of the sensor (which obviously hasn't changed). Now you're telling me that the bigger sensor also has a similar effect.


I have seen pictures from a 5d (not the Mark 2) and was certainly impressed with the depth of colour, not really saturation, but just a general extra oomph to the picture. I think that was definitely a result of the bigger sensor, more light gathering and, relatively, less space in between the 'pixels'.
Kev

Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
Fri September 3, 2010 10:41pm

Yes, DSLR dynamic range is not up to film level...I wrote about this in one of my blogs about 18 months ago. Digital sensors just don't seem to be able to capture as much info as analog....just in the same way that the musical digital realm can't quite produce that organic tube guitar tone. We just haven't perfected this medium - yet.


But I do agree with your comments Geoff...about being obsessed with things like noise/sharpness...and all the rest of it.


I still maintain that "composition" is king.


However, having stellar IQ also doesn't hurt Wink


I do think...that with Honez's car pics (as with my flower shots)...the best dynamic range is always desired...simply because those type of shots are detail orientated more than say, general landscapes, street-scenes, etc.


Any image that falls into the 'still-life' category...is usally put under more visual scrutiny than most other shots are.
geofflaw
Site Admin

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,451
Sat September 4, 2010 2:07am

Yes but the question is, are you taking pictures of flowers because you enjoy flowers, or are you using the flowers on your quest for the perfect technical picture?


Actually, I admire your flower shots very much, they are beautiful. But I also notice that you haven't taken many shots outside this summer. Wink
Kev

Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
Sat September 4, 2010 5:55am

Your observation is correct...I actually take far less pics during the summer months...than the rest of the year...which is probably the opposite to most people.


This is simply because I'm an avid outdoor/beach/cycling/running/active type personality...and during June thru Sept I simply want to enjoy being outside in the sun, etc....all the time.


This is OK/fine with me, coz I know that the remaining 2/3rds of the year will be more suited to my personal approach to photography and the flower pics, etc.


I enjoy the balance of a few different interests...IF I shot images every week of the year I'd probably become bored/stagnant...and all the rest of it.
geofflaw
Site Admin

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,451
Sat September 4, 2010 11:54am

As you know and as I have stated above, I am a great admirer of you work, I think that both you and Honez are pushing the envelope in your different ways and I am very proud to have both of you as regulars on this site. Over the years you have become the 'resident experts' of the gallery and the blog and I want you both to know that I really appreciate it, as I'm sure do all the people that you have helped and advised over the years.


I'm only playing devils advocate here in an effort to point out to people that photography is not necessarily all about buying a better camera. Part of the quest for better pictures is the pursuit of better gear, but I'm trying to point out that it is only part of the answer. People, unfortunately, get the impression that, if only they had a better camera, they would automatically take better pictures. We know that is not true but, to hear us talk sometimes, you would think we didn't. Many people have said to me over the years, and still do on a regular basis, "I'm going to get a camera like yours soon, then I'll take some good pictures too", as if I didn't have any skill at all and the camera did it all for me. This, of course, is what the camera manufacturers would like everyone to believe, so they actively promote this idea too.
geofflaw
Site Admin

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,451
Sat September 4, 2010 1:26pm

WTF is MTF?
Kev

Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
Sat September 4, 2010 2:09pm

"WTF is MTF?" Smile


http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html#MTFintro


Modulation Transfer Function.
(the spatial frequency response of an imaging system)
I touch on it briefly in my sharpness blog.


KEV
  Page:  1 · 2more

 
Users 1,344
Photos 6,629
Comments 11,047
Views 20,714,768
Disk Space 4,897.3mb

richingr 448
Kev 437
Beth 408
kbirdd 273
meltimtiman 154
honez 136
surajit 134
LollyLockhart 133
SouvikPalmal 132
adityaprasad16 118

Butter.jpg
Butter
adityaprasad16
12copyshprs.jpg
Lynda-Lou III
kbirdd
Sco.jpg
Constellation Scorpi
lxbear
Chacma_Baboon.JPG
Chacma Baboon
Ronel
Spider_4.jpg
Jus' lookin'
honez
· more ·



If your monitor is calibrated properly you should see sixteen distinct tones from white to black.

Photo Sharing Gallery by PhotoPost
Copyright © 2007 All Enthusiast, Inc.