"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".

I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

That image isn't over sharpened - it's strictly a result of the flash
light wandering all over the place.

One thing to keep in mind, is that professional photographers,
including outdoors/nature/action types, very rarely use an undiffused
flash.

This is a flash difusser.

http://tinyurl.com/2yhj8u

The other piece of gear that will help you "learn" and give almost
instant results is the use of neutral density filters.

http://tinyurl.com/ytrzw2


Why ND filters?

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".
I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.

Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.

Most of the time, you can't tell if an image has been sharpened or
not. A lot of digital images have been "sharpened" if only because
the camera shot in RAW and post processed. A a lot of new digital
photographers make their mistake, is in believing that sharpening
fixes focus issues. That's not true.

The technical definition of sharpness is less than transparent.
Sharpness is determined by two factors: resolution and acutance.

Resolution is sharpness - as in resolving fine detail - as measured in
line pairs per millimeter LP/mm. The more LP/mm that a lens can
resolve, the greater the resolution of the lens resulting in varying
levels of detail. Resolution is determined by the camera and lens.

What we are really talking about is acutance - the contrast of
adjacent pixels. The eye/brain interface interpret light pixels lying
next to dark pixels as an edge. The quicker the transition the
sharper edges. So if it is a rapid decrease, it's sharp. A not rapid
decrease, it's fuzzy.

Sharpness has nothing to do with resolution or detail. It has
everything to do with contrast along edges. So in reality, sharpening
has to do with acuteness and not with resolution.

With John's image, he had the masking filter on - whcih is fine, but
that's what caused a lot of the problems with the flash - as you can
see in the image of his Grandson. Shooting in RAW takes out the
masking filter which increases acuteness - I guarantee that image
would have been much better if shot in RAW and processed out to .jpg.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:00:07 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.

Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

You are absolutely correct. Since you told me in such a forceful
manner, I will.

Doug is wrong on this. See my reply to him about it.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".
I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to
be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a
tendency
to over sharpen them.

Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.

Most of the time, you can't tell if an image has been sharpened or
not. A lot of digital images have been "sharpened" if only because
the camera shot in RAW and post processed. A a lot of new digital
photographers make their mistake, is in believing that sharpening
fixes focus issues. That's not true.

The technical definition of sharpness is less than transparent.
Sharpness is determined by two factors: resolution and acutance.

Resolution is sharpness - as in resolving fine detail - as measured in
line pairs per millimeter LP/mm. The more LP/mm that a lens can
resolve, the greater the resolution of the lens resulting in varying
levels of detail. Resolution is determined by the camera and lens.

What we are really talking about is acutance - the contrast of
adjacent pixels. The eye/brain interface interpret light pixels lying
next to dark pixels as an edge. The quicker the transition the
sharper edges. So if it is a rapid decrease, it's sharp. A not rapid
decrease, it's fuzzy.

Sharpness has nothing to do with resolution or detail. It has
everything to do with contrast along edges. So in reality, sharpening
has to do with acuteness and not with resolution.

With John's image, he had the masking filter on - whcih is fine, but
that's what caused a lot of the problems with the flash - as you can
see in the image of his Grandson. Shooting in RAW takes out the
masking filter which increases acuteness - I guarantee that image
would have been much better if shot in RAW and processed out to .jpg.


Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using software
in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely
objectionable.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.

Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky
a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but
most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands
of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it
will be.

Hmmmm...

Just for giggles, is this image Photoshopped?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...Abstract01.jpg

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:29:56 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the
shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the
darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad
eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus
camera until he was much older than you.

I disagree with that approach.

In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the
camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take.

Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you
start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto
features base settings.

You have to have a feel for it first.

Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when
he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he
has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go.

I agree. I've done my 35mm time. I've done my darkrooom time. And now I
want to play with my toy. I'm the first to admit, however, that I have a
lot to learn about my new toy. It is much different from the Canon FTQL
with which I grew up.

So, patience is the key. Today I am going to experiment with NEF (RAW) +
JPEG Fine, and see if I can tell a difference. Supposedly, this camera will
store the picture in *both* formats at the same time. That should be
interesting.

There is not a lot of difference between the old film days and
digital.

What happens in a lot of cases, is that people don't realize that the
camera does a lot of post processing unless you shoot in RAW which is
basically the uncompressed, unedited raw data.

Terminology difference? Yes. Practical difference? No.

It's just learning a new language.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote:

I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good
flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are
some combo units that do the job.

Digital cameras can be used as a light meter using the AEL feature
which they all have.

AEL is Auto Exposure - Light and you can use it exactly like a light
meter and in almost the same fashion.

I've tested my Oly's and my Hasselblad against my Sekonic L-558R and
the cameras agree 90% of the time. The other ten percent, it's minor
variations.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:09:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But,
since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few
test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results
right away.

Unfortunately, it's not a good guage of what the image is.

Most LCD displays are too small to give you even a remote idea of what
the image is going to look like once it's pulled out of the camera.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!

What?

No way.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:47:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using software
in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely
objectionable.

Couldn't agree with you more.

The camera sharpens and due to not completely understanding what
sharpness does, folks sharpen more.

RAW baby, it's the only way to go. :)