 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Canon EOS-350D
I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have the kit lens which came with the camera. I also have a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens. I have an uncle who has the EOS 20D. And I have a friend who has the Nikon D50. I have been struggling with getting the pictures I wanted out of the IS lens. I seemed to have learned what my mistakes were. Then my friend with the D50 sent me a picture. Man was it crisp. I started looking. If I right click my JPG in Windows I can view the properties. His camera has a vertical and horizontal resolution of 300dpi. My 350D and my uncles 20D both have a resolution of 72dpi. Just for a comparison I looked at my old 3.3 mp Fuji and found it was also 72dpi. Now, it becomes apparent to me that the megapixel is not really important, but the resolution is. I have read many reviews on the 350D, and looked at many sample pictures before I bought mine. When I look at my pictures, I guess the simplest way to put it is they look soft. The 20D has the same appearance to me, but the D50 seems to be VERY crisp in comparison. Can someone shed some light on this for me? I have tried shooting in all sorts of different camera settings and seem to come up with the same conclusion, a soft appearance. Any help would be appreciated. > I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have the > kit lens which came with the camera. I also have a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > resolution of 72dpi. Just for a comparison I looked at my old 3.3 mp Fuji and > found it was also 72dpi. Irrelvant. These are default "print resolutions" embedded in the information part of the file with the image that have nothing to do with image quality. To do a good job _before printing_ one does all editing at image "full size" where pixels are pixels and have no dimension (other than as presented on your monitor which is around 90 dpi). Typically, these days, print resolution is 300 dpi (though 150 is very acceptable, and some printers default to around 400). What COUNTS is the print size, and so you need to resample the image so that the print size and the print resolution match. eg: a 4x6 print at 300 dpi required the image to be edited to 1200 x 1800 pixels (4x300 and 6x300) and Un-sharp masked at that resoution for sharpness. The same image at 8x12, printed at 300 dpi, requires 2400 x 3600. Be sure to "upsample" from the original image and not the one reduced for printing at 4x6! And always Un-sharp-mask at each printed resolution. Un-sharp maksing is an art unto itself. Be patient. Typically I begin at 100%, 0.4, 2 (sharpening factor, pixels radius and threshold values) and usually I simply manipulate the pixel radius to get to shaprness. View the image at 100% zoom (on an area of in focus detail). If you over do it, "halo" lines will apprear along contasty edges ... you've gone to far, back off. I hope that helps. Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have the >> kit lens which came with the camera. I also have a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Cheers, >Alan. You know I gotta say, you are pretty sharp. When I read this at first I was a little skeptical. A thousand apologies. I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0. I am an beginner, so this is more than enough software for me. I did what you were saying and resized the image in the program and saved it off. Low and behold the dpi was 576dpi. Would this be what is called pre and post image processing? I take it the Canon does very little image processing so that the original is basically a raw image. I am suspecting that the Nikon does some of the processing in the camera. Someone here may know the answer to this. I resized the image and saved it off. It was amazing the difference. I still think the Nikon image had a sharper image quality then my Canon 350 did. I think I need to experiment some more. Thanks Alan Steve >>> I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have >>> the [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Thanks Alan > Steve Your 350D images, when resized to 8x12, retaining the original proportions, will show a resolution of 292dpi in Photoshop. The size/resolution, as Alan said, are arbitrary, don't sweat it. Nikon tends to use a little more in camera sharpening, or at least they used to, than Canon, so images look a little softer "out of the camera" from your 350D than, say, from a D70. Use "unsharp mask" in Photoshop, starting at about 100%/0.4 pixels, 2 threshold and see how the images look. That was what I used as a base line for my 20D, which is similar. Oops, I just reread Alan's post, and that's what he said. BTW, some articles I've read recommend viewing the image at 50%, rather than 100%, which I've found gives a view a little closer to the finished print than looking at them at 100%. YMMV. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have the > kit lens which came with the camera. I also have a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Any help would be appreciated. We're the pictures that were sent to you, via email I presume, compressed? >>I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have the >> kit lens which came with the camera. I also have a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >We're the pictures that were sent to you, via email I presume, compressed? No they were not compressed. Both people just removed their memory cards and used a card reader on their computer. Then attached them to an email. I sent Canon a question about the same thing. They sent back and said that I could go into the parameters section and adjust the sharpness level up. There is also a contrast level that can be adjusted. I tried moving them both up to maximum. The kink in this answer is that if I use any of the pre-programmed modes, then the camera does not use the parameter settings. They are only used in Canon's creative zones. I took some more pictures in the using the higher sharpness and contrast settings. I still think the pictures look "soft". I looked at my uncles EOS 20D picture and I think our cameras take identical pictures. His pictures look soft also. >>>I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have the >>> kit lens which came with the camera. I also have a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >20D picture and I think our cameras take identical pictures. His pictures >look soft also. I would say you both need to learn how to post process your images and start with RAW files. I guess you are looking at out of camera jpeg? Stop letting the camera think for you. My 20D does razor sharp images and so will any of them if you learn how to process the images. http://www.texasphotoforum.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1117&cat=500&ppuser=932 1/4 frame from a 20D downsize from a 46meg file to a 121k sharp enough? ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >http://www.texasphotoforum.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1117&cat=500&ppuser=932 > >1/4 frame from a 20D downsize from a 46meg file to a 121k sharp >enough? LOL! -- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://EdwardGRuf.com > My 20D does razor sharp images and so will any of them if you learn > how to process the images. http://www.texasphotoforum.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1117&cat=500&ppuser=932 > 1/4 frame from a 20D downsize from a 46meg file to a 121k sharp > enough? No picuture here!! Only a message that the picture can be viewed by registered users only... :-( SignatureJørn Dahl-Stamnes http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/Foto/ >>>I am recent entry into the Digital SLR game. I have a EOS 350D. I have >>>the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and > used a card reader on their computer. Then attached them to an email. If they got them into an email, chances are they were compressed. > I sent Canon a question about the same thing. They sent back and said that > I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > modes, then the camera does not use the parameter settings. They are only > used in Canon's creative zones. Never, never use the pre-programmed (basic) modes. They limit the use of the camera too much. I used one of them, once, many years ago, when I first got my EOS5 (actually A2, but that's in the US.) Those modes bypass the custom functions, program shift, the parameter settings, ISO settings, all the things critical to actually using the camera, instead of letting the camera's designers tell you what your images are going to look like. If you don't want to set anything, but have the camera do it, use Program mode, you have to set the ISO and the parameter, but then the camera takes over. I generally use only Aperture Priority (Av) and Program, with occasionaly sojourns over to Manual. (By the way, didn't those images with the sharpness and contrast cranked up to the limit look pretty ghastly?) > I took some more pictures in the using the higher sharpness and contrast > settings. I still think the pictures look "soft". I looked at my uncles > EOS > 20D picture and I think our cameras take identical pictures. His pictures > look soft also. Back the settings off to the default level, and use the Photoshop unsharp mask to do your sharpening. In camera sharpening takes too much control away from you. Here's a comparison of JPEGs from the Nikon D200 and the Canon 20D: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page26.asp The next thing to ask is are you using filters of any sort? That is critical to getting a sharp image. I found that there was a huge difference in sharpness with my 20D and the 28-135IS with a Hoya UV filter and without. Much, much sharper without. In fact, I was so disappointed in the image quality of the 20D, it almost went back to the shop, but I tried another lens, a 100 f2, that I didn't have any filters for. The difference was almost startling. When I tried the 28-135 without a filter, the camera became a keeper. Also, there seems to be a wide variance between samples on the kit lens, some feel it's to soft to be worthwhile, others have pretty good examples. If you are comparing the 18-55 kit lens to the Nikon 18-70 kit lens with the D70, the Canon is at a distinct disadvantage. The Nikon lens is much superior. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I have been struggling with getting the pictures I wanted out of the > IS lens. I seemed to have learned what my mistakes were. Then my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I look at my pictures, I guess the simplest way to put it is they > look soft. I see that Alan Browne has alreday given you a good answer on this. But just in case you (or someone else) want to read a bit more about resolution, here is a webpage that you might find helpful: http://hannemyr.com/photo/pixels.html > The 20D has the same appearance to me, but the D50 seems to be VERY > crisp in comparison. Can someone shed some light on this for me? I > have tried shooting in all sorts of different camera settings and > seem to come up with the same conclusion, a soft appearance. > > Any help would be appreciated. My guess that is that the D50 iamges has be sharpened, most likely using a technique called "unsharp mask" or USM. This increases the apperent sharpness of digital images by boosting edege. I suggest that you read up on sharpening digital images. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.