Simple Click – Moab Pano
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/Moab_pano.swf, 585, 326 [/swf]
Exploring New Combos
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/_BMP0776b.swf, 585, 473 [/swf]
One Image HDR has me intrigued but as my good friend RC reminds me, don’t use Photomatix Pro isn’t for finishing, just the doing the heaving lifting. With that in mind, I’ve done all my finishing using just Photoshop which does an excellent job but I wanted something a little faster and a little more targeted, so I went playing.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/_BMP0776.swf, 585, 473 [/swf]
You can see the before at top, quite a bit different from the bottom. Photomatix Pro pulled out some detail and color so the image isn’t as visually flat. Then, and here’s what I’ve been playing with, taking that 16bit Tif that Photomatix creates and run it through ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). I open up CS5 > Mini Bridge > Right Click on the image and select Open in Camera Raw. I then do the finishing in ACR. I’m likin the results, more play to come and then I’ll get a video made so you can see what I’m doing. Experimenting, when it works, is fun!
Photo captured by D3s, 18AF on Lexar UDMA digital film
Oil Spill Updates
I’ve been hearing from lots of folks about this incredibly sad state of affairs. Where the truth lies in the what’s and who’s along with the long term effects is something I don’t think we’ll ever know. But what is washing up on land right this moment and the effect right this moment is something that is now coming to light. A good source for information I can recommend is the Audubon Oil Blog. Many have asked what I think of all of this and like so many environmental issues that face us, all I can relate is there are no short term answers and no one wants to deal with the long terms ones. Until the public, a vast majority get involved, we are in this mess for a long time to come!
How Sharp is Really Sharp?
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/whicked_sharp.swf, 585, 473 [/swf]
I’m sitting on the front porch waiting for Mr UPS to deliver the new 200-400VR2. I’m incredibly excited to see for myself how the new nano crystal coating has juiced up the optical performance of this lens. I’ve been told great things but I’ve got to see it for myself. And while I’m sitting here waiting comes the dilemma, if I see an improvement in the lenses, how do I share that with you other than in words? The true measure for me personally is not in words but in photos. But in this medium of the web, you can’t tell the critical difference between what might be just sharp compared to wicked sharp. The 200-400 is a major lens in my arsenal, I know there are lots of owners out there who have contacted me already anxious to here what I think. Trying to avoid the pitfalls of the past, I thought I would set the stage a little by visually showing what I mean when I say wicked sharp.
The photo of Donald was taken with the wickedly sharp 24f1.4AFS. You look at his beard and eye on the 21UX Cintiq or 24×30 print and you can count every individual hair. Good luck doing that on the web! Now to communicate what I’m seeing and saying about sharpness, I took this wickedly sharp image and using Gaussian Blur and going back and forth on the web, I created four images displaying different degrees of sharpness. Keep in mind what I wrote here, or here, or here, .
Hopefully, this will help us all down the road when talking about lens performance.
So, Does Moose See a Difference?
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/BE4616.swf, 585, 473, [/swf]
Cutting right to the chase, using my standards and measures, I sure do! I’m shooting a D3x folks, I’d best see and make use of the difference or I’ve wasted my money. But if we were to go back down to 8×10 or even 11×14, any difference I might see between FX and DX is so minute, it’s not worth the expense of the D3x. But for my style of photography and my end goal, shooting FX and the lenses I do makes sense, that doesn’t mean it makes sense for your photography and that’s the whole point! I’ve been at this photography game, making clicks and attempting to make money for thirty years. That time behind the camera gives me an advantage that you too will have after you put your time in. Camera and lens aside, time is still one of the biggest factors in a photograph!
And what about the two photos, which was shot with who? The photo above is a D3s and the other is a D2Hs capture. Many wrote they thought it was the opposite. They sited rightfully so that the D2Hs must be the FX image because they could see more detail in the head of the Bald Eagle. There again, I was screwing with your head, literally! If you go back and look at those two images, what’s the one thing the D2Hs Bald Eagle head have that the D3s head didn’t have? One simple element, a key one that I work very hard to include and enhance, black! And that my friends is a whole other topic for the future.
Getting Closer to Brass Tacks
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/BE35841.swf, 585, 473, [/swf]
What are we really talking about here? I mean seriously, what is the end game that we are shooting for with all of this discussion? Along with the all important essence of the photograph, the content that grabs the heart, it’s image quality. That’s pretty much to the heart of Jim’s question, is there a final image quality difference between the DX format and the FX format. I hope this doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings (and I’m sure it will though), but most photographers destroy the image quality they captured by their post processing more then any loss they might think they loose in capture from body or lens. But the question is still out there, would or does Moose see a difference in image quality between DX and FX?
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/BE4616.swf, 585, 473, [/swf]
The answer as far as I’m concerned is always in the final image. Unless you’ve been to a DLWS and seen the 24×30 prints coming out of the D3x and Epson 7900 (a gorgeous printer!) for yourself would you really be able to make the quality call for any particular lens or technique. Personally, that’s my measuring stick, the 24×30 print. And the realities are, that’s over kill to the enth degree! Since the vast majority of my work ends up on the editor page, that majority of that image quality I’m lookin for is never seen. The slide presentations we give, that massive 140MB file is now down to just 970k and the web, ha!, that’s a 68k file. So before even venturing to whether DX or FX produces better results, you’ve gotta look at and figure out what’s the end game. Let me prove my point.
You see above two images, both are Bald Eagles in flight, both taken with 600mm lens but they were taken with different bodies. Can you tell which is which? Those who know me know I’m screwin with your minds so just be forewarned. Oh yeah, don’t forget that these are just big Jpegs you’re lookin at, they are not big PSD files. Which is which? That’s for the next posting. I am such a bastard :)
Just for a giggle, I did this blog posting with the iPad. A little bit of a challenge but I know that at least it can be done.