Meadow Curves Center (Kodak-Nikon version, April 13)

Please compare to the Canon version. The two were made one weekapart, and from differing angles and under a different sky, but a veryrough comparison is possible. Comments welcome.

--Lannie

It seems that this one is a little sharp?  Have no idea. Hope to see more comments from others.  Best Regards,

Thank you, Wanghan.  I turned the sharpness off in the camera before making these shots.

After everything was resized and ready to post, I sharpened once and only once, and the values used in unsharp mask were as follows: amount, 85; threshold, 0, radius, 1 pixel.

So, the question here is, is the amount of 85 too much?  For that matter, should I have used a different sharpening algorithm entirely?  I do not know enough about sharpening to say, although my own preference is admittedly for less.  I will say that, when I have shot the Canon 5D II, I have usually applied unsharp mask only in the amount of 25 prior to upload for display on interlaced monitors, with the other values being the same.

The big Kodaks were known for producing very sharp files right out of the camera.  My own experience is that no digital file is that sharp coming out of the camera when the in-camera sharpening is set to zero--even without an anti-aliasing filter.  Even so, if I were preparing these for print, I certainly would not sharpen at this level--and perhaps it is too much for web display using interlaced monitors as well.

I think that it is safe to say that, when files are as big as these (and upward) are being used, the only rationale for sharpening is that resizing and other manipulations made prior to upload seem to require some final sharpening prior to upload for web display on interlaced monitors.  Exactly how much is the question.

Thank you for your comment.

--Lannie

NOTE TO ALL: The point of this particular set of three postings of images derived from this Kodak camera and the Canon 5D II was not resolution but color adjustments.

Nevertheless, the file size displayed here is 1500 x 1045 pixels, as shown on the Photoshop thumbnail.  The standard output of the Kodak DSC Pro SLR/n is 4516 x 3012 pixels (for a total of 13.602 megapixels), as shown on the Photoshop thumbnail from which the above was cropped and then resized.  (The official specs given on dpreview.com for the Kodak are 4500 x 3000 pixels for a total of exactly 13.5 usable megapixels.  That is a very good approximation, but not--for the record--precisely what one actually sees on Photoshop thumbnails.)

The point here, however, is that this version was NOT simply downsized from 4516 x 3012 pixels directly to 1500 x 1045, as displayed.  It was actually first cropped down [to 1860x1296] before being further downsized to give the actual dimensions of the version displayed here: 1500 x 1045 pixels.

The actual numbers for the Canon 5D II used in these comparisons of these three similar files are somewhat different, in part because the Canon files were much bigger out of the camera, and in part because the crop ratio was not absolutely precisely the same as for the two Kodak versions--although it was very close.

[This message or one similar to it appears on the other two versions posted in sequence for this particular comparison.]

--Lannie

This just in from Mike Palermiti via Photo.net messaging:

HI Lannie,

I have followed the outdoor landscape work that you have been doing with the Canon and Kodak DSLR cameras.

As for "an easy setting" that you requested for the color levels, I always rely upon the companies "Auto White Balance " setting, followed by the Auto Color or Auto Tone"  tool in Photoshop.

This has been very reliable for the majority of natural lighting encountered when doing landscapes. These companies have established very well documented algorithms to set their sensors to the appropriate levels.

Now. there can be slight deviations due to the sensor settings, like ISO. I like to use ISO 100 or 200 as this is the baseline for the majority sensors being made today and in the past as well.

Some of the lens have their own transmission characteristics that do provide more or less contrast and saturation levels in certain colors, too. The better lens can have such a high degree of color correction, that sometimes the "richness" of colors is missing because there is not a third or fifth order chromatic aberration component that adds that extra color.

I also set all my cameras, Nikon, Canon and Olympus to normal color. No enhancements or special processing is allowed in the camera. I also like to under expose at least 1/2 stop to fully develop colors that otherwise would "bleed" or be "washed out".

I like to keep my f-stop between wide open (on my superb lens) to F/5.6, since most landscapes have nice details to offer, and too much f-stop causes too much of a lens performance compromise for my liking. If wide field lens are used, their inherently large DOF works from a few feet to Infinity anyway, so F/5.6 is all that I use. If I am using a longer focal length lens and I need to have a close focus ed subject, then I manually focus between the closest and furthest subject and use no more than F/8 if I can not change my working distance or perspective relative to the subjects.

Eastman Kodak has long be the leader in color photography. I have spent a few years in their research facilities characterizing the "color space" parameters that are used and the interaction between ISO, f-stop and exposure values employed during a capture.

Again, while anyone has the freedom to change color saturation levels , and presets, I have always found that the factory baseline set point and the use of the proper Photoshop color space provides a very consistent result from daily images taken.

Best Regards,  Mike