Digital SLR - Another Thing

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117837097.995576.118000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How do other people's shots which include cloud turn out? If I were
> trying to show someone who doubted digital a photo taken with a digital
> SLR I would NOt include clouds. Ok I may not know hwat I'm doing, but
> look at this otherwise great photo on Steve's Digicams: the surf boards
> look great, but the clouds have a very 'digital looking' aspect:
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/200 [...] 65_nef.jpg


What's the problem with clouds?

http://sopris.net/byteme/images.htm





>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>..the clouds have a very 'digital looking' aspect..

Clouds, huh..? Why not try googling 'digital looking clouds' and let
us know what you turn up.. They may get *blown* if you don't watch
your highlights (doesn't apply to that image), and skies in many
digital cameras look a little grainy (does apply a little to that
image), but a generic problem with clouds looking digital...? Can you
be just a little more specific?

To me, the sky in that image just looks a bit dead and uninteresting,
due to the time of day it was shot - sun almost directly overhead -
yeuch. In fact, I find the surfboards look VERY digital, with their
halos from over- or poor- sharpening, and quite nasty stair-stepping
problems.. My cluoud pictures are just fine, thanks, just from an
Olympus C8080.. Don't have any samples posted right now, but if you
are desperate, I could probably find one or two..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jc wrote:

> How do other people's shots which include cloud turn out? If I were
> trying to show someone who doubted digital a photo taken with a digital
> SLR I would NOt include clouds. Ok I may not know hwat I'm doing, but
> look at this otherwise great photo on Steve's Digicams: the surf boards
> look great, but the clouds have a very 'digital looking' aspect:
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/200 [...] 65_nef.jpg


You will see noise in the sky but you would see much more grain in a
35mm film print enlarged to the size of a full digital image on a
computer screen. You won't see it on an 8x10 print.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ebydnRGaH7nXnjzfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>I have seen "digital looking clouds" in images taken with low megapixel
>cameras and blown up quite a bit. I don't see it in the image that's used
>as an example.

You don't see the posterization and the super-imposed grid pattern? I
saw the grid pattern just faintly, and it just popped out when I
isolated the red channel. I bet that the RAW data for the red channel
in the sky only uses 3 or 4 bits.

The sky is horrible; probably under-exposed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>..the clouds have a very 'digital looking' aspect..
>
>
> Clouds, huh..? Why not try googling 'digital looking clouds' and let
> us know what you turn up.. They may get *blown* if you don't watch
> your highlights (doesn't apply to that image), and skies in many
> digital cameras look a little grainy (does apply a little to that
> image), but a generic problem with clouds looking digital...? Can you
> be just a little more specific?
>
> To me, the sky in that image just looks a bit dead and uninteresting,
> due to the time of day it was shot - sun almost directly overhead -
> yeuch. In fact, I find the surfboards look VERY digital, with their
> halos from over- or poor- sharpening, and quite nasty stair-stepping
> problems.. My cluoud pictures are just fine, thanks, just from an
> Olympus C8080.. Don't have any samples posted right now, but if you
> are desperate, I could probably find one or two..
>
The sky is one of the first places you'll see jpeg compression artifacts, because of the
subtle changes in color.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <11a3i51mig4seed@corp.supernews.com>,
Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:

>The surf board edges are stepped because of limited resolution, but if you zoom in they
>get smoother. The stepping is from the monitor resolution.

No, the monitor actually blurs the image (CRT), or keeps it about the
same as the bitmap (LCD). The stepping should get worse as you zoom in,
unless your viewing program iuses a vector or fractal resizing
algorithm.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> jc wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do other people's shots which include cloud turn out? If I were
>>>> trying to show someone who doubted digital a photo taken with a digital
>>>> SLR I would NOt include clouds. Ok I may not know hwat I'm doing, but
>>>> look at this otherwise great photo on Steve's Digicams: the surf boards
>>>> look great, but the clouds have a very 'digital looking' aspect:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.steves-digicams.com/200 [...] 65_nef.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If those are surfboards, there's something else painfully wrong with
>>> that image, but the clouds are pretty.
>>>
>> The surf board edges are stepped because of limited resolution, but if
>> you zoom in they get smoother. The stepping is from the monitor
>> resolution.
>
>
>
> Well, technically, the image is good when viewed at it's native size and
> resolution. My concern is calling the pretty coloured vertical things
> 'surfboards'. They don't look like any surfboard I've ever ridden.
> These look like they have little foot pockets and they're too pointy to
> be any good for riding waves. Maybe these are wind surfers - not
> surfboards.
>


Ah ha! scroll around enough and I see "ocean kayak" on the side of the
blue things, perhaps others. Nope, not surfboards.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'