| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Tips for Mark II Sharpening
Matthew Putney, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Waterloo | IA | USA | Posted: 11:59 AM on 11.18.04 |
->> I was wondering if anyone had suggestions that would help in Photoshop.
I usually sharpen in camera about #1 or #2. In Photoshop I sharpen amount100-200 at about Radius .8. Is there a better way or one that looks better? It isn’t like my D1H, and D1X where “I thought” they were sharper out of the camera. |
|
Worth Canoy, Photographer
|
High Point | NC | USA | Posted: 1:00 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> Matthew,
I spoke to my local Canon rep when I was trying out the MarkII.
He told me to set the camera to sharpness 5, and the contrast to 2 to increase the appearance of sharpness.
I was not impressed by the MarkII's sharpness compared to my 1ds, so I'm still using the 1ds. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 1:43 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> Set camera sharpening to none.
In Photoshop, set Unsharp Mask to 500% with a .5 radius and zero theshold. This is good for ASA 50-400.
For ASA 600-1250, go with 350%; and 250% for ASA 1600.
This is according to Canon reps during the Summer Olymics in Athens, and was also recommended by Photoshop expert Eddie Tapp at a recent Photoshop seminar. |
|
Mike Mohaupt, Student/Intern
|
Grand Forks | ND | USA | Posted: 2:19 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> What threshold?
Thanks! |
|
Clark Brooks, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:53 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> I ditto Doug Pizac's recommendation and set the camera sharpening to 'NONE' when working with 1D files and using the same settings. I've found that I like setting the in camera sharpening to '1' and PS USM settings at 500%, radius .4, threshold 0. Give me more of that film feel.
Mike: Open the USM filter in PhotoShop and you'll see possible adjustments that you can manipulate to various degrees. Threshold is the last/bottom option.
Matt/Mike - I wouldn't use the sharpen filter in PS. You'll end up with jaggies or halos. |
|
Neil Brake, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 4:34 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> http://www.fredmiranda.com/
Go to Fred Miranda's web site and download the photoshop plug in for sharpening images from the Mark 2. Best plug-in for these files with lots of control on how much, can even get rid of the noise which I know is not much with the Mark 2.
I have been using this plug in for a while and love it.
Cheers,
Neil |
|
David Butler II, Photographer
 |
Somers | CT | USA | Posted: 10:27 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> I'll second Neil's recommendation for Fred Miranda's sharpening plug-in... I've been pleased with the results so far.
dbii |
|
Jay Gula, Photographer
|
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 11:24 PM on 11.18.04 |
->> Does anyone have Sharpening suggestions for 1D files shot at ISO 800-1600, specifically shooting ice hockey. Any other Photoshop suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks
Jay |
|
Juerg Schreiter, Photographer
|
Fort Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 12:26 AM on 11.19.04 |
->> Jay,
Fred Miranda also has a pluging for 1D sharpening.
I think PS USM does a pretty good sharpening job but the Miranda plugins reduce somne of the digital noise too.
J. |
|
Brian Carver, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 12:34 AM on 11.19.04 |
| ->> Jay; At the SS Luau workshop on quality digital workflow, it was suggested that the 1D is very sharp naturally, so set in-camera to none. Then in PS, in Unsharp mask, use 300%, radius .3, threshold 1. Also seems to be a good baseline to start with. |
|
Jim Comeau, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:05 AM on 11.19.04 |
| ->> I have been meaning to share this for quite some time now. When speaking with my school paper's printer, he recommended making a duplicate layer in PS and then do a High Pass filter (Filter -> Other -> High Pass) and set it around 1 pixel. (I go between 0.7 and 1.5) The preview will show you how much it will affect. Then change the blending option of the High Pass layer to Overlay. You will notice a difference and it doesn't accentuate noise like USM does. It takes some practice to get the results that you want, but I use it on EVERY picture I take now. Oh and don't forget the flatten the image too. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Robert Smith, Photographer
|
Brandon | MS | USA | Posted: 10:33 AM on 11.19.04 |
| ->> Fred Miranda plug-ins rule! |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 12:58 PM on 11.19.04 |
->> I was messing with some of my 20D's images to see how sharp they are at 100%. They were a bit soft, but not as bad as my D1X at 100%.
I tried the USM settings mentioned above, then tried Focus Magic (I use Macs). The USM-based adjustments suffered from halos. Focus Magic at 1 or 2 pixels resulted in tack-sharp images without halos.
I didn't try using my Fred Miranda sharpening dojigger, but that's because it usually results in halos too. I suspect Miranda's plugins use combinations of USM and Hi-Pass filtering so they'll suffer from the same issues as a manual tweak using USM.
Other than using a re-focus tool like Focus Magic, the best results I've seen from straight Photoshop from a tip from a past SS thread to use hi-pass filtering along with an overlay layer.
That's just based on messin' 'round with a couple files. Your mileage might vary. |
|
Michael Zito, Photographer
|
West Hills | CA | USA | Posted: 1:23 PM on 11.19.04 |
->> NIK Sharpener Pro
http://www.nikmultimedia,com
Fred Miranda SI Pro(Step Interpolator) along with NIK Sharpener Pro works great |
|
Michael Zito, Photographer
|
West Hills | CA | USA | Posted: 1:24 PM on 11.19.04 |
| ->> Oh yeah, leave camera sharpening at 0 |
|
Clark Brooks, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:39 PM on 11.19.04 |
| ->> This was the first time I've seen the high-pass overlay technique. Tried it and I like it - on screen. I think images look a bit sharper than the technique I have been using. The real test is to send files to different printers to see any difference in quality on the machines they use to make reprints. |
|
Mike Mohaupt, Student/Intern
|
Grand Forks | ND | USA | Posted: 3:19 PM on 11.19.04 |
->> Jim i like your method.Thanks!
~Mike |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
London | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:49 AM on 11.20.04 |
->> What I have to say isn't going to be popular, and will probably be ignored by most of you, but I'll say it anyway....
Every pre-press book that I have read and every course in image preparation that I've been on says the same thing - don't sharpen anything for repro' until after CMYK conversion and until it has been re-sized. Sharpening might make your pictures look good on screen, but if it looks good in RGB then you have almost certainly done enough damage to reduce the chances of a decent CMYK conversion.
I know that a lot of picture editors look at your work and prefer images with a bit of contrast tweaking and some sharpening, but smooth slightly flat images will reproduce better if they are prepared for publication by a professional with good training, a decent screen and a proper workflow.
Sharpened images fair worst if they need to be upsized. Even the best interpolation method will struggle with sharpened images - the software will not know the difference between a genuine highlight and a white edge formed by a sharpening tool and therefore simply enlarge the sharpening artefacts.
It gets worse. Sharpening + compression will do even greater damage to he image and adding any form of sharpening to a photograph that is then saved as a JPEG will result in quality reduction. Just because something looks OK on an RGB screen, doesn't mean that it hasn't been seriously damaged in repro terms.
Newspaper repro hides a multitude of sins, the relatively low resolution printing and ink bleeds will mask a lot of poor image preparation work. That's why magazines get jumpy about photographers doing their own image prep' work - the higher quality repro shows up the damage.
I spent hundreds of hours doing the pre-press work on the "Five Thousand Days" book and exhibition for the BPPA. The range of files that I saw was huge and very few hadn't been played with by the photographer. Many files were so poor that they had to be used small if we couldn't go back to the photographer and get the original camera files.
The EOS1D MkII produces wonderful smooth photographs. These images are absolutely perfect for image preparation for high quality repro if the photographer leaves them largely un-molested and trusts the skills of the pre-press operator to sharpen and tone under the right controlled conditions and with the final print size in mind.
Like I said, an unpopular view amongst photographers - most of whom have no real training in pre-press.
Neil. |
|
Patrick Hamilton, Photographer
|
Brisbane | Queensland | Australia | Posted: 7:16 AM on 11.23.04 |
| ->> Listen to Neil....he does know what he is talking about...unlike a lot of people here. |
|
Randy Janoski, Photographer
|
Chapel Hill | TN | USA | Posted: 7:39 AM on 11.23.04 |
->> After watching this thread for the last day I will echo that Neil has hit it home.
Unless you know the end usage of your images...don't touch them! In one of my former life positions as Director of Photography at AP/PGA I saw way too many images that were "worked" by the photographer before being sent in and they were big headaches or useless.
If you are printing for yourself on an inkjet by all means create your own workflow that you are pleased with. But if you shoot for publications don't touch 'em! and get specific guidelines from whoever actually deals with images. |
|
Paul Kelm, Photographer
|
Plzen | Czech Republic | Czech Republic | Posted: 9:08 AM on 11.23.04 |
->> Neil is right.
Too many of us want our work to jump off the screen and we make adjustments to try to make it do that. Unfortunately, unless you've made those changes to a duplicate image, you may have destroyed exactly what will be needed by the printers you want to print your work someday.
There's a great article about the steps necessary to sharpen an image for specific outputs by Bruce Fraser. His workflow is for those images that are a cut above the ordinary and not for every shot you took at a game or event (because of the time and effort involved).
Basically, I'd say leave the in-camera processing to a minimum.
All the best with your images. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 9:52 AM on 11.23.04 |
->> "If you are printing for yourself on an inkjet by all means create your own workflow that you are pleased with. But if you shoot for publications don't touch 'em! and get specific guidelines from whoever actually deals with images."
This is important - knowing how and where the photo will be used.
99% of the time I am responsible for the image from capture to printing. I have output requirements from glossy and matte to canvas and poster-size lightjet on foamcore. The tools I use to sharpen are picked based on image source (digital or scan), size, softness, grain and whether it's b/w or color.
There's also the newsprint outputs that just get cropped and sent.
So far, having used a good two hands-full of various sharpening methods and software, I haven't found one that does it right everytime. The wrong tool with the right image can make a good picture look really bad. There is no magic bullet. |
|
Chris Nowling, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 3:22 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Neil-
You offered some great info in your post. I was wondering, do you have a certain workflow you use when converting RGB images for CMYK output?
Is there a good online resource or book that goes through the RGB to CMYK conversion process?
Thanks,
Chris |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
London | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 3:36 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Chris
It's not rocket science, you just need to know the numbers. You need to know how much dot gain the printer has (on average) what kind of paper stock they are using and what kind of inks. Beyond that you need the screen angles (the different angles that the cyan, magenta, yellow and black plates will pass over the paper and with the screen resolution you have everything you need. You can input all of this information into Photoshop and given a decent calibrated screen you can process images pretty easily.
It's amazing how many printers use the Photoshop defaults, and it's also amazing how often those defaults are near enough to get a good result. You folks in the USA tend to be nearer the Photoshop defaults (US SWOP Coated) than us poor Europeans for whom SWOP coated is a rare stock.
I'm not aware of any online resources that cover all of this, and the best book that I have read was produced as the course material by the training house we use at our newspaper.
I've learned enough about all of this to know that I don't know enough to call myself an expert. Doing one project has made me realise that I'm a photographer and not a pre-press operator, and that I'm really happy with that position. My advice would be to get proper training or don't bother. In this fieldd, of all fields a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Neil. |
|
Matthew Brown, Photographer
|
White Plains | NY | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> At our newspaper we found that if you set your Sharpening to a level of 3 works best for most assignments. Mark II's out of the box have no sharpening and your first pictures taken, you may find not to be sharp. Also,remember that the less you can do in Photoshop and the more you can do in camera (if your not shooting in the RAW mode), the better your files will be for your production department.
Matthew |
|
Joseph V. Labolito, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 4:43 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> neil
i work in a University "in house" situation
we have a publications dept that has been saying exactly what you recomend
don't touch the files
no levels
no sharpening
no resizing
i struggle with this for alot of reasons
i lose some control over what the final image looks like
and i feel like i'm only giving them half a job
almost like giving them undeveloped film
but i'm learning over time that less is more
and latley i've been supplying them with raw files right out of the camera they are happy and i'm coming to terms with giving up some control
thanks for your coments
its good to hear a second opinion coming from some one with a photography bkg
joe |
|
Michael Clark, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 5:02 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Another option. Shoot RAW + JPEG and always save and back up your RAW files so you have the original RAW file for reproduction.
If clients want a nice, sharpened image to look at I send them smaller JPEG's that have been sharpened a bit so they look good on the monitor. Then when they pick the image they want to use they can manipulate the unadulterated TIFF or RAW file to get the best repro.
I understand this process may seem ridiculous to many of you out there shooting for papers, but for those of us doing magazine work it is a must.
On a side note - all of you out there shooting digital for magazines, learn how to deal with digital. Calibrate and profile your monitors. Expose correctly. Talk with your clients and see how they prefer to have files submitted. I have heard from so many clients about the nightmares they regularly encounter with digital submissions that most of my clients are requesting Medium Format or 35mm film these days, especially the high end magazines save for SI. Some won't even hire photographer's who shoot digitally.
Cheers, Michael |
|
Paul Kelm, Photographer
|
Plzen | Czech Republic | Czech Republic | Posted: 5:06 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Matthew Brown, I don't want to sound argumentative, but I disagree with the idea that doing more in the camera (as far as sharpening and color goes) is the way to go. It may be a way to help meet a deadline, but it isn't going to give the same possibilities for high quality that leaving the camera's adjustments alone.
The CMOS images are slightly soft because of the filter in front of the sensor. Canon has chosen to leave sharpening up to the photographer. The amount of sharpening needed to bring out the detail (which is there in the image) varies according to the image. There is no rule that will work for all images.
A paper or publication may give guidelines which it wants its photographers to follow, but by no means are those the best guidelines for all photographers to follow.
I'm not saying that you were implying that we all follow the guidelines your paper uses. You clearly stated only that they work well for most assignments.
I just want to help keep people from making the mistake of oversharpening their images in the camera without the chance of recreating the original which would have been as good as it could have been. |
|
Jay Gula, Photographer
|
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 5:06 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Neil, great advice. I have struggled with file adjustments, they look great on my monitor, but I have been disappointed with the published results. In the end the best advice was shoot RAW and leave the adjustments to the experts. Thanks for your comments!
Jay |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 8:13 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Last week my new 1D Mark II arrived. After reading this thread I went to Fred Miranda's web site and bought the Mark II sharpening plugin. I found the the plugin to be a waste of money. It may be fine for images not shot with the best of glass or for sharpening prior to inkjet printing, but I found even on its lower settings it clobbered fine detail.
Here is a page with an example. The first image is just the camera RAW imported into Photoshop with the Canon software and resized to 600 pixels wide. It was then saved as a jpeg without any sharpening anywhere in the workflow including in camera. The next two images are full resolution crops, the first still without sharpening, the second with Fred Miranda's plugin. Look at the eye bolt in the bow of the boat and the peeling paint. You can see a bunch of crap the sharpening plugin produced.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/robsteve/mkii/index.html
If you have good glass and shoot it in focus, the printers should be pleased with the files right out of the camera, with no sharpening added. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada L8S3W5 | Posted: 10:21 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> I started writing what turned into the epic below a few hours ago, got distracted, had dinner, and now see that there have been a number of good posts.... so, here it is anyway:
Chris: For a good online resource - to get an idea just how complicated and opinionated (subjective) the whole RGB -> CMYK process can be - take a look through the Color Management forum at robgalbraith.com http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php or do a search for CMYK, etc.
There are also good general digital tips here on the SS site by Reed Hoffmann in his monthly words of wisdom found in the newsletter.
On the Galbraith site, some memorable posts have been made by Mark Tucker, James Russell, Melvin Sokolsky, Ethan Hansen and others. A lot of these guys are great photographers and their posts are an excellent insight into the issues, resistance and uncertainties they faced after switching to digital and delivering electronic files to clients instead of transparencies. You won't necessarily find THE answer there... probably in part because there isn't one definitive answer anyway.
Mark Tucker's posts are a great read because he comes at problems from a non technical perspective and you get a genuine sense of the issues he is trying to solve and how they can relate to photographers in general.
Melvin Sokolsky has been a very enthusiastic adopter of digital. One of the keys to his workflow is output of the final file to a Kodak Approval Print, which if I understand it correctly, gives a very accurate CMYK proof that the prepress people can use as an actual proof as opposed to an inkjet print (inkjet prints tend to have much different color gamuts than CMYK outputs in part because they originate from RGB files and the inks are much more vibrant - thus are a bad idea for proofs because many colors may be impossible to duplicate in CMYK). Approval Prints though are not cheap but they obviously pay off for major projects where reproduction must be excellent.
And that really touches the underlying problem with digital files... There is no physical transparency to proof for everyone to refer back to in order to get an accurate feel for the colors. Without consistent calibration, you look at an image on your screen and see it a certain way. The designer sees it another way. The prepress people yet another way... And, it seems, a lot of prepress/printing houses were never set up in a color managed workflow that could accommodate files from external sources. They didn't really have to because everything was done by them in house - film scanning, adjusting in PS or whatever, converting to CMYK, making the separations, the plates, proofing and printing the final product.
Now suddenly, photographers deliver a heavily adjusted 'final scan' for them to output. The photog based his/her adjustments on a monitor that may or may not have been calibrated... then the prepress guys look at it on their screen, make some proofs and have no good reference to tell them exactly how the colors should look.. No wonder there can be confusion and finger pointing in all directions when the final product looks bad.
Neil made some excellent points. You really do need to know what the output parameters will be so you can plug those numbers into PS.
Even better would be if the press has been calibrated and you can be supplied with it's profile (good luck!).
Try to become more familiar with color managment in PS and learn to use the Proof Colors view (under the View menu) to preview how the image will look in CMYK on your screen. Also worth using is the Gamut Warning (Apple + Shift Y), found in the same drop down menu. It will visually warn which colors are beyond the capabilities of the CMYK process of your choice.
How your image will be printed is very important. With CMYK it is extremely easy to quickly push colors beyond the color range (gamut) the inks can handle. Extreme adjustments using Levels, Curves, Hue/Saturation, Burning/Dodging can quickly build up contrast and saturation, resulting in out of gamut color problems. One of the most significant problem colors in CMYK reproduction is red. We like to see it extremely rich on the screen. But the inks can never reproduce that saturation. A bad RGB file and a careless conversion to CMYK will render any tonal variation in the RGB red to an even hue in CMYK. When flipping through newspapers, see how often you come across such blobs of red. It is probably the one biggest color problem I have to deal with when I work prepress at the newspaper.
Sharpening is contrast enhancement at the pixel level. It is a destructive process because in order to enhance contrast, tones are stretched and compressed, resulting in fewer tonal steps. When a strongly sharpened file makes it's way to prepress, it is impossible to retrieve the information already lost from the image. If the image needs to be enlarged, the problems are simply magnified since there are fewer tones from which the interpolation process can sample. Further adjustments cannot actually add more real information to the image, only try to mask the underlying problems.
As a 1DII user, I too understand the issues related to the images it produces. I would encourage anyone submitting images for publication to communicate, if possible, with those preparing the images for print to determine what, if anything, should be done to the files before delivery. As a photographer, I definitely understand the desire to present the best possible image. It is one of the reasons digital photography is so empowering - it completely bypasses the photo lab allowing us to control our images to the final stage on paper. However, if you aren't actually the one printing the images, do your best to get it right in the camera and trust the people at the receiving end to do their job.
P.S. Michael Clark: I love the shadow patterns and color nuance in your #1 gallery image. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada L8S3W5 | Posted: 11:16 PM on 11.23.04 |
->> Hi Rob:
As you probably know, the amount of sharpening is directly related to the size of the image, the output device and also the subject matter in the image.
For example, the sharpened sample you have on display would not be an issue if printed on newsprint. In fact, it is very mildly sharpened for newsprint. Even for something like a Frontier print, that sharpening likely would not be evident.
You are right though to state that if you aren't sure how it will be reproduced, or if it's for reproduction on higher quality paper stock, it is better to leave it untouched.
To give an idea of what happens at the newspaper where I work prepress, we generally sharpen average size images (about 45 pica wide @ 200 ppi) at a USM of 380-1-2. If it is a good quality file from a higher megapixel camera, and it is running larger, I will even go up to 500. If it's from a low MP camera like a D1H and running big, I'll increase the radius a bit more to imply more detail, though in reality, it just fakes it. Obviously, smaller images get less amount and maybe 0.5 radius.
This is why it is so important that photographers not sharpen images prior to submission (the staff photogs are told not to). Take a file that has already been sharpened at 200-1-0 or 300-0.5-0, etc. and then try to run a 380-1-2 on it and it just explodes with noise and artifacts. Worse are images from the wire. Not so much AP and Reuters staffers, but more so images picked up by the wires from newspapers, or the KRT wire for example. By the time we the end user receives those images, they may have been compressed several times. Files that have been sharpened before we get them sometimes look so bad you'd think there was snow or sand in the image.
One might wonder though why such high sharpening amounts are used... Doesn't it create halos? Yes, and believe it or not, for newsprint, you want those halos for the ink to bleed into. But it's important to create those halos at the end so they are relative to the final image size.
If you are dealing with a lower end magazine and they can't give you an idea of how they will process the files, take a look through a few of their issues to determine if it looks like they are able to achieve consistent reproduction quality. If all of the images look a bit on the soft side, chances are they aren't doing much to the files in prepress. Also compare how images accompanying stories compare to images in the ads. The ads have probably been prepared by another source, particularly if it's a national advertiser. If it looks like they don't know what they are doing, I've found that a slight sharpening in the 300-0.3-0 range with Mark II files (sized to about 8 or so inches @ 300 ppi) will look good without being overpowering. I wouldn't suggest this for a quality national magazine, rather more for your local BIA/trade type publication. At that point you also run into the color management headache of whether they would even know the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB if you are submitting RGB files.
Lastly, if it's for print, my opinion is that it's a good idea to judge sharpening at 50% view. At 100% you really see too much of the nitty gritty and the image will never be that size anyway. Actual print size is closer to 50%. Avoid viewing at 33% and 66%. The onscreen image exhibits aliasing at those sizes and will look rougher than it really is. 25% is too small and hides the details. If it's for web (screen) use, then 100% view is definitely the best bet.
Hope this helps |
|
Matthew Putney, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Waterloo | IA | USA | Posted: 1:50 AM on 11.24.04 |
->> I have posted some of my examples at :
http://www.sportsshooter.com/photoput/markii/
I personally think that Fred Miranda is a waste of money and was a bad investment. I have tried it on many photos and settings and am disappointed.
To Neil- I understand what you are talking about but something just plain hurts when I turn in photos that are as soft as mine are coming out. And what am I to do when I am shooting for the AP wire? I could go back to the 1D but I don’t want to have to do that when I have a Mark II. I know I can focus I have great film examples it’s not me or the lenses.
I wish there was an easy answer.
Thank you all for so much of you time to try and help. I am glad I am not the only one struggling with this. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 11.24.04 |
->> Ron -
Thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed explanation. There was a lot of good information that I had not seen before but confirms what I've found in my tinkering.
With the paper I supply images they do no pre-press manipulation of the photos before making the negatives. The publisher prefers that we sharpening, tone and crop images before uploading them to the system.
Matt I'm sorry if I gave you what may have been the wrong information. I should have asked first what your output device was going to be. My assumption was you were looking for technique for sharpening photos for printing on a Fuji Frontier machine and didn't think about the offset side of things.
Clark |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 10:45 AM on 11.24.04 |
->> Matthew:
What lens are you shooting with? I played around a bit more with the 1D Mk II and found it is sensitive to the lens used. For example, my 20-35mm L lens shots look a bit soft, but the 24-70mm looks fine. The 300mm f2.8 IS and 400mm f2.8 IS images look great right out of the camera.
The higher resolution cameras seem to be more sensitive to lens quality than film or older digitals used to be. |
|
Matthew Putney, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Waterloo | IA | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 11.24.04 |
->> Robert-
I shoot with a 300mm 2.8 II and I 400mm 2.8 IS and the photos are bad but not horrible. My 70-200 non-IS is horrible I can't save an image from it. I shoot that on my 1D. |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 11:35 AM on 11.24.04 |
->> Matthew:
I have a hockey game to shoot Friday and I will see how the MK II works at 800-1600 asa and let you know.
Are you using the IS function on the big lenses? If you are, turn it off and you will get sharper pictures. I found that shot wide open, the IS lenses are sharper with the IS off. Its just not made for the way we wave the big glass around following the action. |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 2:30 PM on 11.24.04 |
->> Matthew:
I may have figured out why some people are complaining the 1D Mk II images are too soft. The Dpreview site mentions Raw files seem much sharper than shooting jpeg. I just shoot RAW, so I would not have noticed the problem.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page19.asp |
|
Clark Brooks, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 8:55 PM on 11.24.04 |
->> Any one else notice similar problems to Matthew's with the 70-200 L? I've had a terrible time with getting consistently sharp images with my older probably series 1 zoom in the first for basketball games this winter.
When I fire the shutter the image in the viewfinder is sharp but when I chimp or get the images back to the office and view them on screen they are slightly to unusably soft.
I do not remember having the same problems last winter with my 1D. |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 10:24 PM on 11.24.04 |
->> Clark:
I forgot that I had shot Hockey on Sunday with my 70-200mm non IS L. My 400mm was too long from the penalty box, so I shot with the 70-200mm. It seems pretty sharp, not all the shots are in focus, but that can be expected in hockey. The test is to open the jpegs from the camera using the EOS viewer utility and click on the button to show the focus points superimposed on the image. A lot of the time the out of focus shots will be from the AF having nothing to focus on or the focus spot on the wrong part of the scene, such as under an arm and into the background.
Sometimes it can just be you subject is moving too fast for the close distance to the camera. There was a thread earlier about AF speed. The MK II af specs are based on the 300mm f2.8 IS and as the subject gets closer, the maximum subject speed the AF can track drops drastically. Basketball would be a good example of a close subject moving fast.
Here are a few samples showing what I just described regarding the women's hockey.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/robsteve/focus2/ |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 1:14 AM on 11.25.04 |
->> I've found the few times the 1D and 70-200 L F2.8 USM IS mis-tracks is because there isn't enough contrast for the autofocus to work.
I shot about 270 frames last Sunday in overcast weather, and the only frames that were off were where the sensor was on a solid color or I missed the subject by a little bit. |
|
paul barton, Photographer
|
Sutton | UK | UK | Posted: 7:14 AM on 11.25.04 |
->> matthew
i shoot with mk11 and a 70-200 non IS all the time and the results are fine,one thing that has been noticed is that the early cameras differ from the later batches when it comes to focusing.
i know several people who sent thier early batch cameras back because of focusing problems but the later ones are fine.
the firmware updates also seem to make a difference to the actual pictures aswell so make sure you have the latest firmware.
paul
p.s. i normally use the mk 11 on a 500 f4 and those images are fine aswell. |
|
Matthew Putney, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Waterloo | IA | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 11.29.04 |
| ->> I got a different 70-200 L and works much better. I will post some football photos with it later today. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|