Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-06-2019, 11:22 AM - 13 Likes   #10081
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,122
Fire in the Sky (DA 15 limited)



02-06-2019, 02:36 PM - 4 Likes   #10082
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 682
Freezing rain all day today, but some good photo ops!
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
02-08-2019, 04:24 PM - 2 Likes   #10083
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Montréal QC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,130
And another flake-on-a-tuque:


5 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10084
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,266
K3 with recently acquired Tamron 70-200 F2.8 (from member here!) Taken thru a window.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
5 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10085
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,349
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
K3 with recently acquired Tamron 70-200 F2.8 (from member here!) Taken thru a window.
There are times when a good lens actually does up your game.

Man that's sharp.

It's scratching my eyeballs.... ow ow, it hurts.
5 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10086
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,266
I was amazed at the sharpness, thru 2 panes of glass! He has a little bead of water dripping off his lower beak.

This lens has certainly spoiled me!
5 Days Ago   #10087
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tartu
Posts: 58
how can you guys talk about sharpness when the image is 640 x 439?
5 Days Ago   #10088
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,266
QuoteOriginally posted by labidas Quote
how can you guys talk about sharpness when the image is 640 x 439?
Well, sorry; but I guess we feel it is a sharp photo, even though it was resized for the forum. Nice to be a downer.

5 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10089
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,349
QuoteOriginally posted by labidas Quote
how can you guys talk about sharpness when the image is 640 x 439?
Because we've seen enough images from various lenses and various sizes to make that call. An editor friend once told me he can evaluate images from the thumbnails. It's like anything else.You get better at it the more you do it. Your eye just learns what to look for. Hang in there, someday you'll get it.

Or better yet, as an exercise, take a few soft photos, reduce them in size, see if you can get them to look that good. Contrary to this reduced size thing, you can make an image look acceptable reducing it in size, but a sharp image that has been reduced in size still always looks better than a soft image reduced to the same size. This notion that reducing an image in size levels out the qualities of the images is simply untrue. The better image always looks better.

But feel free to get out there and take some images to prove me wrong. (That's how people learn, by doing stuff.) My opinions are always subject to being changed by new evidence. And I'm not even sure you are committed to your point of view, unless you've done some work to verify it. Talk is cheap, I believe that your opinion has been formed by noticing that an image that fails at full size can become acceptable by reducing the size. What you need to prove is that you can't tell the difference between that image, and an image that was originally sharp.

A good photographer's images look good large or small, a poor photographer's images looks bad large or small. It's not that hard to tell the difference. And there's a difference between you can't tell the difference, and nobody else can tell the difference either.

Last edited by normhead; 4 Days Ago at 03:21 PM.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10090
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
rayallen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Forresters Beach, Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,153
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Because we've seen enough images from various lenses and various sizes to make that call. An editor friend once told me he can evaluate images from the thumbnails. It's like anything else.You get better at it the more you do it. Your eye just learns what to look for. Hang in there, someday you'll get it.

Or better yet, as an exercise, take a few soft photos, reduce them in size, see if you can get them to look that good. Contrary to this reduced size thing, you can make an image look acceptable reducing it in size, but a sharp image that has been reduced in size still always looks better than a soft image reduced to the same size. This notion that reducing an image in size levels out the qualities of the images is simply untrue. The better image always looks better.

But feel free to get out there and take some images to prove me wrong. (That's how people learn, by doing stuff.) My opinions are always subject to being changed by new evidence. And I'm not even sure you are committed to your point of view, unless you've done some work to verify it. Talk is cheap, I believe that your opinion has been formed by noticing that an image that fails at full size can become acceptable by reducing the size. What you need to prove is that you can't tell the difference between that image, and an image that was originally sharp.

A good photographer's images look good large or small, a poor photographer's images looks bad large or small. It's not that hard to tell the difference. And there's a difference between you can't tell the difference, and nobody else can tell the difference either.
Very eloquently stated, Norm. It had to be said.
4 Days Ago   #10091
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tartu
Posts: 58
Okay, a fun test, pick out the soft/blurry images.
And while we are at it, tell me which was shot with an softer lens(kit) and which with an sharper lens. (which was the point of my comment - you can't tell whether a lens is sharp or not at these resolutions. But you can try.)

*EXIF is deleted.
**I've added two obvious images in there that are very easy to pick out as oof/blurry.
let's just name them like that:
1-2-3-4 etc.

Good luck!
Attached Images
                       
4 Days Ago   #10092
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,349
Could we have two images of the same subject, side by side?I'm just going to talk about the bottom two images, wit the clock tower
On the clock face #1 appears sharper, it appears you used different focal points for the two images and the illumination is different which may make#1 appear to be sharper even though the focus isn't as good. The roof of the second slightly sharper than that of the first, providing better contrast, #2 looks washed out. So, you asking me to decide between two images where the determination, which is sharper is made more difficult by other factors, the appearance of sharpness is masked. However the being said, I believe the clock face could be better on both images. Just based on the clock face, the 1st is the better images.

The duck is nice and sharp as is the lead duck in the group shot.. The furrowed fields look soft so soft as to be unusable in my opinion. The office tower tower the middle one is acceptably sharp, barely, the other two are not. Parts of the thistle are very sharp, but like the duck on the river not enough to save the image. If that's your shooting style. images with blown out highlights and shadows with no detail, then ya, it's really hard to tell the difference. But then, I'm not sure that style depends on sharpness for it's effectiveness.

The black and white appears to be soft, but you've made up for that by blasting the contrast. With high contrast images, the effect of sharpness can be mimicked. There is enough wrong with the beetle image, I would just pass on the commentary.

The close up of the christmas tree, detail is obliterated by high contrast processing or lighting cources. The roof of the building appears sharp, the rest appears to be soft, possibly motion blur, possible lighting or processing.

There's nothing there the quality of the image that started the challenge.

So my point would be, yes you can make it very difficult to evaluate sharpness, and you did, but that's not the type of image that prompted your comment.

Last edited by normhead; 4 Days Ago at 04:13 PM.
4 Days Ago   #10093
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tartu
Posts: 58
Answers:

1: kit lens - soft
2: kit lens - sharp
3: 50/1.8 - sharp
4: kit lens - soft
5: kit lens - soft/blurry
6: DA* - focus is behind the first duck
7: DA* - sharp
8: DA* - out of focus
9: DA* - slight motion blur
10: DA* - sharp
11: DA* - blurry
12: DA* - sharp
4 Days Ago   #10094
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,266
Well, this type of response to a photo I was proud of, certainly makes me not wish to post any more here; since my photo has caused the thread to be hijacked by a person that couldn't care less.

Last edited by csa; 4 Days Ago at 07:48 AM.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10095
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,886
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
Well, this type of response to a photo I was proud of, certainly makes me not wish to post any more here; since my photo has caused the thread to be hijacked by a person that couldn't care less.
Don't let people dissuade you sharing, there are far more of us that aren't as vocal, but still enjoy seeing work like yours and don't want to pick it apart. You just have to understand, people that are drawn to photography are usually very visual, and a bit OCD. So please keep that in mind and bear with us as we sort ourselves out.

I also own that lens, and they are truly a giant killer, sharpness wise. Many shoot-out reviews had it right up there with the Nikon 70-200, saying it only lacked VR, which isn't an issue with Pentax and IBIS.
My Tamron 70-200 F2.8 only took a back seat to my DA*300mm once I got my K-1 because of the added reach needed for Full Frame and had zero to do with lack of sharpness.

I can well imagine that even shooting through a window and cropped down, that there was plenty of detail to start with.
Keep on Keep'in on!
Eric
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
australia, auto, bittern, da, dslr, exposure, fa, flickr, info, iso, jpg, k-3, k3, k5-iis, morning, pentax k-3, photography, pics, pm, post, sample, shot, shots, sunbird, thread, wb
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Q street shots - post them here. barondla Pentax Q 254 04-22-2016 05:46 PM
Suggestion Create ONE thread with K3 sample shots to make it easier to navigate jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 2 10-31-2013 07:51 PM
DA 55-300 Sample Shots (x7), no post processing cputeq Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 07-04-2008 01:01 AM
Post Your Eclipse shots here. vievetrick Post Your Photos! 34 02-25-2008 08:14 AM
Spring! Post your Motorcycle shots here! slip Post Your Photos! 33 04-28-2007 05:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top