Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Hoey
Stephen,
Another thing I do not understand here. ( Relativly new to digital - lots to learn )
When Stephen ( Fox ) and I were doing tests on how colours are processed he fired me 2 pics. D2X ( 12mp ) and D70 ( 6mp ) included in the shot was a pilots map. The fine detail in that map is more detailed from the D2X as expected. If these images contain all the information that the sensor can record how can this be increased.
Coming from the world of film it is to me like moving to a finer grain film. Finer grain film = more resolution. ( ie I used to shoot Technical Pan a lot on 6x6 )
So is what you describe just an upsizing of the image o/a dimensions, or an image quality improvement ?
Don
|
Don I too came from a world of film, using 6x6 a lot of the time, however I used mainly ISO400 film. I'm a real world photographer
and I knew that medium format images printed to the sizes that most customers demanded were fine on such film. No one was ever going to tell the difference at say 7x5 or 10x8 ISO400 gave me the flexibility I needed to fulfil most work. If I was using transparency film on a brochure shoot then ISO 100 would have likely been used. In the studio too 100 was the norm. However being a real world photographer I knew that 99% of the time no one needed the quality afforded by MF and fine grain films. Doing product photography, which I rarely do however, and it may be a different case.
Now thankfully I haven't used film for about 7 years now. I never want to go back to those days when I lost control of the process after pressing the shutter. In the case of B/W, I don't want to spend hours in a darkroom, enjoyable as it occasionally was. I am using an 8.2mp camera atm. and I know because I'm a real world photographer
that most of the time the file sizes I produce are far bigger than is really needed. The photosI take contain all the detail that is needed, prints are pin sharp, colours vibrant and accurate etc etc. I have been in full control from visualisation through to the finished product.
However if the circumstances dictate that I need that extra resolution, as happened the other week where I need to crop some images, I can then upsize the image in the raw conversion which will give me the larger file size I may need. Because I'm a real world photographer
I know that so far as the client is concerned the end product is all that matters and so long as they get a quality product they are happy. I know I can do this upsizing and have a print produced poster size with no dicernable loss in quality. I don't need to look at pixels and 200% crops to know what is good and what is not.
For me the workflow is to use PS CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw. The screen grab attached shows the ACR dialogue with the resolution menu open, and you can see the options available when processing your file. My theory is that its better to upsize in ACR or at this stage, because you are interpolating effectively a file that has still not had its final condition decided. Whilst if it was upsized from a jpeg this is another stage. I've not personally tested the theory, but then I'm not a 'measurebator' I just know that this works for me and the end product speaks for itself. Its what being a real world photographer is all about