Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

ldelacruz · 09:43 PM

On another forum someone started a thread that said something like "Is it my imagination? As I'm reading threads and looking at the pictures, so often I can tell when the photos are taken by , ususally by a D3 or sometimes a D700, without looking at the signature. They are so 3-D and crisp that they seem to jump off the screen. Yes, you say its the skill of the photographer and the quality of the lens. But I have to wonder, can that same photog put the same lens on my D40 or a D90 and get those same shots?"

My answer was: It is probably not just the camera but a number of factors, first and foremost the photographer using the D700 or D3 then the lens. I would rather use a D90 and a pro lens over a D3 and kit lens anyday.

Next some guy posts some pic that is way oversharpened and said Oh yeah what about this pic? I don't know what his point was but maybe it was with a D3 and a kit lens.

Me: Dude, I changed his name to Dude to protect the not so innocent
I am in no way knocking your photo but it lacks detail and sharpness. It does have a nice backlight through the leaves and very pleasant BOKEH but to compare this to a shot taken with an 85 1.4D and a D40 I think you would be quite surprised.

Dude:
This shot won me a small local fall foliage photo contest last year and $50, blown histograms and lack of sharpness in all.

Dude Hint: What makes this photo (and what got me $50) has nothing to do with sharpness, or all of the pixels being properly contained on the histogram.

Needless to say I am getting attacked left and right because I told it like I saw it. Some even told me there is no way to see the difference between a pro lens and a kit lens on the web maybe in a 13 x 19 inch photo but not on a monitor. The dude that said this has over 25,000 posts. Even Chris and John together don't have 25,000 posts.

Maybe I have a lot to learn because I have no idea what his last statement means:

"I've yet to see ANY digital camera FX or not that could make an exposure like this and still not have a super ugly nasty digital pure white blowout in the windows in the background like that. Even FX digital will give nasty pure white blowouts, but you really have to try hard to get film to do the same. I love this about film. Film works great in broad daylight too when you have lots of bright objects but also deep shadows. Of course I'd love an FX digital because professional level film processing and scanning does add up, but I don't shoot a whole lot of film and reserve it for appropriate situations or special occasions. I'll happily "settle" for DX digital until either FX cameras become more reasonably priced, or there's a new generation of DX sensors that performs better in these areas.

I think the approximately 1 stop reduction in depth of field and resulting improvement in subject isolation that you get on full-frame vs DX is worth noting, but I think most of what people see and like is more the dynamic range and the broader film-like shoulder making for punchier images (since you can push the exposure hotter while still having a smooth look) rather than depth-of-field stuff.

Just my take and $0.02."

What does the statement in bold mean?

PhotoByLeal · 10-01-2009, 11:49 PM

I guess he is a we tod sofa king!
Lets see his D40 shoot in the middle of the night @ the State Capitol @ f5.6 @ 6400 with no grain!
NOT CAN"T DO IT! FAILED!

tell loco vato to go jump a fence with .........

ldelacruz · 10-02-2009, 12:06 AM

What does the statement in bold mean? I think Iknow what He is trying to say but do the words go to together? Like 1 stop of DOF? How do you gauge DOF in stops? I am serious? I have no formal photography training and it may be something I have never heard of?

kamekaze · 10-02-2009, 01:12 AM

DOF is controlled in a large part by your f/stop. You will have a much larger area in focus at 5.6 compared to 1.4. The smaller your aperture, the more DOF in your capture and vice versa.

MicWayWal · 10-02-2009, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldelacruz

... Like 1 stop of DOF? How do you gauge DOF in stops? I am serious? I have no formal photography training and it may be something I have never heard of?

Don't know if I should take you serious Lonnie, you big cut-up, but here goes in case you are serious.

I would guess you know that aperture controls Depth Of Field. For example, f2.8 creates a bigger circle of confusion at the focus plane or the sensor and thereby has a shallow DOF, transversely f22 creates a very small circle of confusion as it is focused at the focal plane and creates the appearance of focus over a greater distance thereby creating a greater depth of field focus.

The difference between apertures can also be expressed in terms of stops. A stop is the point that the light is different by a factor of 2, either twice as much or half as much. The difference between f5.6 and f8 is one stop, between f4 and f22 is 5 stops. The term comes from the days in which cameras had little click points that you could tell where the f/stop was located. The lever would click or stop in place, you could feel it. So photographers referred to the difference in apertures as stops. This is not taught much these days because most of the apertures are controlled electronically.

So the reference of 1 stop can affect Depth Of Field.

By the way there is one more point of quality from a kit lens vs. zooms vs. more expensive prime lenses and that is the quality of glass. There is a whole different quality of glass in prime lenses vs kit lenses.

ngoduyviet · 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamekaze

DOF is controlled in a large part by your f/stop. You will have a much larger area in focus at 5.6 compared to 1.4. The smaller your aperture, the more DOF in your capture and vice versa.

I think Lonnie know the what DoF means.

I don't think I've heard it used in the bolded statement Lonnie quoted, unless the poster had no clue what he was babbling about, which I suspect because of the incoherent rambling. BTW, DoF is not just the control of the aperture, but also with subject distance.

ldelacruz · 10-02-2009, 02:04 AM

I know I joke a lot but I am really serious. I thought I knew a lot about photography until I explored this other site. I have never heard these terms used together. Is it me or them? I just want to know? I know what bokeh is, DOF how to acheive it I thought I knew a lot until today.

super ugly nasty digital pure white blowout
1 stop reduction in depth of field
push the exposure hotter while still having a smooth look
rather than depth-of-field stuff.

I don't understand these terms? To me it sounds like someone is trying to sound way more knowledgeable than they are?

crazeazn · 10-02-2009, 02:33 AM

no, a blowout is a blowout in exposure ++ (dont need to say white or digital)
yes kinda, stopping down does reduce DOF, roughly a f/2.8 on a crop sensor is like f/4 on a full frame
no, exposure hotter? not really... if u increase the exposure u can blowout skintones to make them flatter but u lose color/range not necessarily smoother
and no

"Needless to say I am getting attacked left and right because I told it like I saw it. Some even told me there is no way to see the difference between a pro lens and a kit lens on the web maybe in a 13 x 19 inch photo but not on a monitor. The dude that said this has over 25,000 posts. Even Chris and John together don't have 25,000 posts."

That part I *kind of* agree on... unless you have GREAT eyes, you would be hard pressed to noticed a f/11 web sized image from a kit lense and a pro lense. However, when you blow up the image on the monitor @ 100% you DEF will be able to tell the difference. You buy the pro lense so you can shoot f/2.8 or f/1.4 etc...and/or stop down 1 stop. Maybe you can spot bokeh differences ....

whole paragraph is pseudo trash ignore it. dont let em irritate, just go shoot!

cooltouch · 10-02-2009, 04:00 AM

A lot of that jargon being tossed around seems to be Nikon-specific, and since I don't shoot Nikon digital, I don't have a clue as to what much of it means. All that DX and FX stuff.

But as for the text in bold, my impression is that this guy hasn't used many different kinds of film. Back in the day, I shot slides almost exclusively and anyone who shoots slides a lot will tell you that the dynamic range is less for slides when compared to neg film. Quite a bit less than color neg film and a lot less than B&W neg film. I don't have the EV numbers handy, but I can dig for them if I must. It's quite easy to get "blowouts" with slide film, and it is equally just as easy to totally block up the shadows. I metered carefully back in those days to make sure I wasn't exceeding the slide film's range, and often had to make decisions as to which way I wanted the exposures to fall when the range was exceeded. Often, the use of fill flash was able to compensate for this by opening up the shadows when exposing for the highlights, but not in all situations.

One of the interesting things I've discovered about digital photography is that the sensor -- on my DSLR at least -- has about the same dynamic range sensitivity as slide film. So I have been falling back into my old habit of thinking in terms of slides when using my DSLR. Doing so helps me avoid blowouts and blocked up shadow areas. Just sayin'.

Oh, and just because somebody has a bazillion posts, that doesn't mean they're an expert on the subject. Chances are more likely that the guy has too much time on his hands and is hanging out in front of his computer instead of getting out there taking pics.

CaptainTom · 10-02-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Please tell me I am not crazy! - Yesterday, 10:42 PM

You're not crazy..........he may be,, but you're not.

billseye · 10-02-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Oh, and just because somebody has a bazillion posts, that doesn't mean they're an expert on the subject. Chances are more likely that the guy has too much time on his hands and is hanging out in front of his computer instead of getting out there taking pics.

This pretty much sums it up

ldelacruz · 10-02-2009, 09:30 AM

Thanks guys!

As far as the difference between a kit lens and a pro lens on the web goes. I can see the difference for sure from pics I took with my 50 1.8 compared to my 85 1.2II. There is a very clear difference in the 2 under similiar situations. I can tell when I look at my studio portraits taken with my 50 1.8 and it is one of the reasons I know longer own that lens. IMHO

toverman · 10-02-2009, 11:55 AM

A larger sensor (in Nikonspeak full-frame/35 mm is "FX") tends to allow a shallower depth of field than smaller sensors ("DX"). One reason some professional cinematographers are loving the Canon 5D Mark II is that very reason ... its sensor is gigantic compared even to most pro HD video cameras. Movie makers love being able to really isolate subjects, as do portrait photographers.

Couple a larger sensor and a fast telephoto lens wide or nearly wide open and you'll want to eat the bokeh with a spoon. Like you said, there are inherent differences between a lenses' ability to produce nice background blur, subject to the maximum aperture and the length (longer length+closer distance to subject). There are differences in photographs, for sure, but it's just blowing smoke to talk about knowing which camera and lens produced it.

Not only that, but for me the most important thing about a quality image is the image itself. It doesn't matter who took it, with what equipment or how. Sometimes I try to find out just to know what the stuff is capable of, but none of it matters. Amateurs with entry-level stuff get lucky. Pros have off days. We're all in this together!

crazeazn · 10-02-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldelacruz

Thanks guys!

As far as the difference between a kit lens and a pro lens on the web goes. I can see the difference for sure from pics I took with my 50 1.8 compared to my 85 1.2II. There is a very clear difference in the 2 under similiar situations. I can tell when I look at my studio portraits taken with my 50 1.8 and it is one of the reasons I know longer own that lens. IMHO

Lonnie,

Being devils' advocate you cant compare the two since they are diff focal lengths. You would need to compare like a 50 f/1.8, f/1.4 and maybe even a f/1.2. What you ARE noticing is the lense' signature like the bokeh, and edge/center performance, and possibly color rendering. Some of which can be manipulated in Photoshop/Lightroom.

ldelacruz · 10-02-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazeazn

Lonnie,

Being devils' advocate you cant compare the two since they are diff focal lengths. You would need to compare like a 50 f/1.8, f/1.4 and maybe even a f/1.2. What you ARE noticing is the lense' signature like the bokeh, and edge/center performance, and possibly color rendering. Some of which can be manipulated in Photoshop/Lightroom.

John,
I don't mean to disagree but I see an IQ and price difference. What I am comparing is in studio portraits.