Sharpness

[chris ham]

I understand shooting in a Landscape format produces a sharper image than one in Portrait but can someone explain to me why?

[Manfred M]

No - this is definitely not correct.

Think about it; same lens, same camera and all you do is rotate both by 90 degrees; nothing else changes so how can sharpness change?

The only caveat I'll put on this statement is that all camera / lens settings are identical in both scenarios.

[shreds]

Chris,

Welcome with your first post.

Manfred is correct.

However, the design of the lens will alter the way the light is directed towards the sensor, and you may be confusing some issues here.

They are not called landscape and portrait for no reason. Otherwise we would use 'vertical and horizontal'.

Try messing around with an UWA (Ultra Wide Angle) lens, and you will soon see how the slight glass distortion has an effect on the image and how our brains interpret that effect.

Maybe this is the area you are alluding to?

[benm]

The difference might be explained by the fact that the shutter button has a different orientation. In Landscape you press "down" and in portrait you press "sideways". This is possibly one reason why some photographers like to use a grip, which gives you the option of pressing "down" in portrait mode.

[shreds]

Ben,

Not true with all cameras. Mine has two shutter buttons dependent upon orientation. As do most cameras that can take bolt on extra battery packs such as the Nikon D800s.

I can see where you are coming from, but no this is not the reason. Especially if you were shooting on timed, remotely or tethered.

[Manfred M]

The difference might be explained by the fact that the shutter button has a different orientation. In Landscape you press "down" and in portrait you press "sideways". This is possibly one reason why some photographers like to use a grip, which gives you the option of pressing "down" in portrait mode.

I use a battery grip on my D800 when I shoot a lot of portraits, but that is more for convenience and a more comfortable stance. As long as one holds the camera steady and uses reasonable care in pressing the shutter release (i.e. smooth press without "jerking" the camera) the exposure should be just as good in either orientation.

[Polar01]

Chris welcome to CIC, I am going to throw a wrench in the works and agree with you, and this is why. I use a Nikon D600 and within that camera are different default setting one of them is landscape, another is portrait. If you are shooting jpegs than those defaults are applied to the image, landscape has more contrast, more sharping applied and more saturation, where as the portrait does not have these applied to the jpeg image. Now to get the raw shooters off my back, when the raw data is taken into the converter you could go into camera calibration and apply the camera's landscape setting or if you have pre-sets as I do one of which is for landscape which allows me to speed up my workflow as a number of other settings are also applied at the same time.
Now a lot of the time the word "format" is used to describe the image in a landscape format (wider that taller) and portrait (higher than wider).
Hope this may have been of some help, there is a lot of good info that you want use. It helps most if you can ask a direct question not an open ended one, if there is a term or something you are not sure of just ask.

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

Chris welcome to CIC, I am going to throw a wrench in the works and agree with you, and this is why. I use a Nikon D600 and within that camera are different default setting one of them is landscape, another is portrait. If you are shooting jpegs than those defaults are applied to the image, landscape has more contrast, more sharping applied and more saturation, where as the portrait does not have these applied to the jpeg image. Now to get the raw shooters off my back, when the raw data is taken into the converter you could go into camera calibration and apply the camera's landscape setting or if you have pre-sets as I do one of which is for landscape which allows me to speed up my workflow as a number of other settings are also applied at the same time.
Now a lot of the time the word "format" is used to describe the image in a landscape format (wider that taller) and portrait (higher than wider).
Hope this may have been of some help, there is a lot of good info that you want use. It helps most if you can ask a direct question not an open ended one, if there is a term or something you are not sure of just ask.

Cheers: Allan

Interesting Allan, I had never picked that up "feature", even as a jpeg shooter. I'll have to have a look at my cameras.

[ajohnw]

Another one for you Manfred. Some people play with the default jpg settings, sharpness and contrast etc. Particularly sharpness and set it as strong as it can go on some cameras. I assume on the basis that they know that they will be reducing the image size a lot.

I haven't been there and tried it. Changing cameras too soon. Got near on the E-P3 and then bought the EM-5 and have just had a very bad photographic year for one reason or another. Really, I need the D7000 like a hole in the head. There are too many things to evaluate in all of them these days. Lot's of them aimed at jpg's.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Another one for you Manfred. Some people play with the default jpg settings, sharpness and contrast etc. Particularly sharpness and set it as strong as it can go on some cameras. I assume on the basis that they know that they will be reducing the image size a lot.

I haven't been there and tried it. Changing cameras too soon. Got near on the E-P3 and then bought the EM-5 and have just had a very bad photographic year for one reason or another. Really, I need the D7000 like a hole in the head. There are too many things to evaluate in all of them these days. Lot's of them aimed at jpg's.

John
-

Actually John, I think I have never been someone who uses presets some Japanese engineer has designed into the camera. Even with jpegs, I always use custom settings that are more to my liking.

Most of my jpegs go to Facebook or other websites where PP work would be wasted.

[PhotomanJohn]

Chris welcome to CIC, I am going to throw a wrench in the works and agree with you, and this is why. I use a Nikon D600 and within that camera are different default setting one of them is landscape, another is portrait. If you are shooting jpegs than those defaults are applied to the image, landscape has more contrast, more sharping applied and more saturation, where as the portrait does not have these applied to the jpeg image. Now to get the raw shooters off my back, when the raw data is taken into the converter you could go into camera calibration and apply the camera's landscape setting or if you have pre-sets as I do one of which is for landscape which allows me to speed up my workflow as a number of other settings are also applied at the same time.
Now a lot of the time the word "format" is used to describe the image in a landscape format (wider that taller) and portrait (higher than wider).
Hope this may have been of some help, there is a lot of good info that you want use. It helps most if you can ask a direct question not an open ended one, if there is a term or something you are not sure of just ask.

Allan - I may be a little confused. Are you referring to the Picture Controls called "Landscape" and "Portrait" which you manually select to be applied to JPG files that the camera creates no matter what orientation the camera was in when the image was captured? I think Chris' question was whether the camera automatically applies different effects or somehow changes the photos depending on how the camera is oriented during the exposure. To my knowledge this does not occur in Nikon cameras.

John

[ajohnw]

I'm not so sure Manfred. The Japanese engineers are often very well paid rather intelligent people. I've met a few - difference in the UK is the well paid part. They also have to know rather a lot about the bits they use and it's capabilities and just how to solve problems with it. The thing people find hard to accept even me is that they put a lot of effort into jpg's. Things have evolved a lot in that area since my 300D - the first low priced DSLR.

One instance cropped up on my first Pen. The dpreview mentioned that the noise reduction and jpg processing was unusually good. On that one operation in full auto could be different to other modes so I set it up to make full use of what was there in auto only. Given what it could produce like that at max iso it's questionable if it would be even worth doing anything with a raw file. Main problem with full auto is that it wont generally choose an ideal aperture and speed combination - the facilities are there in other modes as well.

While PP may be an enjoyable pass time there is no harm really in letting the camera do all or some of it. Or is it a case that people enjoy PP rather than taking photographs? One aspect of using jpg's is less pp so if more can be done in the camera why not use it. Seems that the D7000 has something to offer in respect to noise reduction. Even the basic types. I always shoot raw plus best jpg anyway. The EM-5 has an bewildering number of options to try in combinations but it shouldn't take long to evaluate noise reduction and a couple of tone curves.

John
-

[Polar01]

To John's post #11, yes the Picture Controls if set in camera, when you go into Camera Calibration you can apply those setting to you raw file to see the effect as a starting place. Also as John states there should be not difference in either landscape or portrait provided Chris do not change the Picture controls or Scene Modes (a D7000 has twenty of them) as it would appear that he is a newer shooter.
Thinking about the word "Format" got me thinking that is means a lot of things that are not even close to each other. Image files, Raw, jpeg, tif are all different formats, Film we had different size of film again 35mm, 135, 4x5 and so on, Cameras DSLR 35mm format and medium format Cameras. Orientation of image either Landscape or Portrait formats and do not even go anywhere near the computer with all the different formats of files.
I really think that we need to make sure that we are all talking the same thing, I am just as guilty as the next in not asking to make sure I completely understand the question.
So is format orientation or camera Picture Control/Scene Mode?

Cheers: Allan

[Andrew1]

Chris, obviously there is some confusion as your question lacks some details.

By Landscape if you mean by how you hold the camera, there is no difference.

If you mean by editing mode for jpg: (mode is the term for the prepackaged editing instructions held in a software file.)

- In Landscape Mode, details are important in scenery and architecture shots so contrast (sharpening) is applied on a more finite scale. Greens and blues are also usually given an extra emphasis on saturation.

- In portrait mode, jpg editing assumes you want softer skin so make those that way. Small facial blemishes and pores are "smoothed" over. Caucasian skin tones are also addressed.

More advanced photographers, such as the many you will find here will take things to the next level by combining these and many other edits into the same image. They will deal more with the raw data as it was recorded in memory. If you think terms and definitions are hard now, wait until you get into that.

[TonyW]

This might be a side issue but it worries me when people talk of pressing the shutter button down. Surely it's always a squeezing action and does not necessarily push the camera down or sideways in portrait mode.

[Manfred M]

I'm not so sure Manfred. The Japanese engineers are often very well paid rather intelligent people. I've met a few - difference in the UK is the well paid part. They also have to know rather a lot about the bits they use and it's capabilities and just how to solve problems with it.

John - it has nothing to do with being well paid or not, but rather the decisions that go into defining what the specific preset does. Unfortunately, with any preset, we are generally dealing with how an "average" image is processed, as so long as your shot falls into those parameters, then the output will probably look okay.

The problem with any average is that it there is no "average" image; they all have some unique attributes. As well, the Canon and Nikon engineers have tweaked the output to produce that Canon or Nikon look; which is not necessarily the look I am after.

Developing a design is all about managing different tradeoffs, and that is exactly what the camera manufacturer's engineering teams have come up with. Use the standard presets, and you will likely come up with an unobjectionable image; but not necessarily a great image. To do that you have to figure out the look you want and either using in-camera settings for jpegs or in post, one has to tweak things to meet your own photographic goals. When I shoot people, I tend to like images that are a tad warmer and sharper than the default settings.

As for the comments about engineers; I know some Japanese and UK engineers, and pay differences apart, both groups are quite competent, but really tend to have differing underlying cultural philosophies that do affect the way they do their jobs. As an aside, I'm and engineering manager when I'm not persuing my photographic (and other hobbies) so I deal with these types of decisions on a daily basis (and Canadian engineers tend to think a bit more like the UK ones than the Japanese ones, in my experience).

[ajohnw]

John - it has nothing to do with being well paid or not, but rather the decisions that go into defining what the specific preset does. Unfortunately, with any preset, we are generally dealing with how an "average" image is processed, as so long as your shot falls into those parameters, then the output will probably look okay.

The problem with any average is that it there is no "average" image; they all have some unique attributes. As well, the Canon and Nikon engineers have tweaked the output to produce that Canon or Nikon look; which is not necessarily the look I am after.

Developing a design is all about managing different tradeoffs, and that is exactly what the camera manufacturer's engineering teams have come up with. Use the standard presets, and you will likely come up with an unobjectionable image; but not necessarily a great image. To do that you have to figure out the look you want and either using in-camera settings for jpegs or in post, one has to tweak things to meet your own photographic goals. When I shoot people, I tend to like images that are a tad warmer and sharper than the default settings.

As for the comments about engineers; I know some Japanese and UK engineers, and pay differences apart, both groups are quite competent, but really tend to have differing underlying cultural philosophies that do affect the way they do their jobs. As an aside, I'm and engineering manager when I'm not persuing my photographic (and other hobbies) so I deal with these types of decisions on a daily basis (and Canadian engineers tend to think a bit more like the UK ones than the Japanese ones, in my experience).

I've lived in the grey world you describe Manfred for all but the first few years of my working life on a variety of things but always completely new and always intended for production. That's why I think it's worth finding out just how effective some things provided for producing jpg's in the camera actually are. Had my managerial period as well but frankly I happier being active.

I do agree about cultural thought processes but the japanese engineers I have met have been extremely level headed and able to rapidly grasp and accept concepts which might be contrary to their current beliefs. I did meet a couple of Canadian engineers once. No need for details but the way they were going in a particular area was rather refreshing compared with a rather crazy thing I was having to do. A good sign that. Their very senior management clearly had balls. Often lacking the world over these days largely down to insecurity.

John
-

[Lancer]

For portrait, we use shallow aperture opposed to landscape.

[rpcrowe]

I think we may be talking apples and oranges here...

I suspect that the OP is referring to the landscape mode of the camera rather than the vertical position of that camera which is what many of us think of when we say landscape format. The camera will process differently in JPEG landscape mode than it does in the JPEG portrait mode. This has nothing to do with the position of the camera. An image shot in the JPEG landscape mode with the camera in the vertical position will be equally as sharp as if it were shot in the horizontal position.

However, when I first read the title, I suspected that the OP might have been shooting with one of the original issue Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses which had not been recalled to be tweaked by Canon. That lens had an alarming propensity for relatively unsharp images when shot in the vertical position with a focal length of between 250mm and 300mm. I suspect that was due to some fault of the Image tabilization...