Image Quality of Lenses...

[ajohnw]

It is a good article but only sound when the lens used is capable of producing the resolution that the shot needs. That aspect is often rather important as far as birds go. I have noticed that people who do a lot of that never push feather detail "restoration" too far. Others some times do. More of the same problem. If the shot for one reason or the other lens or distance can't capture that with sufficient detail nothing can be done about it. The same applies to any shot. If what is used can capture the detail that is the aspect that matters. Most shots in real terms do not need high levels of resolution and will always up sample for printing when and if they need it. Compared with full res on a PC screen they are usually down sampled anyway.

That site is of a type that annoys me a little. Colouration. I prefer as things are.

I wonder about camera improvements at times. Take this shot



Most of the PP was cloning out part of a car park and the nose of a few cars. Cloud gradatio has if anything been spoilt a little during PP. Colours are more or less as they actually are. Taken with the 1st decent digital camera to appear on the market which really did have to compete with film. The original digital ixus. Tiny 2mp CYGM CCD. Taken in Aug 2004. I reckon a 20x16 print could be squeezed out of it with a little bit of work. The detail in the castle wall mostly limits that. It produced better images than any other compact I tried. I dropped it and had to change. Bought in 2000/2001 and if I remember correctly dropped around 2008. Rant over but I feel in some respects dslr's are going the same way. Moral - the lens on this camera did exploit the capabilities of the sensor. Those after most definitely didn't.

As I posted it in a mini competition out of curiosity I did jazz up the colours a little. However it took all of 30 secs to push it the way things are often sent in a jocular manner and it would be very easy to do more.



John
-