Is there are any difference in quality between Large Fine JPG and converted NEF?

Question

Assume that I do not want to do any post-processing, such as white balancing, etc. I would like to preserve the best resolution (for possible cropping). So the question is: Are there any quality differences between shooting in-camera JPG, versus converting NEF to JPEG using ViewNX, Picasa, etc.?

Asked by yura

Answer

If you aren't interested in post-processing, then an in-camera jpeg will have the same resolution as a RAW image and the amount of detail in the image should be roughly the same. There is more flexibility in the RAW format in terms of post-processing and color corrections.

As an example, here is Digital Photography Review's review of the Nikon D800 showing the difference between high-quality jpeg and RAW -- http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22

Answered by David Rouse

Check more discussion of this question.

How does the new layout used in Fujifilm X-Pro1 sensor improve image quality?

Question

One of the allegedly big advantages of Fujifilm X-Pro1 is its new color filter array layout, which does not require anti-aliasing filter in front of it. In theory, this could mean notable improvement in perceived sharpness and details. Also, Moirè effect should be avoided with the reduced repetitiveness in filter pattern.

Are there any image comparisons available taken with the X-Pro vs a conventional Bayer sensor DSLR with similar specs (APS-C around 16MP), showing how these advantages work out in reality?

Asked by Imre

Answer

In contrast to the standard 2x2 bayer pattern the X-Pro 1's sensor uses a 6x6 pattern (see this link for images)

R,G,R,G,R,G        G,B,G,G,R,G
G,B,G,B,G,B        R,G,R,B,G,B
R,G,R,G,R,G        G,B,G,G,R,G
G,B,G,B,G,B        G,R,G,G,B,G
R,G,R,G,R,G        B,G,B,R,G,R
G,B,G,B,G,B        G,R,G,G,B,G

The new pattern results in every horizontal and vertical line being covered by all three photosite colours, the lack of which is the main source of moire in bayer pattern sensors. They combat this by using an anti-aliasing filter to (slightly) blur the image to ensure that all lines will hit all three colours. The lack of this blurring in the image that hits the X-Pro 1's sensor results in the potential for increased sharpness and image quality, which seems to be born out in reviews, see here and here

dpreview allows you to compare the X-Pro 1 to a wide range of cameras (shooting the same test scene) here.

Answered by Steven Cunningham

Check more discussion of this question.

What is causing the cyan outline in the building in the background of this image?

Question

I took this picture the other day. It's a JPEG from the Fujifilm X-Pro1. The sky is overexposed as was necessary to light Anya brightly — and because I was playing with shooting wide open, and that plus the high base ISO plus max shutter of ¹⁄₄₀₀₀th meant this went beyond what the metering really wanted to do. Maybe a bit much, as we've lost the top corner of her head.

But, never mind that. What I'm interested in here is the cyan blur outlining the Prudential building in the background. A one-for-one pixel-level crop is below the full image....

_{Anya on the Esplanade; photo by me and CC-BY-SA 3.0 in this size only.}

What is causing that blue outline? Is it just a matter of the out-of-focus blur interacting with the overexposed sky? Is chromatic aberration to blame? Or, is it because of the larger-than-normal color matrix used by this camera's unique sensor, and basically an artifact of RAW decoding?

Camera make  : FUJIFILM
Camera model : X-Pro1
Focal length : 35.0mm  (35mm equivalent: 53mm)
Exposure time: 0.0003 s  (1/4000)
Aperture     : f/1.4
ISO equiv.   : 200
Whitebalance : Auto
Metering Mode: pattern
Exposure     : aperture priority (semi-auto)

Asked by mattdm

Answer

The sky on a sunny day is cyan (primarily green and blue with some red). Where the intake of light is really bright, all three color components (red, green, blue) on the sensor chip are fully saturated (at their maximum counter values), which results in overexposure, or pure white in this case.

What you're seeing as a cyan outline is actually the result of that section of the image not being pegged to pure white, because the darkness of the gray building is interfering with (blurring) the ligthness of the sky, and thus preventing the sensor counters from attaining their maximum (e.g, overexposed) values in that region.

If you were to shoot the image again with the same exposure values, but this time with the building in sharp focus instead of the subject, then you would see a sharp line where the building is solid gray-ish and the sky is overexposed to pure white, but no more cyan fringing.

This effect is very similar to the laser bolts in the some of the space battles in Star Wars — where light green or light red charged-particle beams are a white line in the center, surrounded by a beautiful pure color fading out to black. The pure white in the center is simply an artifact of over-exposure; there is no actual white light there.

Note that if you had a light source that was pure red, pure blue, or pure green (such that it perfectly matched the receptor frequencies of your sensor), then you would not see over-exposure toward white, but instead over-exposure to a single color component only.

Answered by Todd Lehman

Check more discussion of this question.

Why picture quality decreasing with very big apperture? [closed]

Question

Possible Duplicates:
What is a “diffraction limit”?
Why are my photos taken at f/11 less sharp than those taken at a wider aperture?

I have made 3 landscape pictures with f/12, f/22 and f/32. Shutter speed and ISO are almost same, but last one has a lot of blur and is very pale. Why this happen? My purpose was to get maximal DOF.

Details: Nikon d5100, 18-55 kit

Asked by yura

Answer

Without wishing to get into detail - the short answer to your question is diffraction. This happens at smaller apertures, usually when you get above f/16 to f/22 etc, and the extent to which it occurs depends on the optical quality of the lens used. In your case, the 18-55mm kit lens which is a mass-produced cheap kit lens will show this problem moreso than say a fixed focal length prime lens.

You can achieve good depth of field with a more modest aperture such as f/14. There is rarely if ever good cause to go all the way up to f/22.

Answered by Mike

Check more discussion of this question.

How to photograph a partial solar eclipse?

Question

There will be a partial solar eclipse tomorrow visible from Europe, Africa, Asia. I'm looking for photography tips. Looking for ideas for a typical amateur photographer but also for someone having a telescope.

Posting your photos after the eclipse would be a great bonus.

Asked by asalamon74

Answer

If you don't have a solar filter, the standard way to protect yourself when viewing a solar eclipse is to project the image via a lens or even a pinhole onto a suitable background. Why not set up a rig in which you use, say, an old camera lens projecting the image onto matte paper in the back of a darkened box and photograph that image? Fred Espenak briefly describes this approach in a Web article on solar eclipse photography. You can experiment today on an uneclipsed image of the sun. On another site there's also a curious pinhole camera setup illustration that is provided without comments. The "lens" is a precise pinhole in stiff metal foil mounted to a camera body cap. It looks easy and cheap to make. Starting out with a dense ND filter in front of this rig (or maybe a crossed pair of polarizing filters) might be advisable to avoid damage to a digital sensor.

Answered by whuber

Check more discussion of this question.

Do ISO values for Film and DSLR cameras have 1 to 1 correspondence?

Question

For example, if we have a film with ISO/ASA speed of 100, is it equivalent to setting ISO = 100 on DSLRs?

Asked by Akram Mellice

Answer

Sort of... because ISO values for film don't even have a 1:1 correspondence. For example, Fujichrome Velvia 50 is rated at ISO 50, but if you set your camera on 50, you will generally underexpose. Most film photographers I knew set ISO 40 instead. However Kodak E-100 typically did expose properly at ISO 100.

A digital camera set at ISO 100 will typically respond "as if" it were film that responded with a proper exposure at ISO 100.

Film photographers grew to understand the characteristics of the particular film they were using and adjusted accordingly. Digital photographers don't typically have that problem.

Answered by Steve Ross

Check more discussion of this question.

Buying my next lens

Question

Currently I have Canon 500D with following lenses.

1. Canon 18-55 IS.
2. Canon 55-250 IS.
3. Canon 50 1.8.
4. Tokina 100 2.8 Macro.

These days I'm thinking of adding another lens to my armory. And my choices are as follows.

1. Canon 15-85 IS. ( for its range )
2. Canon 10-22. ( for its UWA capabilities )
3. Tamron 17-50. ( for its fastness )

Even after reading large number of forum entries and reviews, I still can't make up my mind on one lens. Basically I have trouble with 18-55 and I am pretty satisfied with other 3 lenses. My problems with it includes not sharp enough, not fast enough and not wide enough at times. But when I analysed pictures I have taken using exposureplot, I got to know that I am shooting in either wide end or tele end most of the time. Therefore 15-85 seems logical choice as it extends range in both ends. But strictly speaking in lens speed terms it wouldn't give me a much of speed performance over current setup.

Other option I'm thinking about is go for a 10-22 and extend my range in wide range and use 10-22+55-250 setup. But it will involve constant lens swapping.

Final option is to go for Tamron 17-50 non VC and possibly drop 18-55 and 50 1.8 from current setup. It's the cheapest option, will provide sharp pics, but current range restriction will be there.

I will really appreciate if you guys can provide me with some advice as it will make my decision process an easy one.

Asked by user1133477

Answer

It seems to me, you’re at the point where really it’s more about what works for you, so it’s going to be hard for anybody to give a definitive answer. As you’ve said, each decision has different tradeoffs and really it’s about which one’s you want to make.

Taking your current setup, you already have a Cannon 50-1.8 which is towards the upper end of your zoom for the 18-55 (where you’ve said you take a lot of your shots) and it can let in significantly more light than your kit lens. So using this lens more would seem to tick your ‘not fast enough’ requirement, it may also match your ‘not sharp enough’, as you’ve not mentioned that you’re unhappy with this lens. So, my question is why don’t you use this lens more? I’d guess it’s because you don’t like having to change lenses often and you feel restricted by it. If this is the case, then I suspect going for the Canon 10-22 would result in you keeping the kit lens (for flexibility) and rarely using the wide lens unless you had a particular series of shots in mind.

I like the Canon 15-85, it’s a reliable lens with great flexibility, however as you’ve said, it’s basically the same f-range as your kit lens. How much of a limiting factor is that in your photography. If it’s the driving force for you buying a new lens, then I’d suggest trying the Tamron. But really it’s about which lens is actually going to make the most difference to you (be it because it gets the most use because it’s a great walk-about lens, or because it makes you excited because you can get that wide shot you’ve been looking for).

Answered by forsvarir

Check more discussion of this question.