Just not tack sharp
Jun 19, 2017 17:04:23 #
PHRubin wrote:
Interesting - I got 3084 X 2056 or 4.5 MBYTES. Apparently a cropped image.
No idea how TriX is arriving at his numbers, but your 3084x2056 is correct. However, the file size of 4.5 Mb makes no difference at all. It is approximately a 6 MP image, and yes it does appear to have been cropped to that size as opposed to simply resampled.
Viewed at 100% the image is quite sharp enough! If the OP wants a sharper image he has two choices with that camera, one of which is simply get much closer to the owl so that cropping is not necessary and the other is get a longer lens to shoot at the same distance (again to avoid cropping).
Jun 19, 2017 17:11:04 #
Apaflo wrote:
No idea how TriX is arriving at his numbers, but y... (show quote)
/quote]
If you'll look back a Page or two, you'll see a screen shot of my EXIF viewer. Now whether that viewer is correctly reporting the data, I can't verify, and I have not mentioned the file size (which if it were reported, would be MB not Mb (assuming you know the difference). Regardless, the point remains that the shot was significantly cropped.
Jun 19, 2017 17:25:50 #
TriX wrote:
If you'll look back a Page or two, you'll see a screen shot of my EXIF viewer. Now whether that viewer is correctly reporting the data, I can't verify, and I have not mentioned the file size (which if it were reported, would be MB not Mb (assuming you know the difference). Regardless, the point remains that the shot was significantly cropped.
The significant point is not to quibble about typos, but to wonder what you did to the image that makes your Exif reader give you bogus information.
Jun 19, 2017 17:27:10 #
TriX wrote:
And if my EXIF viewer is correct, it was cropped down to about 3MP from 21MP - a pretty serious crop...
TriX, I see 3084x2056, or 6.3mp, which you can calculate or just accept the metadata.
But this doesn't tell you if the image was cropped to this size, or if it was downsampled to the smaller size.
The waterfall below was a 13549x7260 which I downsampled to 2048x1092 - the metadata shows it is a 2.2 mp image.
Jun 19, 2017 17:30:06 #
Apaflo wrote:
No idea how TriX is arriving at his numbers, but y... (show quote)
23.7' is as close as you can probably get to a great horned owl in the wild, which leads me to believe the image posted wasn't cropped that much and was probably down sampled.
Jun 19, 2017 17:31:50 #
Gene51 wrote:
But this doesn't tell you if the image was cropped to this size, or if it was downsampled to the smaller size.
As far as sharpness goes it really wouldn't make any difference!
But in fact is was cropped. The focus distance is listed as 23.7M, which does not match the field of view for a 300mm lens.
Jun 19, 2017 17:32:39 #
I am the OP. The image is cropped quite a bit. I am not where I can check but it is cropped considerably.
Jun 19, 2017 17:34:05 #
Gene51 wrote:
23.7' is as close as you can probably get to a great horned owl in the wild, which leads me to believe the image posted wasn't cropped that much and was probably down sampled.
As far as I know Nikon always lists focus distance in meters... not feet. Is the D500 different or does Adobe Lightroom convert it?
Jun 19, 2017 17:35:35 #
TriX wrote:
Apparently our EXIF viewers are showing different info. Here's a screen shot of mine...
I think you downloaded the smaller version - click the plus sign to enlarge the image to full size, and you will get what the rest of us are getting.
Jun 19, 2017 17:44:49 #
Kuzano wrote:
I AM a big fan of Ken Rockwell. The man has saved me a lot of money on lens reviews over the last fifteen years... both on buys to avoid and also saved me money on inexpensive very sharp lenses.
So, he's a bit unusual, in ways that I appreciate. I also do not attribute any false loyalties to Ken.
So, he's a bit unusual, in ways that I appreciate. I also do not attribute any false loyalties to Ken.
And this is the reason I am not - a quote directly from his site:
"I have no one to proofread, spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke." "I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page."
What was it that PT Barnum said?
Jun 19, 2017 17:46:00 #
ddub wrote:
I am the OP. The image is cropped quite a bit. I am not where I can check but it is cropped considerably.
You can check in LR - press the "i" key to cycle through the different loupe options. One of them will give you the image size in pixels wide by pixels tall.
Jun 19, 2017 17:49:28 #
Apaflo wrote:
As far as I know Nikon always lists focus distance in meters... not feet. Is the D500 different or does Adobe Lightroom convert it?
My bad. You are correct - everything is metric - thanks for the correction!
Jun 19, 2017 17:51:23 #
Jun 19, 2017 17:53:25 #
ddub wrote:
I am the OP. The image is cropped quite a bit. I am not where I can check but it is cropped considerably.
So I think that this is about as good an image as you are going to get out of that camera and lens at this distance with that high an ISO, unless you do some work on sharpening and noise reduction. DXO Optics Pro's Prime is an excellent candidate for doing both at the raw level, and exporting the result back to LR as a DNG file for further enhancement if you want.
Jun 19, 2017 17:58:21 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.