Posted by Tom Nevesely on September 26, 2006 at 10:20 AM
This has been bugging me for over 3 years – since I first got my Canon 10D. I figured I’d ask here because of the wealth of knowledge the people here have.
I often hear/read that people make wonderful “13x19’’ or larger from their 4 or 6MP cameras but unfortunately this hasn’t really been my experience. I shoot digitally with a Canon 10D 6MP camera and I find that in my landscape shots the objects in the background – forests, mountains, etc often appear odd and almost plastic or like they were painted. I’ve always assumed that the digital sensor can’t record all of that detail so that’s why it looks blurred. I also thought that I might be ruining the picture when I process the raw files. Just yesterday I found out that picture viewer software that I use (Futuris Imager) can display raw files and I can see that plastic look there too (at 100% magnification). So I don’t think it’s with my processing.
This plastic look I’m talking about can be seen at the 100% magnification on the full res file and obviously in the larger prints.
I was hoping if someone could tell me if this is normal and that I’m being anal or what I may doing wrong.
Here is a 100% crop of one of my pictures (unsharpened). I’m concerned about the way the trees look on the sunlit peak and the blotchy look of the light and shadow on the right side of the peak:
Posted by Tom Nevesely on September 26, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Here is another 100% crop from another image. Notice the way the trees look?
http://www.tnphoto.ca/PCS/stumps-crop.jpg
Posted by Guy Tal on September 26, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Tom, I know what you mean. There are certainly artifacts that are unique to digital capture making the print look different from one made from film (scanned or enlarged).
There are ways to mitigate the effect to a large extent. That plasticky look you describe are really areas where the sensor runs out of resolution but still makes a clean capture, resulting in a "blotch" of color with no grain. In many cases these areas will still have some subtle variations that can be enhanced with local contrast adjustment. There are a number of ways to do it (there's one trick described here and even betetr ones can be found with some sharpening tools like the TLR kit or PK Sharpener).
Some even digitally add grain to their images to simulate the sharper look of film (giving the illusion of detail where there is none).
In short - printing from digital is not the same as printing from film. There's lots of tricks and techniques with either one to improve your prints and get the look you're after.
There may be a couple of things at play in the cropped photo at least. It appears that the highlights are pretty blown out while the deep shadows are blocked in. It's fairly critical with digital to use the camera histogram for exposure, making sure that you don't blow the highlights. This often results in shadowed areas that are too dark, requiring adjustment to bring up shadow detail. The good news with shooting for highlights is that the shadow detail is still there and recoverable. If highlights are blown on the other hand, there is nothing you can do about it. With such a broad DR in photos like this you could also accomplilsh a lot with a split ND filter or HDR techniques.
Another question- especially for detail in distant horizons- is your lens and aperture choices. Some are simply better than others. Based upon my two-year venture into Canon and use of about half a dozen lenses, I'd almost guess that this was shot with a 28-135mm or one of the other Canon consumer lenses rather than an L. I experienced quite a bit of difference between lenses in the Canon line, with each ideally suited for some uses. The 28-135 was superb for its zoom range and for general use, but I experienced similar frustration to yours when really trying to stretch the DOF for landscapes. Part of the problem was resolved by limiting my aperture to no smaller than f/11.
Tom, looking at the Wedge Pond image it appears you are focusing on the foreground, so having some softness in the distance seems normal to me. I do agree that 6MP is not enough for superb detail in 13x19 prints. I noticed a big jump in detail when I upgraded from a Nikon D70 (6MP) to a D2x (12MP).
You don't say what RAW converter you are using. Dematrixing a RAW is as much art as science, so the app you use there can have a major effect. A tip I saw West Coast Imaging recommended adding some modest sharpening within the RAW converter. Using ACR I now add sharpening, about 40, and have found it to be very effective.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on September 26, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Guy, thanks for the info and the link regarding the local contrast adjustments. I’m definitely going to read up on that. I’ll also play around with adding the grain.
Hank, that first shot was taken with my 24mm TS-E L lens. I hyper focused it and used an aperture of f/16. I didn’t use tilts for this shot. I’m sure there is some diffraction going on and that is reducing the image resolution. I didn’t think about that until now. The second crop – the distant trees is a shot that was taken with a el cheapo Tamron 19-35mm lens.
David, I use Rawshooter Premium as my RAW processor. It has sharpening that I just leave on the default setting. I.e. some sharpening is applied but not a heck of a lot.
I’m considering getting the Canon 5D or what ever comes after that (it may still be a while until I can afford it). I like the bigger sensor which will help with reducing the diffraction (if I understand correctly) as well as more resolution to record the fine detail.
Posted by Ronald Frazier on September 26, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Tom,
Let me assure you that you can definitely print large with a 6MP sensor. I have some shots I've taken on my Digital Rebel (original, not XT) using the kit lens, enlarged to 12"x18". I've done nothing more than basic tonal adjustments and sharpening. They look incredible.
The first thing you have to remember is that you are looking at your photos super zoomed in. When you print it out, you aren't going to see pixel level details unless your nose is 6 inches from the print, and even then you are going to be more crosseyed than disappointed in the quality.
Heres an experiment for you, to see how you will like the print quality. Youve got a 3072 x 2048 image, and you want to print it at 12x18. Thats going to give you 170 dots per inch. So now do this. Take that photo, and crop out a section that is 680x1020. Print that out on a 4x6. You now have an exact, full scale replica of what that section of the photo will look like when printed.
That's a good lens Tom, so I think you can cross lens issues off the list. Diffraction at f/16 wouldn't be all that bad, so I'm guessing that focus was pushed a little too far forward. I use hyperfocal scale as a starting point, but due to the vagueries in my distance estimation, I always fine tune from hyperfocal using my DOF preview.
That leaves the question of exposure, which for me looks blown on the sunlit peaks. While fairly obvious on such a substrate, something similar can happen in my experience around trees on a skyline due to the hard edges between fine dark subjects and light skies. Nothing scientific there and certainly nothing I've seen in print, but to me it has always "felt" as though digital sensors start shedding detail when you get overexposure on that bright/dark overlap which includes fine detail such as branches.
Posted by Timothy Farrar on September 26, 2006 at 1:04 PM
Tom,
I've done about 10,000 exposures (before I got the Canon 5D) on a Canon 10D with L glass, and even when using the best fstop for the lens, I also find a lack of sharpness do to what I think might be a overly strong anti-aliasing filter on the 10D CMOS sensor (which blurs the image). The Canon 5D is much sharper in IMHO, it seems to have a less strong anti-aliasing filter as well, I see color patterns on high frequency areas in a 5D capture and a little more grain (noise) than the 10D (all of which can easily be fixed in post processing). The 5D also has more dynamic range (much better highlights than the 10D).
Here is an example of what I am getting on the 10D,
Now that shows a best case scenerio, because that shot came from a blended negative with no noise. Single exposure shots are going to have noise, which is a problem.
I think that part of the problem you are seeing in your images comes from a combination of noise reduction and the type of sharpening being applied (the sharpening algorithm has an anti-halo that is too strong in the darks and too weak in the lights, see the peaky one pixel highlights next to blury midtones in the 100% crops).
I still make wonderfull 24x16 prints from my 6MP 10D captures. Given they are not tact sharp, but using my workflow, they sure look good. See this example, which shows a large 100% crop from a 10D image which was sharpened and upsampled by 200% using a special enlargement action (my typical pre-print workflow),
I believe you should be able to find a workaround for the problem you are seeing.
One thing that might really help you is to do less noise reduction (perhaps only very mild chroma noise reduction) and instead add some film like grain after sharpening to mask out the digital noise. It will do wonders for how sharp the image looks.
Posted by Jerry Greer on September 26, 2006 at 11:35 PM
It's the processor/sensor of the 10D that's the real problem. I used the EOS 1Ds (same processor) for a few months before moving to the 5D and the files are much different. Images from the 5D are much sharper and more detailed than the 1Ds. It's really noticable when looking at prints in the 20" size.
I have the same problem with my 350D images. Anything beyond A4 looks plasticky like the this camera.
Guess I need to learn some more printing tricks. As of now I can not afford a 5D for sure. And the new 400D is just another plastic toy with few more pixels.
Posted by Leann Greene on September 27, 2006 at 8:38 PM
I use the 300D and to get 11x14 or 13x19 prints I have been doing more 2 shot composites to make up for the limitations.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on September 28, 2006 at 2:53 PM
Thank you all for your sugestions.
I hope to get a 5D or equvilant next spring. I'm already saving my pennies. I also want to get a printer - probably the Epson R1800 but that's beside the point.
In the mean time I've already started experimenting with noise reduction or the lack there of and by adding "grain". Hopefully I'll get something that I'm going to satisfied with.
Thaks again!
Posted by Andy Richards on September 29, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Guy: Thanks for the links. Sharpening has always been a bit of a mystery to me -- definitely as much "art" as science. Every bit of new information (new to me, anyway) helps
It's not "digital" which is causing this issue. It's either focus (likely) or the lens itself. I shoot lots of dSLR's including the Canons (D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II), Nikon D2X, Kodak DCS-760 and Sigma SD10. None of my digitals have this issue when properly focused and when using decent glass. The AA filter on the 10D is a little stronger than on some such as my 1DS, but not enough to make this type appearance. You do need to check both focus and glass when shooting frames with distant vegetation, but you should be able to get excellent crispness. If you want to maximize your hyperfocal landscapes, I would suggest shooting the 10D at F8 and taking two or three frames from exactly the same position just focusing for separate distances without changing the camera position on the tripod. Then using a product such as Helicon Focus or the freeware Combine Z, combine the three frames into one with infinite focus and at the sharpest aperture. You can see one of my samples here - check the forum for one of my posts about a year ago.
http://helicon.com.ua/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97
Here's a 100% crop link to a sample from my Sigma SD10 (3.4 megapixel) which has about the same optical resolution as your 10D. You can easily pick out the details....
Discussion
14 repliesI often hear/read that people make wonderful “13x19’’ or larger from their 4 or 6MP cameras but unfortunately this hasn’t really been my experience. I shoot digitally with a Canon 10D 6MP camera and I find that in my landscape shots the objects in the background – forests, mountains, etc often appear odd and almost plastic or like they were painted. I’ve always assumed that the digital sensor can’t record all of that detail so that’s why it looks blurred. I also thought that I might be ruining the picture when I process the raw files. Just yesterday I found out that picture viewer software that I use (Futuris Imager) can display raw files and I can see that plastic look there too (at 100% magnification). So I don’t think it’s with my processing.
This plastic look I’m talking about can be seen at the 100% magnification on the full res file and obviously in the larger prints.
I was hoping if someone could tell me if this is normal and that I’m being anal or what I may doing wrong.
Here is a 100% crop of one of my pictures (unsharpened). I’m concerned about the way the trees look on the sunlit peak and the blotchy look of the light and shadow on the right side of the peak:
http://www.tnphoto.ca/PCS/CRW_8403-crop.jpg
The Whole Image can be seen here:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=55295&b=vg2&st=0&la=706&ph=16&sid=9386&u=9386
http://www.tnphoto.ca/PCS/stumps-crop.jpg
There are ways to mitigate the effect to a large extent. That plasticky look you describe are really areas where the sensor runs out of resolution but still makes a clean capture, resulting in a "blotch" of color with no grain. In many cases these areas will still have some subtle variations that can be enhanced with local contrast adjustment. There are a number of ways to do it (there's one trick described here and even betetr ones can be found with some sharpening tools like the TLR kit or PK Sharpener).
Some even digitally add grain to their images to simulate the sharper look of film (giving the illusion of detail where there is none).
In short - printing from digital is not the same as printing from film. There's lots of tricks and techniques with either one to improve your prints and get the look you're after.
Guy
Another question- especially for detail in distant horizons- is your lens and aperture choices. Some are simply better than others. Based upon my two-year venture into Canon and use of about half a dozen lenses, I'd almost guess that this was shot with a 28-135mm or one of the other Canon consumer lenses rather than an L. I experienced quite a bit of difference between lenses in the Canon line, with each ideally suited for some uses. The 28-135 was superb for its zoom range and for general use, but I experienced similar frustration to yours when really trying to stretch the DOF for landscapes. Part of the problem was resolved by limiting my aperture to no smaller than f/11.
You don't say what RAW converter you are using. Dematrixing a RAW is as much art as science, so the app you use there can have a major effect. A tip I saw West Coast Imaging recommended adding some modest sharpening within the RAW converter. Using ACR I now add sharpening, about 40, and have found it to be very effective.
Hank, that first shot was taken with my 24mm TS-E L lens. I hyper focused it and used an aperture of f/16. I didn’t use tilts for this shot. I’m sure there is some diffraction going on and that is reducing the image resolution. I didn’t think about that until now. The second crop – the distant trees is a shot that was taken with a el cheapo Tamron 19-35mm lens.
David, I use Rawshooter Premium as my RAW processor. It has sharpening that I just leave on the default setting. I.e. some sharpening is applied but not a heck of a lot.
I’m considering getting the Canon 5D or what ever comes after that (it may still be a while until I can afford it). I like the bigger sensor which will help with reducing the diffraction (if I understand correctly) as well as more resolution to record the fine detail.
Let me assure you that you can definitely print large with a 6MP sensor. I have some shots I've taken on my Digital Rebel (original, not XT) using the kit lens, enlarged to 12"x18". I've done nothing more than basic tonal adjustments and sharpening. They look incredible.
The first thing you have to remember is that you are looking at your photos super zoomed in. When you print it out, you aren't going to see pixel level details unless your nose is 6 inches from the print, and even then you are going to be more crosseyed than disappointed in the quality.
Heres an experiment for you, to see how you will like the print quality. Youve got a 3072 x 2048 image, and you want to print it at 12x18. Thats going to give you 170 dots per inch. So now do this. Take that photo, and crop out a section that is 680x1020. Print that out on a 4x6. You now have an exact, full scale replica of what that section of the photo will look like when printed.
That leaves the question of exposure, which for me looks blown on the sunlit peaks. While fairly obvious on such a substrate, something similar can happen in my experience around trees on a skyline due to the hard edges between fine dark subjects and light skies. Nothing scientific there and certainly nothing I've seen in print, but to me it has always "felt" as though digital sensors start shedding detail when you get overexposure on that bright/dark overlap which includes fine detail such as branches.
I've done about 10,000 exposures (before I got the Canon 5D) on a Canon 10D with L glass, and even when using the best fstop for the lens, I also find a lack of sharpness do to what I think might be a overly strong anti-aliasing filter on the 10D CMOS sensor (which blurs the image). The Canon 5D is much sharper in IMHO, it seems to have a less strong anti-aliasing filter as well, I see color patterns on high frequency areas in a 5D capture and a little more grain (noise) than the 10D (all of which can easily be fixed in post processing). The 5D also has more dynamic range (much better highlights than the 10D).
Here is an example of what I am getting on the 10D,
http://www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd/img/sharp1.jpg - unsharpened
http://www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd/img/sharp2.jpg - sharpened
Or goto this link and try the rollovers (it might take a little time to load, large jpegs),
http://www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd/sharp.htm
Now that shows a best case scenerio, because that shot came from a blended negative with no noise. Single exposure shots are going to have noise, which is a problem.
I think that part of the problem you are seeing in your images comes from a combination of noise reduction and the type of sharpening being applied (the sharpening algorithm has an anti-halo that is too strong in the darks and too weak in the lights, see the peaky one pixel highlights next to blury midtones in the 100% crops).
I still make wonderfull 24x16 prints from my 6MP 10D captures. Given they are not tact sharp, but using my workflow, they sure look good. See this example, which shows a large 100% crop from a 10D image which was sharpened and upsampled by 200% using a special enlargement action (my typical pre-print workflow),
http://www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd/example3e.jpg
I believe you should be able to find a workaround for the problem you are seeing.
One thing that might really help you is to do less noise reduction (perhaps only very mild chroma noise reduction) and instead add some film like grain after sharpening to mask out the digital noise. It will do wonders for how sharp the image looks.
Guess I need to learn some more printing tricks. As of now I can not afford a 5D for sure. And the new 400D is just another plastic toy with few more pixels.
I hope to get a 5D or equvilant next spring. I'm already saving my pennies.
In the mean time I've already started experimenting with noise reduction or the lack there of and by adding "grain". Hopefully I'll get something that I'm going to satisfied with.
Thaks again!
Andy
It's not "digital" which is causing this issue. It's either focus (likely) or the lens itself. I shoot lots of dSLR's including the Canons (D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II), Nikon D2X, Kodak DCS-760 and Sigma SD10. None of my digitals have this issue when properly focused and when using decent glass. The AA filter on the 10D is a little stronger than on some such as my 1DS, but not enough to make this type appearance. You do need to check both focus and glass when shooting frames with distant vegetation, but you should be able to get excellent crispness. If you want to maximize your hyperfocal landscapes, I would suggest shooting the 10D at F8 and taking two or three frames from exactly the same position just focusing for separate distances without changing the camera position on the tripod. Then using a product such as Helicon Focus or the freeware Combine Z, combine the three frames into one with infinite focus and at the sharpest aperture. You can see one of my samples here - check the forum for one of my posts about a year ago.
http://helicon.com.ua/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97
Here's a 100% crop link to a sample from my Sigma SD10 (3.4 megapixel) which has about the same optical resolution as your 10D. You can easily pick out the details....
http://www.lin-evans.net/photos/100percentcrop.jpg
Here's the link to the full image:
http://www.lin-evans.net/photos/vegetation.jpg
Best regards,
Lin