Just for self-assurance - please check this image for me. (700kb!) I`m kicking off a herbarium digitizing project and this is one sample.
Is the sharpness normal for straight out of EOS 350D? Some people complain that the images look blurry. I tell them that this is normal for a raw image with no sharpening applied but thought I`d better ask you guys to be safe.
The image was taken with EOS 350D, 60/2.8 EF-S macro, _no sharpening_ either in camera or conversion. RAW - 8-bit TIF in DPP - .jpg for viewing, full rez. I might have to double check the stability of the copy stand or something if you say it`s too blurry. I compared the lens with my own (very sharp by my observations with film) 50/2.5 and could detect no difference in sharpness.
Never mind the other issues (lighting, the edge etc.) I`m workin`on it. (and getting paid - woohoo!)
Ott, can you post a 100% clip of a detailed section?
It does look a bit soft to me but that may be a result of the resizing. There's also a small amount of yellow fringing that should be easy enough to correct in ACR or using something like PTLens.
For what it's worth the images I'm getting with my 50/2.5 do look sharper out of the camera but there can be any number of factors at play here.
Hi Ott,
I think that it is OK. For comparison, you can download some RAW sample files that I toke with 350D + Sigma 180 Macro here : Sigma 180 Review
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 24, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Ott,
I'm not sure of exactly the problems, but it does not appear sharp in comparison to images I've taken with my 350D, and the EF-S 60 macro is said to be able to create very sharp images. I do not have this lens, so I do not personally have experience with it.
It appears that the image was taken at a higher ISO (800?). This causes some loss of detail and softening. Make sure you have selected ISO 100. I would also stop the lens down to f8 or f16 depending on the amount of magnification to ensure that you have sufficient depth of field between the flower and the paper to keep any print and the floral subject in focus. Use a tripod and cable release if you can. Lighting from 45 degrees on each side may also help improve the detail captured.
It is 100%. I use f/10 and DOF should be plentiful. The camera is on a copy stand and I use either a cable release or shoot it straigh from the computer. (It`s tethered all time)
it IS @ ISO 100 (the imperfections of the paper surface may look like noise. That`s pretty much what you get from a 1911 sheet) Note that I have turned in-camera sharpening off so I could use more refined methods later.
Juza - I`ll take a look at your samples when I get back to a DSL.
Thanks for your responses.
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 26, 2006 at 1:44 PM
More or less I'm with Guy. The file looks pretty darn good to me, but there may be something you can do to get it even a little bit sharper. Since it's flat art, you might even try a wider aperture, like f5.6-f8. Also, once sharpened, this will look incredible. Interesting piece, BTW.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 27, 2006 at 1:53 AM
I'm still wondering about focal issues and the ISO. I did not see any noise in the paper. I made some adjustments to your sample jpg in Photoshop and color noise started to appear that I did not expect to see at ISO100. Specifically I saw issues in the margins and dark sections of flowers showing up as inconsistent color speckles. I see these speckles in shadows of my ISO 800-1600 files before applying luminance smoothing in ACR.
After further consideration, this may be a result of the JPG compression of the file before you uploaded it to the web.
I do not expect perfect sharpness from the RAW file, but I don't think this looks as sharp as some raw files I get from my XT with a similar quality lens. I could not get similar end results from the sample you posted.
These were sharpened at conversion and USM applied at 200,.5,1.
Example 100% 100percentcrop
Discussion
6 repliesIs the sharpness normal for straight out of EOS 350D? Some people complain that the images look blurry. I tell them that this is normal for a raw image with no sharpening applied but thought I`d better ask you guys to be safe.
The image was taken with EOS 350D, 60/2.8 EF-S macro, _no sharpening_ either in camera or conversion. RAW - 8-bit TIF in DPP - .jpg for viewing, full rez. I might have to double check the stability of the copy stand or something if you say it`s too blurry. I compared the lens with my own (very sharp by my observations with film) 50/2.5 and could detect no difference in sharpness.
Never mind the other issues (lighting, the edge etc.) I`m workin`on it. (and getting paid - woohoo!)
It does look a bit soft to me but that may be a result of the resizing. There's also a small amount of yellow fringing that should be easy enough to correct in ACR or using something like PTLens.
For what it's worth the images I'm getting with my 50/2.5 do look sharper out of the camera but there can be any number of factors at play here.
Guy
I think that it is OK. For comparison, you can download some RAW sample files that I toke with 350D + Sigma 180 Macro here : Sigma 180 Review
I'm not sure of exactly the problems, but it does not appear sharp in comparison to images I've taken with my 350D, and the EF-S 60 macro is said to be able to create very sharp images. I do not have this lens, so I do not personally have experience with it.
It appears that the image was taken at a higher ISO (800?). This causes some loss of detail and softening. Make sure you have selected ISO 100. I would also stop the lens down to f8 or f16 depending on the amount of magnification to ensure that you have sufficient depth of field between the flower and the paper to keep any print and the floral subject in focus. Use a tripod and cable release if you can. Lighting from 45 degrees on each side may also help improve the detail captured.
Good luck with your project.
it IS @ ISO 100 (the imperfections of the paper surface may look like noise. That`s pretty much what you get from a 1911
Juza - I`ll take a look at your samples when I get back to a DSL.
Thanks for your responses.
After further consideration, this may be a result of the JPG compression of the file before you uploaded it to the web.
I do not expect perfect sharpness from the RAW file, but I don't think this looks as sharp as some raw files I get from my XT with a similar quality lens. I could not get similar end results from the sample you posted.
These were sharpened at conversion and USM applied at 200,.5,1.
Example 100% 100percentcrop
full image