MacroMarlin
Member
First we have mirrorless,...and soon, we'll going to have lensless cameras....yahoooo!:cheers::cheers:
D800: Mind freaking blowing details
- Thread starter UncleFai
- Start date
- Status
next , dont even need a camera.
samueltan99
New Member
s1221ljc
Senior Member
Agree. To me all the portraits look flat, artificial, heavy touched up/processed.... The Nikon shots are indeed awesome like those of the library et al. But I likely wont be getting the D800, too "intolerant" of mistakes from poor techniques & equipment & I dont think I want to see all the flaws on the photos of pretty girls I take :bsmilie:
Last edited:
Hmm. It's not that big a resolution jump from the D3X. Things like "seeing the photographer" or "can see every hair!" etc were already there on the older sensor (assuming the D3X resolves as well as the A900, which I'm sure it does).
One thing I did note in the D800 shots were moire, especially visible in the hair (easy to spot in the eyebrows). But that's really not a problem for PP, and only an issue for the "always 100% pixelpeeping" measurebators.
One thing I did note in the D800 shots were moire, especially visible in the hair (easy to spot in the eyebrows). But that's really not a problem for PP, and only an issue for the "always 100% pixelpeeping" measurebators.
D800 and San Francisco Test Shots: Nikon D4 - D1 / D800 Forum: Digital Photography Review
like the first pic.. feel like 3D after looking at it longer
like the first pic.. feel like 3D after looking at it longer
Just for kicks, here's a full sizer from the D800E
http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/044_T10p_galerija_n24-70_f2-8g_raw.jpg
I knew there was a good reason to wait for the E.
http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nikon_D800E_preview/044_T10p_galerija_n24-70_f2-8g_raw.jpg
I knew there was a good reason to wait for the E.
Reminds me of CSI where they can take a small reflection in an image process it and tada!!! you found the killer... :bsmilie:
Don get me wrong, im not disrespecting the D800/D800E, Jus tt e photo tat Uncle Fai shared has a little too much details for. when zoom out to see the the full pic, it looks as though she has dry skin and e skin are flaking off..
If i have the $$ i'll sure get the D800... 36mp can use for macro landscape, then 20mp or normal shoot.
Don get me wrong, im not disrespecting the D800/D800E, Jus tt e photo tat Uncle Fai shared has a little too much details for. when zoom out to see the the full pic, it looks as though she has dry skin and e skin are flaking off..
If i have the $$ i'll sure get the D800... 36mp can use for macro landscape, then 20mp or normal shoot.
Jus tt e photo tat Uncle Fai shared has a little too much details for. when zoom out to see the the full pic, it looks as though she has dry skin and e skin are flaking off..
The picture itself appears over-sharpened - hence the "noise" when zoomed out.
LOL speak like a pro. The reason for those of you that see ''things'' like ''noise'' or ''dry skin'' is because the size of the image is too large and when you zoom out your screen that you're viewing have too little pixels and the image has too much details hence it cram into the tiny pixels that your screen has. That has nothing to do with D800, the girl nor the image but your screen.
Secondly, the girl picture shot with D800 is clearly not over-sharpened, the one with 5D2 was.
rasdeep
New Member
and how you know this? you speak like the next pro
Common sense.
You're viewing a 6000 pixels+ image, optimised for 300 DPI on a monitor that's designed to display things at 96 DPI. Them pixels on your monitor aren't gonna magically shrink. Try taking a printout of that image at any common size, view from the intended angle and see if you notice "Too much detail". What you call "Too much detail" would actually become microdetail in a print.
This is one of the banes of digital photography. Everyone starts viewing images at 100% and is suddenly an "Expert", even though this magnification has nothing to do with real world sensibilities.
Do you also view your 42" HDTV from a nose's distance away?
You're viewing a 6000 pixels+ image, optimised for 300 DPI on a monitor that's designed to display things at 96 DPI. Them pixels on your monitor aren't gonna magically shrink. Try taking a printout of that image at any common size, view from the intended angle and see if you notice "Too much detail". What you call "Too much detail" would actually become microdetail in a print.
This is one of the banes of digital photography. Everyone starts viewing images at 100% and is suddenly an "Expert", even though this magnification has nothing to do with real world sensibilities.
Do you also view your 42" HDTV from a nose's distance away?
guess those kinda ''sense'' aren't that common for some ppl here after all. LOL
rasdeep
New Member
Hmm.. If this is common sense, we shouldnt be seeing pro wannabes trying to explain things they do not even understand.
common sense should tell you to save this file and view it say using Windows Gallery or even your fav photoshop instead of relying on your web browser to base your "pro judgement"
And it is definitely right that common sense aint that common after all
common sense should tell you to save this file and view it say using Windows Gallery or even your fav photoshop instead of relying on your web browser to base your "pro judgement"
And it is definitely right that common sense aint that common after all
Last edited:
rasdeep
New Member
I beg to differ.. People are saying they see 'things'' like ''noise'' or ''dry skin'' due to the large resolution on browser.. Did you see it?
I believed this is the file that they are looking at www.bezergheanu.com/Other/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg
Last edited:
Name calling isn't gonna get you anywhere.
What you're referring to, in layman terms as "Large resolution in browser" is the image being displayed at 100%. This is not up for debate because it's a fact.
When you view in any other program, you're just viewing at some preset magnification. It could be 25%, could be 100%. But at 100%, the image would look the same, no matter what program you're viewing it in.
Your previous post says:
That is not even remotely specific enough. What magnification are you gonna be viewing in, in either program? Are you just gonna "Fit to screen"? because that's not representative of real world use either.
The correct way would be to resize the image to whatever print or screen dimension that your final output is and view from the intended distance. This again, is not representative of real world print use because as I mentioned earlier, your screen is 96DPI and your print would be anywhere between 200-300DPI.
It's good to have a basic footing in science before attempting such conversations.
What you're referring to, in layman terms as "Large resolution in browser" is the image being displayed at 100%. This is not up for debate because it's a fact.
When you view in any other program, you're just viewing at some preset magnification. It could be 25%, could be 100%. But at 100%, the image would look the same, no matter what program you're viewing it in.
Your previous post says:
That is not even remotely specific enough. What magnification are you gonna be viewing in, in either program? Are you just gonna "Fit to screen"? because that's not representative of real world use either.
The correct way would be to resize the image to whatever print or screen dimension that your final output is and view from the intended distance. This again, is not representative of real world print use because as I mentioned earlier, your screen is 96DPI and your print would be anywhere between 200-300DPI.
It's good to have a basic footing in science before attempting such conversations.
rasdeep
New Member
kiddo is name calling? drama much?
lets get on with the conversation; both "Large resolution in browser" or "Large resolution in XXX viewers" are being displayed at 100%. Problem is they do not look the same, one have "dry skin effect" while the other look perfectly normal like it should on the screen. I am not sure why this is so hard to grasps but i do not think i need to hold your hand to show you how / why they do not look the same as i've already said that.
btw, the correct term should be PPI, but i am not here to discuss print size DPI vs screen PPI difference. i am also not debating with you if this is real world use as that is beside the point of my post.
lets get on with the conversation; both "Large resolution in browser" or "Large resolution in XXX viewers" are being displayed at 100%. Problem is they do not look the same, one have "dry skin effect" while the other look perfectly normal like it should on the screen. I am not sure why this is so hard to grasps but i do not think i need to hold your hand to show you how / why they do not look the same as i've already said that.
btw, the correct term should be PPI, but i am not here to discuss print size DPI vs screen PPI difference. i am also not debating with you if this is real world use as that is beside the point of my post.
- Status
Similar threads
