 |
| Going Fishing! The other day was a beautiful summer day with moderate temperatures and low humidity here in southeastern Virginia (a rarity!). I thought I would go out wandering and looking for anything interesting to photograph. I happened to see this man and his two children (or more likely grandchildren) put the canoe into the water, load it up with fishing gear and paddle away. I thought this little scene would make a nice human interest image. (click to enlarge) OM-1; 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 50mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200 |
Charging Camera Batteries; When are they fully charged?
When I charge my camera batteries, it gets to the point where the charger shows 100% charge or, depending upon the camera or charger brand, the flashing light becomes constant or turns green or goes off. Whatever. But the batteries still appear to be charging. When the charger initially shows fully charged is it really fully charged or does it still keep charging for a while longer? The other day I was charging all of my camera batteries. I do that periodically. In one of my dual battery chargers, both Fujifilm batteries showed 100% charged but the little LCD stayed lit as though it was still charging for another 20 minutes or so before the screen went dark. Does that mean they are still charging? I think they are. I don’t think batteries are fully charged when first indicated. I think to achieve 100%, we need to leave our batteries in the charger for a while longer. I don’t have anything to back that up, just my sense about it.
Your Camera’s Clock; Why are they not keep time very well?
Why aren’t internal clocks in cameras, which are basically computers with lenses, more accurate? After all it is just a computer with similar circuit boards and electronics as other computers. I last set the clocks on my cameras when we switched to Daylight Savings Rime on March 12th. The other day I checked my camera's clocks and found that the clock in my X-T5 was 3 minutes fast, the X-H2S was 1 minute fast and the Nikon Z7II was also 1 minute fast. Is that as accurate as they can program them? My very old $20 Timex watch does better than that. Makes me wonder how accurate the shutter speed are. You may think this isn't important. It might not be to you but many photographers use two cameras with identically set clocks so in the editing process all of their, potentially thousands of images, are sequenced properly. This can be important also for legal photographers, forensic photographers and others who may have to prove, to the minute, when a particular image was made. Just sayin’.
Upscaling A Low Resolution Image Versus Using The High Resolution Image Feature; Which better serves you?
Where am I going wrong with my logic here? I'm hoping I can explain adequately my thoughts about this. For example, I have two cameras, one 10mp and one 40mp and I take a properly focused photo of a distant ruler with a really sharp lens with each and, upon examining the files excruciatingly closely on my monitor, the 10mp camera/lens combination will just barely resolve the 1 inch markings on a ruler. However, the 40mp camera/lens combination resolves the ruler’s 1/2” markings. That means the 40mp sensor resolves twice as much detail as the 10mp sensor. (A 40mp sensor has twice the linear pixels both horizontally and vertically than a 10mp sensor. To get twice the resolution you need 4X the total number of pixels).
Now, if I put the 10mp image file through Topaz Gigapixel AI (or Photo AI) and upsize it to the same number of pixels on each dimension as the 40mp file, I’m not getting any more actual resolution, but just doubling the size of the smallest resolution shown in the original file. In essence, my one inch resolution is now effectively two inches in size but you still can’t see the 1/2” markings. It is just making the 1” bigger and easier to see. If fine detail wasn't originally resolved it won't be resolved no matter how much you upscale the image file.
However, if I have a 10mp camera that has the High Resolution Imaging feature which takes several exposures while shifting the sensor (anywhere from 4 to 16 exposures) resulting in a 40mp final composited image file, I should now be able to see the 1/2” markings on the ruler. I’m actually getting more resolution as the 1/2 or 1 pixel shift in the sensor for each exposure is now allowing the camera/lens combination to resolve finer detail? Is my thinking correct about this?
So, if you are cropping in significantly to improve your composition and upscaling the image file, that only makes sense if you need a larger final file size (for example some publications, etc. won't accept a file size below a certain pixel count). But if you are cropping heavily to reveal more detail, upscaling will not help. The upshot is although you can enlarge your lower megapixel images using AI software, you aren’t gaining any extra detail only making the existing detail larger. You only get more detail with a camera having more megapixels or using the High Resolution Imaging feature. Where am I going wrong?
Post Processing; What does that mean anyway?
“Fix it in post.” Where did the term "post-processing" come from? Why do some use that term when referring to editing their digital images? I suspect the phrase came from the video/cinema world (specifically "post production"), but why is it used in digital photography?
The prefix "post," meaning after, subsequent or later, and processing, is in reference to editing our digital images. So, technically, it is "after" processing. What does that mean? After processing (editing) my images there is nothing. They are done. Finished. After that I either file them, publish them or print them. After editing there is not post-editing. We should just use "editing" or "processing" our digital images and get rid of the post part of the terminology. Forget this "post processing" terminology. It is inappropriate.
“Fix it in post.” Where did the term "post-processing" come from? Why do some use that term when referring to editing their digital images? I suspect the phrase came from the video/cinema world (specifically "post production"), but why is it used in digital photography?
The prefix "post," meaning after, subsequent or later, and processing, is in reference to editing our digital images. So, technically, it is "after" processing. What does that mean? After processing (editing) my images there is nothing. They are done. Finished. After that I either file them, publish them or print them. After editing there is not post-editing. We should just use "editing" or "processing" our digital images and get rid of the post part of the terminology. Forget this "post processing" terminology. It is inappropriate.
Pre-Visualization; What does that term mean?
Visualization can be defined as "The formation of a mental image of something." I get that. I do that often. I can understand standing before a beautiful landscape and "visualizing" how it will look when I'm done editing it in Lightroom. Most often, it won't be a Xerox copy of what I see before me. But what is "pre-visualization?" Is it my subconscious thoughts that occur before I consciously think about my composition? I have no idea. That term gets bandied around improperly, I believe.
Just How Sharp Are Your Images?; Does it depend upon where you live?
When photographers in the U.K. refer to sharp images, I have heard many use the term “pin sharp.” My question is…are your images sharper than ours here in the U.S. as we normally say “tack sharp?” Pins seem sharper than tacks as the diameter of the shaft of a pin is much narrower than the shaft of a tack thus allowing a finer point. If so, we may have to change our terminology and say our images here in the U.S. are “needle sharp” or “razor sharp.” After all, we don't want to feel inferior, do we? It’s the old one-upmanship of human nature kicking in, I guess. Lol
Zee Versus Zed
Can you have it both ways? Are they the Nikon “Zee” series of mirrorless cameras or the “Zed” series? Okay, if it is the Zed series, then why didn’t you call the Nikon DSLRs the “Ded” series? How about the Canon’s? The 1 “Ded” Mark IV camera? How about the 5 “Ded? Mark III? How about my Fujifilm X-T5? Is it an X-“Ted”5? If you are going to call the Z series the “Zed” series then I think you are obligated to treat other similar consonants in a consistent manner. My parents told me when I was a kid that I couldn't have things both ways and that I had to choose. Time to choose Canada and U.K. photographers.
There you have it, some of the great unanswered questions of the photography world.—Not! Fun, anyway. Enjoy your weekend.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Unanswered Questions":
ReplyDeletePondering #3 After many tests, I have come to the conclusion that my cameras produce the same image given that I stay at the base resolution (17.28" and 27.5" horizontal canvas size, OM-1 and Z7 respectively). I make 19" long dimension prints so one is enlarged slightly in PS, the other is reduced. Photographs look the same.
A New One:
I have rented the Zeiss Milvus 50 f1.4 and Voightlander 50mm Apo Lanthar lenses in search of the etherical and likely mystical image qualities such as micro contrast and enhanced gradation in the highlights. Those lenses are clearly constructed to the highest possible standards and are more like objects in a museum than camera lenses. Yet, when I compare the images, made side by side, same camera, with those made with my lowly Nikon 60 Micro, I can see no difference whatsover in detail or "rendering". Where am I going wrong?