D70 vs D300 - I hate the images from the D300

L

louiscar

Suspended / Banned
Messages
42
Edit My Images
Yes
I know I'm going to be in for a bit of stick but this one is driving me mad and I need to find out if my camera isn't performing as it should do.

I don't see any complaints about the imagery rendered by the d300 so something must be wrong! I seem to have lost confidence and inspiration since getting my D300 and recently I began to ask the question why I just don't feel like picking up my camera much these days. It dawned on me when I started to trawl through all my photographs and compare them to my D70.

My D70 pictures are just streets ahead of anything I've taken with the D300 and some of those photographs I know are just impossible to get anywhere near.

What''s wrong? It's hard to put a finger on it exactly but I tend to have a real hard time getting pleasing images and end up fiddling till I'm blue in the face with my RAW files. Dirty muddy shadow detail, horrible skin tones, clipped reds, colours / tones break up as soon as you touch the curves. I really don't know how to describe it.

Yet when I pick up my D70 NEFs a few tweaks and it's done. Lovely smooth tonal ranges and just simply pleasing imagery.

Logically it's hard to find a reason for this. I'm not technical enough to know if this is a problem but I'm tearing my hair out and losing the will to take any photos at all. The best explanation I could come up with if it isn't a fault is that I just like the CCD sensor better than a CMOS sensor but then I only have to look on the net for D300 pictures and know that people get some very good quality images.

I'm loath to send this back to Nikon because I really can't define the problem, and my experience with their service dept is not brilliant from past experience.

I thought I'd post this here to find out if anyone else sees a difference between the D70 and the D300 and whether they have noticed a significant difference between it's CCD and the CMOS sensor. Perhaps I just have to live with it if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could give you a simple answer. I have a D80 (first DSLR) and a D300, and felt with the first pictures from the D300 that I was light years ahead of the D80. But, I admit, that many, many D300 photos are technically excellent, yet somehow appear (to me, at least) as uninspired.

After much thought, and after an extended layoff, I've decided that the problem is me, not the camera. I have lost that initial joy of digital photography, where I didn't expect every picture to be superb, but knew that I could experiment all I wanted and get that unique (or, at least, new-to-me) photo. Now I (emotionally) tend to expect perfection with nearly every shot, and failing to reach that impossible standard leaves me feeling flat and untalented.

In other words, I plateaued, but I'm working through it by forcing myself outside my photographic comfort zone and trying new things. (Of course, I might just find that I lack talent. LOL)
 
Yes I undersand fully the novelty of discovering the digital joys and maybe it is me too. But I really am desparate to find that out one way or another. I've spend hours going through pictures taken in the same places and situations. Actually ordinary snaps are more useful here than artistic photos which would make a print. D70 comes up with pleasing photos even in dificult of uninspired lighting. D300 is just Ugh!

I seem to have no latitude to lower exposure without it looking like mud so low key photos which should still be rich get ugly very fast. I tried this with several pictures, colours and tones just break down unacceptably. Dong the same with a D70 they hold together perfectly. I just don't quite understand what this is due to.
 
dentedshed said:
could you not take the new camera back to the shop and show them what you mean. Take the older camera as back up.
Click to expand...

UNfortunately not, I've had the camera for just under 3 years and my good ol' D70s is long gone
 
micloi said:
Can we please see example shots from each camera outlining what you mean?
Click to expand...

Ok. Not sure how to do that, or should I upload to a host and point to it?

I'll figure it out in a mo, as I've just joined I'm currently looking at posting rules and info .....
 
Ok I can't see a way to upload here so :

A few unremakable snaps:

D300:
http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_3358_sm.jpg
http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_4327_sm.jpg

D70:
http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_1703_sm.jpg
http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_1690_sm.jpg

Lighting / situations are different. It's a bit difficult to find two shots with exactly the same circumstance and shooting. One pic from each camera was taken in the same room though. I'm not sure if this can be done with the jpgs to similar effect but if either the D300 shots are lowered in exposure the results get horrible very fast. The d70's tones remain pleasing.

I can supply NEFs if anyone wants to look more closely at the difficulties when trying to make anything of the raw output.
 
To be honest I am the same.

I had my Pentax K10D for 3 years and have recently upgraded to the K-5 which is light years ahead in every respect. I'm not sure if it is the sensor (10mp ccd vs 16mp Cmos) but the pictures just don't look as good to me. Yes they are sharp and the camera is performing very well but it just doesn't give the satisfaction that the K10D did.

I used to go out every day with the old one .. been out once this week with the K-5 and I actually had the whole week off workas well.

Maybe it's just the devil you know.
 
Last edited:
i dont know about the d70, but did it underexpose,
i know that with all my pentax gear all the pentax dslr had a tendency to under expose which made the colours stand out more but with the better metering the pics are better, i felt the same when i got my first d300 and as i did with the d300 i think my mates k5 needed tweaking with the setting to get the colours to pop mike,
im sure its nothing to do with the sensors as the k5 colour reproduction is suppose to be one of the best on the market.
 
I don't have either camera (D60 > D90) but I guess it might be like jumping into a race car after driving a road car. It might take a while before you can "drive" it anywhere near its potential. I've got to admit I noticed a big difference in IQ with the D90 when I moved on. :shrug: I'm still learning the functions too.
 
Last edited:
from the pics alone the D300 seems 4x times better. but a bit soft, probably due to resizing.
 
I take it we are talking the same lenses here?
 
@scottthehat
Yes I was afraid the different lighting would lead to that conclusion. but have a look more at the smooth even skin tones of the D70. The D300 is harsher (muddy in the shadows) and so many pictures I've done just can't be pushed to make them look better. The first d70 pic is just out of the camera and simply required a little tweak on the curves.

dont know about the d70, but did it underexpose,
Click to expand...
actually I did used to think that till I got the D300 and looking at my past D70 pics it was much better than I remembered. Another problem which I'm not addressing but TTL BL in particular requires +1.3 ev or more rather than a more moderate .7. Straight TTL requires +.7ev.
Many pictures are badly underexposed with flash it. They look great on the LCD then I get them on the 'puter ... is another story. I'm now relying more on historgrams and it's unbelievable how much + compensation I have to pile on just to get a decent one.

The LCD display is one of my critisisms with Nikon's implementation. I set RAW Standard or Neutral nowdays to stop any in camera processing but the D300 still presents a processed image on the LCD which looks nothing like the RAW. I don't mind if a curve is applied in camera, but I'd rather it acted like a Canon and just presented the RAW result when that is what you've set it to

@Mike.P

Interesting Mike, I really do think that you must like what the camera produces to provide inspiration. I see things or situations that I'd immediately reach for the camera, but now I kind of think 'what's the point'. Confidence iin knowing you can capture a pleasing image is everything. The rest is down to the photographer to make a picture out of it of course but one must be inspired. I really want to get my inspriation back and lost confidence but the dilemma is what camera I should go for and if this isn't a fault then it's a characteristic I just don't like. I'm too tied in to Nikon to go to Canon, that would cost a fortune.

@ Starastin

4x better in what way? Don't look at sharpness or anything like that it's tones.

The little chinese girl, just cannot do anything with it, it's dull and lifeless, the tonal graduations on her cheeks will break up the moment you touch the curves. Both the d70 pics can be interpreted in many ways and still look good. The second one I pushed down 1 full stop and yes it was too dark but the tones didn't fall apart, shadow detail remained coherent.

It's almost as though there's an imbalance in one of the channels, not sure, but reds and wb are often wrong and I tend to get too much red. which clips so easily.

@odd jim

Probably not Jim but this doesn't matter, we aren't looking at sharpness and I know that different lenses do more than that but take it from me lens for lens the differences will still exist.

What I can't figure out logically is why a RAW file doesn't have a latitude that can correct these things. I spend far too much time on post processing and that alone drives me bonkers.
 
Last edited:
I do wonder if it's the sensor actually.

I compare it to a printed photo .. my K10D (CCD) shots look like a glossy print whereas the K-5 (CMOS) seem to be more of a matt finish.

Does that make sense or am I talking rubbish ... :shrug:
 
scottthehat said:
first if you shot raw the camera just gives you a thumbnail image so you know you have the shot right its not perfect.
2nd is your pc monitor calibrated.
also what lenses are you using.
Click to expand...

No I don't want it perfect on the LCD I want it to look rubbish like a neutral raw file looks like. :) I don't want Nikon to enhance the image I'm taking with curves when I set it to RAW with no in camera interference. That gives me an idea of the tones and contrasts I've captured. But this is just a niggle with Nikon which I don't agree with.

Screen is a calibrated CRT. I just don't have the money to buy an LCD that would touch this monitor.

Lenses, I use several:

18-70mm kit lens
70-200 f2.8 VR
105 AIS f2.5
50mm AFD f1.8
17-35mm f2.8
60mm AFD Micro

but I'm not sure this is relevant to the problem

@Mike.P
I understand exactly what you mean. It may be contrast. Harsh as opposed to smooth tones perhaps. This is what I need to know but then you know so many people really love the D300 and many of those would probably have passed via a D70 or maybe D200 or D100. I never had this problem with any other Nikon camera, I started really at the 990, 995 end the D70 > D300
 
louiscar said:
No I don't want it perfect on the LCD I want it to look rubbish like a neutral raw file looks like. :) I don't want Nikon to enhance the image I'm taking with curves when I set it to RAW with no in camera interference. That gives me an idea of the tones and contrasts I've captured. But this is just a niggle with Nikon which I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Thought that was pretty much the story whatever camera you own. No camera I've ever used, Nikon or Canon, has ever displayed a raw shot without some form form of WB and tonal range particular to that camera's LCD..... Unless I'm missing something :)
 
I think this partly boils down to lighting. From the examples given light was clearly better (but far from perfect to my taste) with D70. D300 pics seem to have less contrast, underexposed, etc. I fail to see why you are shooting at 1/60s with flash as the main light source thus inviting camera shake. Good light should be your top priority if you are looking for top results.

From my experience, 400D to 30D to 40D to 1DsII (that one is "oldest") and 1D III were all fairly significant improvements. But I do feel 50D in between 40D and 1-series lost the plot. Even then 50D didn't have any of those problems at ISO200 which is used here. Should have bought a Canon maybe?
 
Have you tried just using in camera jpgs for a while and see how they turn out? You're right though. The D300 pics just look uninspiring for some reason. I guess it comes across that you don't actually like the camera you are using somehow. Maybe it knows!

I'd sell it and get something else. No point having a camera that takes the enjoyment out of taking photos at all.
 
 
scottthehat said:
heres a couple pics from one of my d300.
do these look flat to you.
[/url]
Click to expand...

3 & 4 display a little tonal break up but good. 1 although a tad over saturated is marvelous and 2 has tones that I've never been able to achieve in my wildest dreams.

5 on the swing shows good tones and actually the over exposed parts from the direct sun look natural whereas mine tends to be not so. that's a difficult one to explain because I haven't nailed why that is. But I've noticed this when I first got the camera.

6 is typical of what I tend to get a lot of the time

7 & 9 are hard to judge because they appear to have a little too much fill light applied (reversing the curve a little?) ... maybe I'm wrong about that :-)

I like the skin tones much better - do you use auto wb because I don't get those skin tones, mine are biased towards red or magenta most of the time on auto which is less pleasing?

Thanks for this reference I really do think my camera wouldn't give me these shots.

@srichards

Actually when I first got the camera for several months I shot only jpgs but I'm also noticing some differences between then and now even if I set my camera to jpgs so I may be looking at a problem that's developed.

For instance now with all the testing I'm doing I just noticed that when I shoot wide 17mm I get an awful lot of noise which I didn't notice before. Long focal lengths you don't notice it. So I'm off at a tangent trying to check other earlier pictures to see if this is something significant. It may be related.
 
You get an awful lot of noise shooting at 17mm but don't at longer focal lenghts? How is that even possible. The D300 is streets ahead of the D70 and it dosen't look like anything is particularly wrong with your sample shots. A sensor either works or it dosen't, a case of a bad workman blaming his tools?
 
Interesting thread.

I moved last year from a D80 to D300s (same lenses) and I felt exactly the same over the first couple of sets I shot with the D300.

It may be that I've now just got used to the difference, but I have felt that my images have improved. May be my ability to use a better camera has improved!?

Now I'm no expert on tones or how to use PP software but thinking back I do remember that the 'auto' tone button in iphoto dramatically improved my D80 images whilst the same button did very little to my D300 images.

One difference is that I always shot in JPEG on my D80 whilst now I shoot in RAW. Maybe I should play about with the outputs and learn how to use PP software:thinking:

Phil
 
daugirdas said:
I fail to see why you are shooting at 1/60s with flash as the main light source thus inviting camera shake. Good light should be your top priority if you are looking for top results.
Click to expand...

The pictures are far from perfect, as I mentioned they were 'unremarkable snaps' which actually I think better shows how the camera behaves. Perfect lighting will make a brownie camera shine in many respects. This isn't the point I wanted to get across. The D300 pictures really were raw files which were not post processed so they do look duller but again it shows what is coming out of the camera. The D70 I think had some kind of curve but it's not the current 'picture control' (Nikon's previous efforts) and even when set to base was still didn't need much tweaking.

Point was to show the basic picture that came out of the camera without applying curves or any pre processing.

I'm not sure about shooting at 1/60th I was probably on aperture priority which sets the speed besides isn't it the other way around? When flash is the main source 1/60th is usually fine to freeze but of course if ambient light is close to the exposure for the speed / shutter then blurring may occur.

daugirdas said:
From my experience, 400D to 30D to 40D to 1DsII (that one is "oldest") and 1D III were all fairly significant improvements. But I do feel 50D in between 40D and 1-series lost the plot. Even then 50D didn't have any of those problems at ISO200 which is used here. Should have bought a Canon maybe?
Click to expand...

All my friends have Canon's and I kind of wish I had gone that route when I look at the 1dsmkiii one of them has and the 40d the other has. (couldn't afford the 1ds mind you). However, some of them tell me they wish they had gone the Nikon route, and I know of people who've switched from one side to another. For me it's not an option, I simply am not rolling in cash and can't afford the luxury of ditching all my lenses, speedlights and what have you to start all over again. It took me a while. Nice to be able to though but the winner would be Canon or Nikon rather than us the consumer I fear.
 
Last edited:
Rob_p said:
You get an awful lot of noise shooting at 17mm but don't at longer focal lenghts? How is that even possible. The D300 is streets ahead of the D70 and it dosen't look like anything is particularly wrong with your sample shots. A sensor either works or it dosen't, a case of a bad workman blaming his tools?
Click to expand...

Good question and I'm trying to find the answer. I know I've hated to move off ISO 200 with the d300 because I hate noise and never found ti particularly 'noiseless' frankly. I just took a picture today - dull overcast at 17mm to check it out, it's very noisy even though it's well exposed. Took one indoors just now and it's hard to determine much noise, flash and contrasty. I'm not sure what's going on to tell you the truth.

BTW the first of my D70 'snaps' was done on ISO 400 and you can't really see any noise. This is about as good as my D300 is at ISO 200. I have to disagree the D70s was great for noise at the lower end. The D300 perhaps allowed better performance at higher ISOs but 6mp vs 12mp in the same space I think the D70 was better.

Focal lengths may make a difference to percieved noise perhaps. I started a bunch of tests because I was dumbfounded by the same illogical thoughts. I took a picture with indoors just ambient light at 2500 ISO with a my 200mm lens and it's very very clean. This is indeed wierd.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
.. might i suggest trying another monitor.
also pic 5 looks the same as pic 6.
Click to expand...

Ah yes sorry I mean 8. I should have used the actual DSC numbers to avoid confusion.

I know I've had a little problem profiling this monitor. I've had my mates Huey pro and another's color munki and I'm fairly close. But I am judging much relatively. ie other peoples pictures compared to mine displayed on my monitor.

btw. when you say

scottthehat said:
to me all my pics look spot on to what they were at the time i took them
Click to expand...

do you mean when you took them and viewed them on your lcd?
 
pic 8 is spot on to when i took it skin tones match my dads skin.
and i only use the camera lcd as a guide as i know 99% of the time i will change something, plus its not calibrated and tends to be a bit bright.
have you turned of adobe gamma if you have any photoshop programs.
do these look ok.


http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_3363.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_2711.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/md26.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_3262e7-1.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_3259e7.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_2937.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_2936wide.jpg
 
Last edited:
louiscar said:
BTW the first of my D70 'snaps' was done on ISO 400 and you can't really see any noise. This is about as good as my D300 is at ISO 200. I have to disagree the D70s was great for noise at the lower end. The D300 perhaps allowed better performance at higher ISOs but 6mp vs 12mp in the same space I think the D70 was better.

Focal lengths may make a difference to percieved noise perhaps. I started a bunch of tests because I was dumbfounded by the same illogical thoughts. I took a picture with indoors just ambient light at 2500 ISO with a my 200mm lens and it's very very clean. This is indeed wierd.
Click to expand...

The D70 is has way way more noise than the D300. I've had both and the D300 is just about useable up to 1600. I hate using high ISOs too but there is without a doubt the CMOS technology is better than the CCD in the D70.

Focal lengths do NOT make a difference to how much noise you'll see. It adjusts the sensors light sensitivity and this has absolutely nothing to do with what focal length you're using. It's like saying turning the wheel right in my car uses more petrol than if I turn to the left. Are you sure you haven't got it set to auto ISO?
 
louiscar said:
I can supply NEFs if anyone wants to look more closely at the difficulties when trying to make anything of the raw output.
Click to expand...

I'll happily take a look at your NEFs if you can upload them somewhere. Even though I shoot Canon I would expect nothing less than superb results from the D300, so long as the original capture is well executed - properly focused, properly exposed and blur free. Of course, lighting does make a huge difference to the appearance of the image. After all, the capture of light is the essence of photography. Flat, dreary lighting is going to produce flat, dreary photographs. You can pep them up with a bit of TLC, but there is no reason why the camera, left to its own devices, should make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Lighting matters.
 
Rob_p said:
The D70 is has way way more noise than the D300. I've had both and the D300 is just about useable up to 1600. I hate using high ISOs too but there is without a doubt the CMOS technology is better than the CCD in the D70.

Focal lengths do NOT make a difference to how much noise you'll see. It adjusts the sensors light sensitivity and this has absolutely nothing to do with what focal length you're using. It's like saying turning the wheel right in my car uses more petrol than if I turn to the left. Are you sure you haven't got it set to auto ISO?
Click to expand...

Sure as I say I believe it's percieved. What I mean by that is that you have much smaller detail and changing tones over a smaller area with a wide angle. This makes noise more noticeable. This is what I'm getting at least from my tests. After taking the picture at 25000 Iso I used the wide angle. viewing each at 100% the wide angle picture looks unacceptable whereas the 200mm picture is printable, not least of all because of the depth of field. There is a metal dish in this, and changing detail at the same zoom say 300% equate to small blemishes on the dish where as I have a whole bottle and rough bumps on the wall all in focus to show up the noise.

I just hadn't noticed this effect before but it's a percieved effect never the less.
 
scottthehat said:
pic 8 is spot on to when i took it skin tones match my dads skin.
and i only use the camera lcd as a guide as i know 99% of the time i will change something, plus its not calibrated and tends to be a bit bright.
have you turned of adobe gamma if you have any photoshop programs.
do these look ok.

http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_2711.jpg

http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_2937.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/sjb photography/SJB_2936wide.jpg
Click to expand...

Some of these look a little pasty to me although lighting is very even. This does make me believe that perhaps my monitor is a little lacking in contrast. This was a problem though because I didn't have the complete range of tones before the profiling which actually meant I was seeing too much contrasts and missing around 5 steps of tonal range at the bottom end.
It took me ages to get used to the profile as tones did seem to wash out. The main thing is that I can see what will print.

Adobe gamma, yes got caught by that and it's been vanquished from my system. I still haven't got this right and maybe it can't be done, some of the Munki profiles were just awful and simply wrong. I guess at some point I'll have to got to LCD .. but the thought just makes me sweat. :-)
 
louiscar said:
After taking the picture at 25000 Iso I used the wide angle. viewing each at 100% the wide angle picture looks unacceptable whereas the 200mm picture is printable, not least of all because of the depth of field. There is a metal dish in this, and changing detail at the same zoom say 300% equate to small blemishes on the dish where as I have a whole bottle and rough bumps on the wall all in focus to show up the noise.
Click to expand...

If you're going to shoot at 25000 ISO (do you mean 2500?) and view the file at 100% there is a very good chance you will see noise. This is not news. If you're viewing at 300% then what can I say? You're viewing fictitious pixels invented by your viewing software.

Also, not withstanding changes in technology, it is hardly fair to compare pixels from a 6MP DX format camera with pixels from a 12.3MP DX format camera. This is the problem that Canon has been slated for when each generation of cameras increases pixel count and users keep looking at the ever tinier pixels and moaning about increased noise. Look at the PHOTOGRAPHS, not the PIXELS. IMO you just cannot make particularly constructive comparisons at the pixel level when the pixels are so completely different in size, number and density.
 
Last edited:
Rob_p said:
Focal lengths do NOT make a difference to how much noise you'll see. It adjusts the sensors light sensitivity and this has absolutely nothing to do with what focal length you're using. It's like saying turning the wheel right in my car uses more petrol than if I turn to the left. Are you sure you haven't got it set to auto ISO?
Click to expand...

Correct, in theory. However you may find that the noise is better revealed when shooting with longer lens at wider aperture in the out of focus shadow areas. The same noise can be easily masked with textures, landscapes rich in details etc.
 
I'm exactley the same. Ever since changing to the D300s i've regretted every minute...

Skin tones are completely horrendous!

I've worked with the D80, D90 and D2X and have never experienced anything like it.. I'm actually looking forward to the day i can afford to get rid of it..
 
tdodd said:
I'll happily take a look at your NEFs if you can upload them somewhere. Even though I shoot Canon I would expect nothing less than superb results from the D300, so long as the original capture is well executed - properly focused, properly exposed and blur free. Of course, lighting does make a huge difference to the appearance of the image. After all, the capture of light is the essence of photography. Flat, dreary lighting is going to produce flat, dreary photographs. You can pep them up with a bit of TLC, but there is no reason why the camera, left to its own devices, should make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Lighting matters.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have no control over lighting so you take what's there. RAW shooting to my mind can make a photograph look better with the latitude. To my mind it opens up a few doors to interpretation and does allow us to make a fairly dull photo to something else:

This for instance (which is what my camera saw)

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_0537s.jpg

to this

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_0537_2s.jpg

or this

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_0535s.jpg

to this

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_0535_2s.jpg

or this

http://www.louiscarresi.co.uk/gallery/test/DSC_0535_3s.jpg

Interpretation good or bad, like it or hate it, we can push it around quite a bit from what the camera generally makes of a scene. In or out of focus is not the point but the latitude of what you can do with the picture is.

But you are right about lighting and particularly the first d300 pic was not only out of focus but underexposed quite a bit in less than ideal conditions, and I should find something better. As I said earlier I purposely picked a snap which wasn't set up to separate just what the camera sees at under normal conditions - even underexposed RAW does allow that latitude to correct it.

I think many of my D300 pics couldn't be pushed this far but there was one occasion where I got close on a similar beach scene so maybe it is just lighting to some extend but there are some differences and perhaps it's just that I have to work with and understand them better.

BTW. Thanks to all who have helped here if nothing else I'm going to learn a lot from this.
 
tdodd said:
If you're going to shoot at 25000 ISO (do you mean 2500?) and view the file at 100% there is a very good chance you will see noise. This is not news. If you're viewing at 300% then what can I say? You're viewing fictitious pixels invented by your viewing software.
.
Click to expand...

Yes sorry 2500 of course. At 100% it's hardly noticeable on the particular picture I took. Probably as much to do with the subject than anything else. The 'in focus' detail consited of a brass dish viewed from the side, lit with tungsten light. The variations in tone occupy a much smaller area of pixels, ie. blemishes on the surface. viewing at 300% may be 'ficticious' but it still allows you to see it just not as accurately as it would print. I was zooming in more than 100% because it does allow me to see what my monitor is incapable of showing me at 100% or maybe my eyes at the viewing distance. CRT monitors are actually a bit softer than LCDs but the experiemnt. to make sure I was not fooling myself, was to look at the wide angle picture and compare to what looked like a clean shot just to see that the noise was present in both just that the brain doesn't see it in one and does easily in the other. The pattern is the same though, it's an illusion IOW.


Look at the PHOTOGRAPHS, not the PIXELS. IMO you just cannot make particularly constructive comparisons at the pixel level when the pixels are so completely different in size, number and density
Click to expand...

Point taken. But I had to do it in this case because 'looking at the photograph' of a wide angle shot made me notice what I thought was a problem. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top