snubbr.com

Am I expecting to much?
I have checked and rechecked different cameras. Read all the reviews, here, and on places like photoxels. I have tried to find what most people agree is a great camera, but opinions are greatly varied..

I have looked at a "lot" of pictures all over the web, and they all seem to have the same problem. (at least to me) You have the sky, grass etc with the digital "squares" which really ruins the pictures..

And then there seems to be a "vibration" or waves coming off objects. This is in all pictures I have looked at.Looking at objects, they all seem to be fuzzy and don't have a sharp outline.This is even at low ISO..

Is this inherent in all digital cameras? Is there any that do not have this, or am I expecting to much?..

Comments (36)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Most images I post on these forums are tack sharp - unless there is something special about the image which is designed to have motion blur. I think this should be the case with most other experienced photographers. Do these images look fuzzy or have the "squares" you talk about?.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #1

OK, the second kids armpit and neck, and the last pic of the bird, the background has the digital "square" look..

And here from another forum, the skies are the same way, and the land, if you look at the edges, has a "vibration" look.http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=24732547..

Comment #2

Schrade wrote:.

OK, the second kids armpit and neck, and the last pic of the bird,the background has the digital "square" look.And here from another forum, the skies are the same way, and theland, if you look at the edges, has a "vibration" look.http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=24732547.

What screen do you have ?

Comment #3

I'm no pro, but all those photos look great to me!.

The only thing I can think of, is as someone else asked, what monitor are you using? LCD monitors, when not running at their naitive resolution, can have artifacts like you describe.....

Comment #4

The link you gave points to very low resolution images; digital artifacts will be a problem with those..

Comment #5

Yes the posted shots look great! However I echo your questions schrade and know that I do not have a monitor problem and I bet you don't either. I have literally looked at hundreds of shots trying to discern what to purchase as I move up to a DSLR. Many shots exhibit, at full size, those problems you describe. I have not pinpointed it but I generally believe it is camera shake, the photographer or poor quality glass used at the extreme focal length. Of course I may be wrong and some cameras are worse then others. There are times I decide to not purchase a camera based on what I see and then I stumble upon someone "who gets it" and I Ooo and Aaah and pray that one day I may be that good..

Keep looking, there are lots of amateurs like me who do not do the hardware justice, there is glass that does not do the photographer justice... but then there are those (such as the images posted here) that hit dead-on..

I am currently contemplating between Pentax K10D/K100D Super?Oly E-510 and D80. I have seen them all shine and I have seen them all seemingly fall short in my viewing experiences..

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/collidedwithgod/..

Comment #6

Bill Raab wrote:.

Many shots exhibit,at full size, those problems you describe. I have not pinpointed itbut I generally believe it is camera shake,.

So what kind of drugs are you on ? Camera shake on the posts above and linked to ?

Comment #7

All those pics above look pretty sharp to me, i'm not seeing any squares..

Comment #8

RE: apiron.

The very first line of my comment stated "Yes the posted shots look great" and I do not make any other reference to these shots because there is nothing more I could say, good or bad. Thanks for your well thought out response just the same..

I also stated that I am an amateur and that is where I am coming from in my response. Most people do not tend to post their full sized shots (aka full res shots). Out of those that do on Flickr, Photo.net as well as other sites some of the IQ issues stated by schrader exist...

Comment #9

Bill Raab wrote:.

Maybe you have reading comprehension problems :.

"I have looked at a "lot" of pictures all over the web, and they all seem to have the same problem." Including thoses in this thread, and the ones linked, which are very, very much resized..

ALL, RESIZED. Not "some, somewhere but I don't tell you where, and at full resolution, which is completely irrelevant"...

Comment #10

Schrede, I think you need a new monitor or glasses. What you described earlier if I interperate you correctly) are just not there to be seen on the screen.jules.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #11

I think that anyone who believes there is something wrong with the images posted in this thread should not get a DSLR. If the image quality of those pictures is not enough for you, then move to medium format and you will likely be happier..

But there is nothing wrong with those pictures. Whatever you see is not the result of poor quality from the camera/lens combination. My suspicion is that you are seeing things you have never seen in a picture before, and need to learn about digital photography and how it "translates" from pixel peeping on a monitor (good or bad) to actual prints..

Remember, a 100% crop from a 6 megapixel camera viewed on a typical monitor is like looking at a print about 20x30 inches from the same distance as your monitor. Have you ever examined a print that size from that close?.

You need to learn how to examine digital images on monitors to make critical image quality decisions..

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #12

He uses an Olympus I would guess.Jules.

Ric duncombe wrote:.

Wow great images, what kit was used?.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #13

Apiron, you should judge by what you see on screen as you never really know what the poster has done to the images. What jpg compression they have used, whether they have up or down sized them in PS or whatever. But I am intrigued by the fact that you never see perfect pictures on the web, would you recognise one if you did see it. What benchmark do you work from?Jules.

Apiron wrote:.

Bill Raab wrote:.

Maybe you have reading comprehension problems :.

"I have looked at a "lot" of pictures all over the web, and they allseem to have the same problem." Including thoses in this thread, andthe ones linked, which are very, very much resized..

ALL, RESIZED. Not "some, somewhere but I don't tell you where, and atfull resolution, which is completely irrelevant"..

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #14

Http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1406666491&size=o.

Look at this picture made with a K10D. At a small size it looks great, full size it does not look so great. On the other hand I see images clean and crisp at full size at times. The deficiencies in a shot are revealed when it is viewed at 100%This is not enlarged beyond 100% so I would not consider it pixel peeping. This is full-res what the camera can do. There are myriads of responses as to why this image appears as it does in full size.

But if this were the only image I viewed in regards to shopping for a K10D I would probably not choose it. On the other hand I have seen excellent crisp images at full res from the K10D which indeed reveal it's ability..

This my friends is where I am coming from. If one were to see only these types of shots displaying this sort of out of focus, blur, whatever you want to call it you might be questioning why this is as the original poster did. I am not sure what is meant by the squares or pixels they seem to refer to but that is generally revealed by pixel peeping which with any digital shot you will see when you go beyond 100%. That's digital..

As for the person who says that viewing at 100% on screen is irrelevant... I offer you this shot in comparison to the first shot I link tohttp://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1402100497&size=o.

Huge difference in these two in my opinion. 100% is not irrelevant on one hand I have an image that is excellent at 100% and on the other hand I don't. Personally I would like to be able to shoot the one that is great at 100%... it is relevant to me. Relevancy is a subjective thing...

Comment #15

JulesJ wrote:.

Apiron, you should judge by what you see on screen as you neverreally know what the poster has done to the images. What jpgcompression they have used, whether they have up or down sized themin PS or whatever. But I am intrigued by the fact that you never seeperfect pictures on the web, would you recognise one if you did seeit. What benchmark do you work from?Jules.

Uh, I'm not the one who has problems with the pictures here, it's the op (whom I was quoting) and Bill Raab. I was attacking Raab since he is apparently trying to move the problem away from the op : the op said he sees problems in the resized pictures posted above, Raab is trying to speak about 100% pixel peeping on hypothetical pictures, which is not the object of this discussion, at all..

Something tells me the op has a cr*p Gamma / luminosity setting on his monitor/graphic card.

Edit : and probably an lcd panel that does dithering/incorrect phase of pixel clock (don't remember the one that makes everything vibrate) adjustment...

Comment #16

Bill Raab wrote:.

Look at this picture made with a K10D. At a small size it looksgreat, full size it does not look so great..

It's not the object of this discussion, the original poster is not speaking about pixel peeping, he is speaking about the perfectly fine images posted in thid thread. Get your own thread..

Edit:.

The OP wrote this, read it :.

OK, the second kids armpit and neck, and the last pic of the bird, the background has the digital "square" look..

And here from another forum, the skies are the same way, and the land, if you look at the edges, has a "vibration" look.http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=24732547..

Comment #17

Apiron.

Quoted from the original post.

"I have looked at a "lot" of pictures all over the web, and they all seem to have the same problem. (at least to me) You have the sky, grass etc with the digital "squares" which really ruins the pictures..

And then there seems to be a "vibration" or waves coming off objects. This is in all pictures I have looked at..

Looking at objects, they all seem to be fuzzy and don't have a sharp outline.This is even at low ISO..

Is this inherent in all digital cameras? Is there any that do not have this, or am I expecting to much?".

No where in this message does it reference the images in this thread or even this forum. The quote is "all over the web"..

I have offered a link to an image exhibiting exactly what was described. I may not understand what the originator intended but I do understand what was written. I will now leave well enough alone. I did not see the post regarding the posted images until later after your post. My apologies for that and no I do not see what they see. I was merely commenting on the first post and should have read them all better then I had...

Comment #18

Sorry about the harsh reaction to your misunderstanding....

Bill Raab wrote:.

Apiron.

Quoted from the original post"I have looked at a "lot" of pictures all over the web, and they allseem to have the same problem. (at least to me) You have the sky,grass etc with the digital "squares" which really ruins the pictures..

And then there seems to be a "vibration" or waves coming off objects.This is in all pictures I have looked at..

Looking at objects, they all seem to be fuzzy and don't have a sharpoutline.This is even at low ISO.Is this inherent in all digital cameras? Is there any that do nothave this, or am I expecting to much?".

No where in this message does it reference the images in this threador even this forum. The quote is "all over the web"..

I have offered a link to an image exhibiting exactly what wasdescribed. I may not understand what the originator intended but I dounderstand what was written. I will now leave well enough alone. Idid not see the post regarding the posted images until later afteryour post. My apologies for that and no I do not see what they see. Iwas merely commenting on the first post and should have read them allbetter then I had...

Comment #19

Maybe everyone should look at this thread..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...ums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=24846611.

I think it contains LOTS of really good images with fine image quality. How do those with digital image quality concerns feel about them?.

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #20

What resolution are you viewing the pictures at? How many colors are you displaying on your monitor? This sounds like you have a video driver and monitor that are not setup properly or they are very old, outdated low res units. At minumum you want 800x600 (1024x768 would be better) and High Color (16 bit), true color (32bit) would be better. If you are set to 256 color everything will look just as you describe......Dennis..

Comment #21

OK, I checked my screen settings, and it is set at 32bit, and 1024X768. It is a LCD screen. It is a Toshiba laptop.I will check out someone elses computer and see how things look from there..

I really want a new high zoom camera to take on weekend hiking trips, as I am wanting to give up film, and the digital cameras I have now just don't make the cut..

So far I am looking at the Panasonic DCM-FZ8, FZ30, the Canon Powershot S3 IS, and maybe the Kodak P712. Tho I do read a lot the FZ30 has a lot of noise.Thanks for the replies...

Comment #22

Schrade wrote:.

OK, I checked my screen settings, and it is set at 32bit, and1024X768. It is a LCD screen. It is a Toshiba laptop..

1024 x 768 isnt a bad resolution, unless your LCD monitor has a different native resolution. Unlike CRT type monitors, LCD screens have a native resolution where each pixel on the screen represents one pixel diplayed. To run an LCD in a different resolution to it's native resolution will create optical problems that arent related to the image itself..

If you are running at native resolution, then maybe you are zooming in to view the image at a larger size than it was posted? Or your browser is magnifying the image? In either case you would be viewing an image that has been reduced from its original size for posting on the web. Reducing an image of 6-12 or more million pixels, to one of probably 800 x 600 pixels (less than one mega pixel)..

Brian A...

Comment #23

Tim, the pic of the little girl is one of the very bestin all respects I've seen on ANY forum..

Thanks for putting it up...

Comment #24

Ric duncombe wrote:.

Wow great images, what kit was used?.

I use an E-1, 14-54mm f/2.8-f/3.5, and 50-200mm f/2.8-f/3.5, along with an EC-14 (1.4X teleconverter) on the 50-200mm sometimes..

I don't tend to push one camera manufacturer over another, because for the most part any camera and lense will get you excellent results. I do like Olympus, however, for the smaller size, the 2X "crop" factor, and excellent optics..

Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #25

Thanks for the kind words. It was taken at a wedding using the E-1 and 50-200mm lense. I believe it was around 200mm, f/5.6, ISO200, and around 1/640s. I have printed it in both color and black and white (the B&W has a slight blue color to the eyes) and like both very much. They both will be sent to the mother of the child, whose is a good friend of the family. Here's the B&W version for your consideration:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Comments welcome, as always.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #26

Schrade wrote:.

OK, the second kids armpit and neck, and the last pic of the bird,the background has the digital "square" look.And here from another forum, the skies are the same way, and theland, if you look at the edges, has a "vibration" look.http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=24732547.

The information given in the above posts will most likely solve your problem with the images looking "weird." I'll reiterate, and you can try the following:.

1) Ensure your screen resolution is set to at least 1280x960, 16bit color. Most if not all CRT monitors (the big box shaped ones) will support this, and most if not all LCD screens 17" or larger will also support this (or larger resolutions)..

2) If using an LCD monitor, make sure you have it set to the native resolution. This is different for different sizes of monitors, and you'll have to check to see what it is, or post your model number and one of us can help..

3) The other images you linked to are all very low resolution images and look that way on my monitor too. I believe the OP said they were low resolution as well..

4) With regards to my images, there isn't any "square blocks" in the neck or armpit areas that I could see. I'm thinking your monitor I set to 256 color instead of 16bit color, and you aren't seeing the image properly. Make sure your monitor is set to at least 16bit color, 32bit is better..

5) Just to be sure, the out of focus region (OOF) is called "bokeh" and is generally very desirable with portrait images like I've posted. The area behind the subject is very out of focus, and gives a blurry look. This directs attention to the subject and doesn't distract the viewer from a "crazy" background image..

Please post again and let us know you got it figured out! It may be that your monitor is very, very old, and you may need a new one, but that is unlikely. Most monitors of less than 7 years old will do just fine reproducing good color images.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #27

Or resolution/calibration is way off... .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #28

Just to make sure,.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Are these artefacts in this picture as well?.

Bye,Philip..

Comment #29

All I see there is four colors, starting dark and fading out at the bottom. I am not sure what to be looking for. But it seems like the problem I am seeing in the pictures are on my end. I just changed the DPI setting, and will see what that does...

Comment #30

"Artifacts" are what you call "digital squares." It is the proper term in "computer talk" and the poster posted that four color arrangement for good reason. If you had your monitor set to 256 colors, it would not show a smooth gradation of color, but rather a blotchy streak with artifacts everywhere. If your resolution was set very low, there could be artifacts in the gradient as well. If you were viewing the images at 200%+, there would be artifacts..

If you see a smooth transition of colors from dark to light (in each color band) it would help us diagnose your problem.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #31

I remember having this problem wile ago with Windows 2000/certain older monitors I had..

What computer/OS/monitor you have?.

Believe me, if digital image is good, in 90% it prints better then from negative film. No cubic artifacts are existing..

Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #32

That is a great image. But I swear I see a hint of blue in her eyes (I think it's why I like it so much)?.

James..

Comment #33

Not Bill,.

This branch or thread of the discussion or started with his post, the post you are quoting to is in another thread..

Are you using the flat view?..

Comment #34

The transition is smooth. Nothing bad that I can see. I am using a Toshiba laptop with LCD screen if that helps any..

I was about to throw away one camera, the pictures came out with a lot of lines through them. Still it might be the camera, but also might be the way the computer or program processed them..

I have narrowed down my choices of new cameras, now to go to the different forums and ask for opinions...

Comment #35

Yes, you are correct, there is a hint of blue I put into her eyes. If you read above the image, I did indicate that too.  Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #36

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.