Digital Quality Problem

[Mark D Segal]

What lenses were you using with the Arca Swiss and what lenses are you now using with the Canon 1Ds?

What is your sharpening workflow in digital? (When I made the transition from film to digital last year, I found that the emphasis of my workflow switched from color-balancing and dust-busting to sharpening technique, which I solved by purchasing and using PK-Sharpener Pro from Pixelgenius.com)

My experience with the 1Ds, limited to inkjet prints - not brochures - indicates that with good exposure, and the grass and leaves in focus (note this is different from sharpening, which is an acutance, not a focus related issue) and appropriate post-processing you can virtually count the leaves and blades of grass, unless they are in deep shade, in which case some luminosity blending becomes helpful.

[Jonathan Wienke]

The 17-40 is not Canon's sharpest L lens, but if you're seeing mushy vegetation in brochure-sized prints, I'd be inclined to suspect a post-processing issue somewhere. Can you post a RAW file example?

[Jonathan Wienke]

jonathan@visual-vacations.com

Just send one RAW as an attachment.

[DiaAzul]

Another aspect of the process to look at is the RAW convertor that you are using to convert images from the camera. I have noticed that the ACR convertor produces much softer images than C1 (I'm no expert though on ACR), however, in areas of rapidly changing detail the C1 generates some quite harsh artifacts. You may be able to extract more detail out of the image by trying different raw convertors and settings, however, grass and foliage is very tough for the interpolation algorithm to get right.

[james kerr]

Many thanks for all your interesting comments - I have found thast my 24 TS-E  lens to be sharper than the 17-40L -particularly when used and extreme wide angle. As I have notices on this site much discussion about the need for Canon to bring out a really top class ultra wide.I hope they are listening!!

[james kerr]

Hi ,this is my first Post!
I am an architectural photographer working in in the UK. Much of my work involves taking pictures of exteriors of  Country Houses in garden settings. I used to use an Arca Swiss  6x9 and transparency film with superb results. I converted to digital just over a year ago  using a Canon 1ds. Digital images of buildings and interiors are excellent but I am having problems of definition and sharpness of vegetation - particularly grass which lacks texture and looks 'mushy' particularly when enlarged above 12x10 inches. This is especialy noticable when produced as  a litho printed brochure. I leave CMYK conversions to the printers.
Can anybody suggest why this is?

[james kerr]

Arca lenses include a range of Schneider lenses from 47 to 150. Canon lenses are a 17- 40 zoom and 24TS-E. As  far as sharpening goes, I use a little general sharpening using Focal Blade plug in  which I find very good. Most sharpening is done by the printers post CMYK conversion. Ink jet prints that I have done look pretty good.

[james kerr]

this is my first thread -can you tell me how to send a raw file?

[Jonathan Wienke]

My diagnosis is twofold: the 17-40 is not Canon's sharpest lens at 17mm. It's far from horrible, but when you compare it to shots from a 135/2L there is a definite difference. Try stopping down to 11 and/or look into the 16-35/2.8L. That said, the file can still be made into something quite nice:



A full-sized 3.1MB JPEG can be downloaded here.

I used a combination of ACR, Neat Image, Focus Magic, and my Midtone Sharpening Actions to process the image. I know there's sensor dust, but didn't bother to clone it out, as that wasn't the issue being raised.

[Mark D Segal]

Maybe there is something I am missing, and not having tried C1 I have nothing to compare with, but converting with ACR at the image native resolution from my 1Ds produces no noticeable deterioration of image detail looking back and forth between the RAW image and the converted one. Maybe I need to look closer. I tend to think - seeing Jonathan's interesting work on it - the issue may be simply lens quality, DoF and perhaps sharpening technique.

[Jonathan Wienke]

the issue may be simply lens quality, DoF and perhaps sharpening technique.

I think that pretty neatly sums it up. This image looks like the center of focus is not the house; I'd have preferred the house to be in better focus and the foreground leaves to be a bit OOF than the other way around. Stopping down a bit more would help that as well as some of the corner softness (as would changing lenses), and the rest is simply post-processing technique. But even as-is, there is quite a bit of detail in the grass that can be gotten with the right kind of post work.