What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 243000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on February 10, 2019 (19:04) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Denoise? denoise? |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (19:19) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Practically nothing Praticamente niente |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (20:05) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Rightly Roywolf tells you if there is the denoise, because the image is not sharp in the details, even if you have well managed whites. It looks like a sharpness from sharpening and not from optical incisiveness. The Olympus 300 F4 has to do, and it does, much better. giustamente Roywolf ti dice se c'è il denoise, perché l'immagine non è nitida nei particolari, anche se hai ben gestito i bianchi.Sembra una nitidezza da sharpening e non da incisività ottica. Il 300 f4 Olympus deve fare, e fa, molto meglio. |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (20:36) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Marcello is a crop of 2,200 px, the distance will be ten meters, the optics multiplied at full aperture, the sensitivity does not base... In short, for miracles you have to wait. ;-) Marcello è un crop di 2.200px, la distanza sarà stata di dieci metri, l'ottica moltiplicata a tutta apertura, la sensibilità non base...insomma per i miracoli bisogna attendere.  |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (21:36) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Figured out that 2200 px, but it's not resamped. Try to develop the raw in neutral style, without sharpness and without anti-noise and from the Riparti... So you do not understand by that depends and to me seems in focus. If I take it, adapting it to G9, the Canon 300 F4 and I put it to 5.6 is definitely sharper than this example. And the 300 Olympus is definitely more engraved than the Canon 300 F4 on a sensor so dense and free of anti-aliasing filter. capito che 2200 px, ma non è ricampionato. Prova a sviluppare il raw in stile neutro, senza nitidezza e senza antirumore e da quello riparti...Così non si capisce da che dipende e a me sembra a fuoco. Se io prendo, adattandolo alla G9, il 300 f4 Canon e lo metto a 5,6 è decisamente più nitido di questo esempio. Ed il 300 Olympus è sicuramente più inciso del 300 f4 Canon su un sensore così denso e privo di filtro antialiasing. |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (22:22) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I doubt very much that the 300 Olympus multiplied and used at full aperture is so sharper than the smooth and closed Canon of a stop...
I have a little ' experience with files bigmpx as well as APSC and micro Ultradensi and at that distance, to do better, it takes more millimeters.
The file is a CROP at 2200px, developed on C1. Dubito assai che il 300 Olympus moltiplicato e usato a tutta apertura sia così più nitido del Canon liscio e chiuso di uno stop...
Ho un po' di esperienza con file di bigmpx oltre che di apsc e micro ultradensi ed a quella distanza, per fare meglio, ci vogliono più millimetri.
Il file è un CROP a 2200px, sviluppato su C1. |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (22:39) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Well if it's multiplied I've made unnecessary considerations, I thought you used the 300 alone... as unsaid. In any case it is not good, unless you close at least one stop. That with multipliers is a fixed rule, never use them to TA. be se è moltiplicato ho fatto delle considerazioni inutili, pensavo avessi usato il 300 da solo..come non detto. In ogni caso non va bene, a meno che non chiudi almeno uno stop. Che con i moltiplicatori è una regola fissa, mai usarli a TA. |
| sent on February 10, 2019 (23:19) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Mah, with Canon I have always used the 1.4 even at full aperture, and apart from the little PDC, the quality is kept very high.
Sincerely, even this Olympus seems to me to keep the multiplication excellently. Mah, con Canon ho sempre usato l'1.4 anche a tutta apertura, ed a parte la poca pdc, la qualità si mantiene elevatissima.
Sinceramente, anche questo Olympus mi pare tenere ottimamente la moltiplicazione. |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
3.8 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
