Sharpened shots on this thread

Minor moan: For people trying to judge the sharpness of a lens it's quite counterproductive to post sharpened sharpened images here. I could understand if it was photo.net but this thread is about lenses and not images.

It would be good if people could post unmanipulated images (or what post-processing was done) otherwise it's a bit pointless trying to judge the quality of a lens for those that are looking to buy a particular model.

That said, I would love to see some unmanipulated shots from a 17-40 because I was going crazy trying to figure out what was wrong with mine (and I even sent it back to Canon) because the unmanipulated shots were not as good as those posted here, whereas now I'm pretty sure it's OK.

George

but USM is pretty much a standard thing you do to all DSLR images..Especially if you have sharpness in camera set to 0

I really do see your point here but i look at it another way i want to see the finshed result with processing done including sharperning that way i know what other's can get from a lens / camera combo and give's me something to aim for.
we all know most images are flat without work being done,or can be improved somewhat mostley due to the AA filter causing the problem.

i do agree it would be good if we ALL posted more details of what was done to the shot and gear used to take it that wold help many of us .
Rob.

05Xrunner wrote in post #2096088
but USM is pretty much a standard thing you do to all DSLR images..Especially if you have sharpness in camera set to 0

OK, but unless everyone uses the same USM settings, how are we supposed to accurately compare lenses?

no one is ever gonna have the exact same anything...even if it was just flat out un processed image.

I agree with the original poster: a lot of sins can be compensated for in post processing. I prefer unmanipulated images for lens tests, myself.

Why not start a thread on pre- and post- shots so one could judge the lens and judge the ability of s/w to improve upon it?

As for personal experience I used USM about 30-40% of the time in post processing.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2096073
Minor moan: For people trying to judge the sharpness of a lens it's quite counterproductive to post sharpened sharpened images here. I could understand if it was photo.net but this thread is about lenses and not images.

It would be good if people could post unmanipulated images (or what post-processing was done) otherwise it's a bit pointless trying to judge the quality of a lens for those that are looking to buy a particular model.

That said, I would love to see some unmanipulated shots from a 17-40 because I was going crazy trying to figure out what was wrong with mine (and I even sent it back to Canon) because the unmanipulated shots were not as good as those posted here, whereas now I'm pretty sure it's OK.

George

I don't agree with this. What would be pointless would be to add variable amounts of sharpening. I do agree you need to measure on an even playing field but there are problems when comparing fine detail performance (>= 30 lp/mm) on high quality lenses without any capture sharpening.

It is worth adding a the standard capture sharpening IMHO, as this mearly corrects for the softening due to the camera anti-alias filter. Otherwise with sharp lenses you are mostly looking at the camera AA filter when checking for fine detail.

If you are looking at only at lower frequency micro contrast in the 5-10 lp/mm region on cameras like the 20D/30D and 1Ds mk II then the AA filter is not having too much effect and you can get meaningful comparissons without sharpening.

I'll weigh in on the side of - I can't believe anyone should judge quality when looking at a small image on the web. Composition maybe ok but, sharpness? I hope no one ever bought a lens based on somehting they saw here, sharpness wise unless it was a comparison 'tween 100% crops of an identical subject by someone with skills, and yes, no processing.

Wouldn't it follow that you can't compare pictures that were shot as JPG? Each camera has its own JPG compression and settings for sharpness, contrast, etc.

I would think that the only true comparison would be to shoot RAW and convert to JPG for upload but leaving it completely untouched with no post-processing.

Of course the other problem in play here is that everyone sees something completely different on their monitor. I have an HP 19" LCD that is crisp and clean, bright, contrasty and razor sharp. I also have a Sony 21" CRT that has excellent color but has big puffy, soft pixels compared to that of the LCD.
If I was looking at a picture to judge sharpness or focus I don't know that the Sony really shows me that. The HP certainly does but perhaps too much sharpness. So color calibration is one thing but pixel size and resolution come into play, especially on CRTs and LCD's not operating in their native resolution.

I agree, only 100% crops unrprocessed unless stated otherwise=D

There's no standard for "unsharpened". JPEGs out of the camera depend on what parameter values you've used and converted RAW files depend on what converter you use.

SO then there can never really be a sense of "all things being equal"? Is that correct?

I think the best you can do is list all parameters/settings used for a picture and let the viewer try to figure out what that means. As Lester touched on above the camera also matters, different cameras have different strength AA filters, so an "unsharpened" file from a 5D will look quite different from the same picture taken with a 1D Mark II. The 1DII image needs more sharpening to look its best and you might be mis-led regarding the sharpness of the lens.

What I will never understand is why post processing was natural in film days and in the digital age seems something to run from (to some). I never saw many photographers judging the quality of their lenses in contact proofs. Now it seems some people expect that what comes out of a camera is a lab revealed image.