Sharpened shots on this thread

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying post processing is a bad thing. I just want to see a way of comparing like with like so those using this forum can make a fair assessment on lenses.

But from the above it seems this isn't possible. Even if you convert RAW to JPG, there is some level of compression that may vary depending on the software.

The best that can be done, theefore, is for people to list any post processing that was done along with the images. But then again the amount of processing required will vary depending on the type of image (some will require different types of sharpening and to different extents). So we shouln't pay too much attention to this either!

gasrocks wrote in post #2098136
I hope no one ever bought a lens based on somehting they saw here

It's almost certain that people do though: see the lens image archive and the amount of requests for sample shots from the xxx lens.

I would like to add that posting a 800x532 shot at 72dpi is also not going to show what a lens can do unless its a 100% crop and then we get in to pixel peeping and we all know what that leads to . plus it can depend on the camera used i think.
also different monitors produce different image effects etc so i really cant see how posting any shot can show what a lens can do IQ wise. of course you can show DOF as you can judge that at any size but i cant see what else you can show that will look the smae on everyones monitor.
Just my thoughts.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #2100434
different monitors produce different image effects etc so i really cant see how posting any shot can show what a lens can do IQ wise

most people use one monitor for viewing images so in that case they will be comparing like with like and it would be a fair test.

I'm by no means an expert here but thought I would chime in.

I work for a well known international photographic company. I don't work in the photo division. When I needed to have some JPGs analyzed I thought the guys in the one of the photo divisions would be the best to do the job. I was surprised when the guy on the other end of the phone said "...I have to print these out before I can tell you anything." When I asked if he could give me an idea looking at the JPG he said "not really". This scenario was repeated when I discussed the same topic with a supplier.

Also, I have found that if you have a really sharp photo without any sharpening, additional sharpening adds little or nothing. On the other hand, you can have a photo with a quality lens that maybe isn't quite as sharp out of the camera, a little USM can easily make it equivalent to the sharp photo.

When I go down the dreary path of photographing test targets or newspapers, I usually look at my results both unsharpened and sharpened.

I agree with the OP completely. I want to see what a lens is capable of, not your ability to post-process. Show me what the lens can do, and I'll do my own post-processing. I don't need to see what you can do in the digital darkroom.

Calzinger wrote in post #2100624
I agree with the OP completely. I want to see what a lens is capable of, not your ability to post-process. Show me what the lens can do, and I'll do my own post-processing. I don't need to see what you can do in the digital darkroom.

Just propose a method or standard where you know what you're seeing.

As discussed above, the sharpness of an "unsharpened" photo depends on quite a few parameters including camera used, in-camera parameters, raw conversion software used, noise reduction, low or high ISO etc. The perceived sharpness probably also depends on how how good lighting you have and how you expose the shot.

The only really easy to interpret test I can think of is a relative comparison between two lenses on the same camera and all other things kept the same.

FretNoMore wrote in post #2100698
Just propose a method or standard where you know what you're seeing.

As discussed above, the sharpness of an "unsharpened" photo depends on quite a few parameters including camera used, in-camera parameters, raw conversion software used, noise reduction, low or high ISO etc. The perceived sharpness probably also depends on how how good lighting you have and how you expose the shot.

The only really easy to interpret test I can think of is a relative comparison between two lenses on the same camera and all other things kept the same.

This is true, even the demosac algorithm can affect things.

FretNoMore wrote in post #2100698
Just propose a method or standard where you know what you're seeing.

As discussed above, the sharpness of an "unsharpened" photo depends on quite a few parameters including camera used, in-camera parameters, raw conversion software used, noise reduction, low or high ISO etc. The perceived sharpness probably also depends on how how good lighting you have and how you expose the shot.

The only really easy to interpret test I can think of is a relative comparison between two lenses on the same camera and all other things kept the same.

I realize that, but can you tell me that a post-processed shot is any more useful?

If you all are real serious about this, there are some standardized target images available on the web that were used by the US Airforce to calibrate their cameras. I down loaded them last year but have since changed computers and no longer have the files. I think a simple yahoo/google search should bring them up. But I think using some standardized object using standardized exposure levels is the only reasonable way to do this. Time of day (affects contrast), subject distance, aperature, shuttersheep, camera settings, etc all need to be standardized - and converted to uncompressed TIFF then cropped 100% is the only way to keep this neutral. Any jpeg format is going to alter the original image. But even using the same camera with the same lens on the same subject will show different sharpness if the shots were say shot at 2 pm and then 6 pm. Trying to achieving a true level playing field without some agreement on standards is not going to yield much of value. I understand the desire here... but this is really a hard task to do in a forum like this. The published lab reports are your best bet.

Calzinger wrote in post #2100823
I realize that, but can you tell me that a post-processed shot is any more useful?

No.

FretNoMore wrote in post #2100698
The only really easy to interpret test I can think of is a relative comparison between two lenses on the same camera and all other things kept the same.

That would be the best approach and in that case I would also agree not to do any PP (or do the same PP to both ).

Croasdail wrote in post #2100935
this is really a hard task to do in a forum like this.

I know! I'm not saying it's easy to do. Just saying it's pointless asking for sample shots.

So shall I add a note to all the "sample shot" threads saying "please disregard all the above images"??

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2101275
I know! I'm not saying it's easy to do. Just saying it's pointless asking for sample shots.

So shall I add a note to all the "sample shot" threads saying "please disregard all the above images"??

No, because they are samples. just not what YOU want to see.
I agree it is pointless but sometimes people just want to see a finished shot from a certain lens/camera. it means nothing but its all good fun.

Maybe we could have a ftp site connected to this forum where people can upload RAW files. at least they would be untouched. we could then download thme and play around.

No.... I was just stating the obvious. I am famous for doing that. I am just saying there are a ton of other factors that impact perceived sharpness - contrast and color saturation being huge contributors. Your quest to equalize the playing field is a noble one - it is just a lot more complex then you would think.

I've accepted that the playing field cannot be equalised.

But people will go on asking for sample shots and use those post-processed images to influence their purchase.