Sharpened shots on this thread

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2101609
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.

Yes but as pointed out its not always just for sharpness and colour.
It could be to see how nice the Bokeh is or what can be done at f/1.4 compared to f/4 for example. maybe to get an idea of how low the lighting can get.
I get tired of people asking for an example of, say, show me a shot from a 30d and 24-105L. you can show them anything and no one would know but I have got a couple of lens's based on samples post on the net showing how much distortion there is at the wide end of a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the difference in bokeh between a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.4.
Just wanted to point that out really.

Fair enough, but in reality I bet a lot of people look at the sharpness and/or contrast and say "wow, I've got to get that lens!".

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2101712
Fair enough, but in reality I bet a lot of people look at the sharpness and/or contrast and say "wow, I've got to get that lens!".

Oh yes. i couldnt agree more.
One thing i notice is that shots from certain parts of the world, like the sunny states always look nice with strong colours etc and that makes the shots look so much nicer and does make some people think its the lens and camera

Most people can tell the difference between a L lens and a regular cheap lens. Processed or not. Especially with properly focussed catch lights in the eye's.

I am not saying i can.

Curiousgeorge _ I failed to respond to your question the other day on an image I posted cause I had to sort through several folders till I found a crop I had done, still haven't located the original though. Tells you how organized my photos are ...

anyway the image posted the other day (first ever upon receiving this lens) using my Canon 17-40 f/4L at 1/500 sec. f/4 handheld with 100/0.3/0 USM added and the crop with no post processing applied.

Bluedog - I'm glad you replied. This image was the one that first made me concerned about the quality of my 17-40, as I noticed that at the long end my images were notably softer.

I had assumed your image, and all images here, were unmanipulated, but I have since learned that this is not the case and that it's an unrealistic expectation, espcially with cameras with an AA filter.

Thanks for the technical info. I take it 100/0.3/0 means strength=100, radius = 0.3 and threshold = 0? And did you shoot this in RAW?

Just curious - how come you sat no post processing applied when USM has been added?

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2105142
...
Just curious - how come you sat no post processing applied when USM has been added?

Read his last sentence more carefully.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2105142
I had assumed your image, and all images here, were unmanipulated, but I have since learned that this is not the case and that it's an unrealistic expectation, espcially with cameras with an AA filter.

Not unless you want to use the in camera settings, but its nicer to have more control over your images. I'd take less noise any day over sharpness that can be adjusted in post processing.

Even though im not bluedog.
Yes, that's correct. Anytime you see in that order, the percentage is first, then radius and then threshold.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2105142
Bluedog - I'm glad you replied. This image was the one that first made me concerned about the quality of my 17-40, as I noticed that at the long end my images were notably softer.

I had assumed your image, and all images here, were unmanipulated, but I have since learned that this is not the case and that it's an unrealistic expectation, espcially with cameras with an AA filter.

Thanks for the technical info. I take it 100/0.3/0 means strength=100, radius = 0.3 and threshold = 0? And did you shoot this in RAW?

Just curious - how come you sat no post processing applied when USM has been added?

The Photo was shot in RAW with the cropped photo, the second one being simply converted from RAW > TIFF > JPEG. The only editing was using the Crop tool in photoshop with no USM applied.

The first is the full sized image just resized and USM applied - Amount 100%, Radius 0.3 pixels and Threshold 0 Levels + slightly boosted Contrast.

When downsizing and posting images on the web they generally are going to need some type of sharpening added. I hardly ever add extra sharpening to my prints unless I find they really need it.

and thanks guys for helping out in the cause ...

I disagree totally. Different camera's give different unprocessed results.
My 1DmkII is totally different out of the camera then my old Rebel.

I think a sharpened image is a better representation of what the lens is capable of.

That is very true Bill as Canon even recommends adding USM in the workflow with the 1D series.

Most times, when poeple are posting images in threads, they are posting what is allready in there gallery, thus "post heavy" images are the norm.
It would take a dedicated member indeed to run out and up load new versions of there image with no post for the odd thread.

Me I like to see the end product anyway.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2105929
Me I like to see the end product anyway.

Yes, it's nicer to see the polished version of the image. I think it would be a good idea, though, if there was a disclaimer of some some sort stating that the images have been post processed and are therefore not always going to be a reliable indication fo what the lens can produce.

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.

I just take a jpeg and look at a 100% crop and decide from there if I'm satisfied with the images that I take. I have seen folks who don't care for the Sigma 24-70, but the images are fine to me, and that is all that matters. I was turning into a pixel peeper, and it was getting tiring. I do agree that when posting images from a particular lens that a 100% crop with no post-processing is the best way to see what a lens can really do.