Post Processing Pictures

[Snick]

you can't compare forum images. They have to be compressed down to 250k or less.
At that level there are jpeg artifacts.

[rxpharm]

Azza, something else you are not taking into account is the depth of field is much less when using a large aperture during low light, hi ISO photography. The other factors mentioned by pacman and manarak - handshake, subject movement, low shutter speed etc. will also add to the softness of a photo in these kinds of conditions. Depending on the focal length of the lens and the maximum aperture, your depth of field may be less than 12 inches - even less in macro photography.

Many portrait photographers don't want razor sharpness because it magnifies any blemishes, flaws on the subject's skin. Shooting at a wide aperture and being selective with the focus point (usually the eyes), is a common technique used.

As for using flash - a diffuser is a very handy tool to reduce the harshness a direct flash will bring on a subject, or bouncing the flash off a white/light colored wall or ceiling will also help.

[azza33]

Rx - I'm awAre of the dof issue and it's a reason why I'm not a fan of the low f stop, high iso shots. I did quite a bit of experimenting at home on a plant using a tripod and the f1.8. To be honest until I used the f4 setting I really wasn't excited about the clarity. The night shot of the house across the street at f1.8 iso 100 and no flash- it was awesome the low f stop came in very handy as the max exposure time on the 550 is 30 secs.

[rxpharm]

it looks like you will be going the way of donnnnny, taking landscape photos with a tripod!

Not quite as practical with people though - but the flash will come in handy. Check out this out: Demb Flash Products.

[azza33]

I love those landscape shots!!!

I recently acquired a 430ex flash- came with one of those contraptions- wouldn't be seen dead with it  

[manarak]

(azza33 @ Sep. 02 2010,10:32) I did quite a bit of experimenting at home on a plant using a tripod and the f1.8. To be honest until I used the f4 setting I really wasn't excited about the clarity.

you might want to investigate if your camera/lens combo is focusing correctly.

[Torurot]

snip a whole lot of stuff.

How critical are you guys......  

How about some perspective

Here's Gary Friedman's take from his Blog

A900 is the top end Sony DSLR with the most excellent Carl Zeiss 24-70 2.8

http://friedmanarchives.blogspot.com/2010....ss.html

"Hi, Paul.  Thanks very much for your email.  And I can identify with everything you say, for when I first got my A900 and Zeiss lens, I had EXACTLY the same complaint!  Part of the reason is that the A900 has shallower depth-of-field than the A700 due to its larger sensor.  So too does the CZ 24-70 lens, so you're already making two very important variables worse.

Now here's the really annoying part: Your old 35mm pictures (I'm assuming you used to shoot with film) are less sharp than even your worst A900 shots.  You just never knew it because you've always viewed your images as printed enlargements and stood a reasonable distance away.  You probably never examined them closely on a 30" computer monitor (and if you had, you'd notice right away that you couldn't count the number of eyelashes on your subject).  So the third variable, then, is the ease of unreasonable scrutiny.  If you were to evaluate your A900 shots the same way you did your film shots -- that is, print them out and view them from a reasonable distance - you'll probably find a drastic improvement.  And that's assuming un-ideal light.

The fourth variable?  Expectations.  We've both been spoiled with several years worth of really sharp pictures because nobody could make large enough sensors.  (I was shooting with a KM A1/A2 for a few years too - that had a very small sensor!)  I personally forgot how difficult it was to get sharp pictures shooting slides back in the day, but all those memories came back to me in a hurry.

None of these variables alone can account for your stated frustrations, but together they really add up.  And I think it's safe to say that none of them can be fixed by a firmware upgrade. :-)  I have decided that an A900 is overkill for family pictures - it would be like shooting your child's birthday party with a medium-format Hassleblad.  That's why my A900 gets relegated to more demanding work such as studio and advertising photography (and some travel and landscape photography), and left home for most other occasions.  Smaller-sensor cameras have a theoretical advantage for sports photography (the greater depth-of-field) but if you shoot outdoors and use a small f/stop (like most sports photography is done) then you should get an equally high yield to what your A700 can produce.

I do hope this answer is at least a little bit helpful.  One of the curses of all this wonderful technology is that it has raised our expectations beyond what would have been reasonable just a few years ago.

Sincerely,
Gary Friedman"

I'm sure many people will regard much of the answer above as heresy.  But it's also the truth.

[azza33]

How critical are you guys......

If you spend $3-4k on equipment.... you wanna be happy with your pics

[manarak]

Dear Palindrome

I hardly print anything anymore.
Today, pictures get looked at on 26" monitors, full screen, and we expect good shots to look good.
That's the expectation, set by the camera manufacturers themselves.

Why compare our results with what was possible to achieve years ago using outdated technology?

Now that we have the gear, we want to compare in picture quality with LB69 !

[manarak]

downloading adobe lightroom 3.2 right now...