Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

2,400 reputation
1816
bio website
location Norway
age
visits member for 2 years, 11 months
seen Mar 26 at 17:06

Hobbyist photographer back in the '70s and '80s. Took my first photo when I was five years old, got an SLR when I was ten. (Film, all manual, handheld light meter, we had a darkroom in the basement.)
Shelved the hobby for a couple of decades. Returned recently, this time with digital equipment.

Jack of many trades (I think "all" is slightly overstating my case :) and master of none, but I have a master's degree in computer science/pattern matching/AI and a professional background in software development.


Jan
23
awarded  Good Answer
Jan
22
comment How do lens lineups vary across Mirrorless camera systems?
+1. A couple of unusual (for DSLR) options: An f/0.95 for Sony E, m4/3 and soon Canon M. And an "inverse teleconverter" for mounting Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX that reduces the focal length with 0.71x and gains one f-stop in the process. Don't know if things like this should be included? Listing every adapter in existence would be unwieldy, but some of these more unusual options might be a reason to prefer one system over another.
Jan
19
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
19
revised Should an artist/photographer admit to a photo being edited?
minor rephrasing
Jan
18
answered Should an artist/photographer admit to a photo being edited?
Jan
16
comment What benefit does Hasselblad have vs high-end Canon / Nikon?
@jrista Gotcha, my mistake. I did say "relatively simple" :), meaning more like the f/1.8 than the f/1.0 in these diagrams. The Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 has 6 elements in 6 groups, which appears comparable to the Canon 50mm f/1.8.
Jan
16
awarded  Nice Question
Jan
16
comment What benefit does Hasselblad have vs high-end Canon / Nikon?
@jrista If an MF and an FF lens have the same resolution, measured in e.g lp/mm, the MF photo will have higher total resolution because the image is projected over more mm on the sensor. So yes, a larger sensor leads to higher system resolution all else equal. AFAIK, MF tends to sidestep optical aberrations by sticking to relatively simple optics - e.g. no f/1.4 lenses (for MF, f/2.8 is a quite fast normal prime) and no superzooms.
Jan
16
comment What product image catalog system do companies with thousands of products like Target or Macys use?
Canon has an article on image cataloguing - see page 3, where they discuss Reuters.
Jan
15
revised What product image catalog system do companies with thousands of products like Target or Macys use?
added link to existing question
Jan
15
answered What product image catalog system do companies with thousands of products like Target or Macys use?
Jan
11
answered Technical book about exposure
Jan
11
revised How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
Minor phrasing, spelling mistake in camera model
Jan
11
awarded  Scholar
Jan
11
accepted How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
Jan
11
comment How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
Unfortunately I can only accept one answer. Matt Grum makes a credible argument that a small sensor, plus lighting and a bit of post processing, can replicate perhaps 95% of what we see in the Martin Schoeller pictures at web size (excluding the DoF effects). I think Michael Nielsen makes a credible argument that you might need better than typical APS-C system resolution to get to 100%. And Stan Rogers explains how we can recognize a large format camera even in web sized photos. I suggest you read them all :)
Jan
10
comment How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
@MichaelNielsen Agree that larger sensors have higher system resolution. Going by the DxOMark numbers, a low-end lens on a 16Mpx APS-C sensor gives no more than 4Mpx worth of detail. But 4Mpx of detail is still ~3x oversampling at web size, so I wouldn't expect much difference to an MF which might achieve ~6x. Maybe DxOMark overstates their "perceptual Mpx" number, I think it's based on MTF 20. So it's conceivable that a web size MF photo has MTF ~100, while the web size APS-C photo has less.
Jan
10
comment How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
Thanks, makes sense. On faking DoF, I think the 3D models used in computer graphics are advanced enough that it's mostly a matter of time. Maybe a future plugin for Lightroom/Photoshop 10? :)
Jan
10
comment How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
@MichaelNielsen But thanks for your examples. There are some differences left that I can't explain, but I don't think it falls under the header of "resolution". I could be wrong, of course :) - I'll need to do some experiments of my own.
Jan
10
comment How can a high resolution camera matter when the output is low resolution?
Thanks for the latest example, it makes it seem credible that something like the pictures linked in the question could be created with an APS-C sensor. @MichaelNielsen But that's the kind of oversampling the question is about, e.g. downscaling say a 16Mpx APS-C shot to <1Mpx web size. So in terms of oversampling, can e.g. 7x (49 pixels input to 1 px output) oversampling be visibly better than 5x oversampling? I'm leaning towards "probably not", in your example with the lines I can't see much/any difference beyond 4x oversampling.