« The Caponigro Father-Son Print Offer | Main | Update: The Simple Camera »

Monday, 16 September 2013

Comments

there is something strange with this image. part is sharp, but especially the yellow part seem smeared, as if only the yellow is moved. makes me dizzy when looking at 100%.

Great shot. But there appears to be slight up/down motion blur. Or is this a lens issue?

Nice view but too yellow. Is crazy how expensive this machine is but sometimes don't deliver accurate colors.

Washington Generals???

I thought there was motion blur too...but look at the bottom of the image--nice n sharp. Then the far part--simultaneously blurry and busy. My conclusion? It's just ugly bokeh.

Hans von Driest comments that the image is not uniformly sharp. That is clearly and obviously a depth of field (and possibly, atmospheric clarity and thermal convection) issue. Things in the foreground are bitingly sharp while more distant objects are blurred.

Hernan Zenteno worries about color fidelity. He needs to consider that this photograph was taken under mixed lighting: stadium lights and ambient light from mostly overcast sky. No camera on earth could achieve a consistent white balance across that entire scene without some post-processing.

When I just post a photo without any explanation of the equipment used, I get nice comments about how the picture looks. When I specifically mention I shot it with my Leica M9, I get comments like how noisy the picture is at the iso used, or how a Nikon or canon would have produced a file of even superior quality, or how expensive the camera is given the poor technical quality of the file produced.

True story :D

Mike, Mike, you don't have to rub it in.
.//john (a Washington fan)

Herman,
Color accuracy is in the mind of the football fan, or the adjusted monitor. First be aware that the color for the Packers is Green and Gold, not yellow. Blame my monitor, or LR raw conversions but not the sensor.

Regarding sharpness, there definitely were atmospheric issues at work.Those fans are hot and worked up. The players are more distinct. The fans in the stands with the heat rising are a bit smeared I agree. Not an issue of depth of field as the shot was at f11. Perhaps approaching diffraction issues?
But the 24mm lens is extremely good, Perhaps it's just that Mike usually doesn't allow visitors to view a huge photo at such detail. I attached a link to a blow-up of a tiny bit of the right side of the image where I checked if generations of jpeg were creating problems, and it doesn't seem to be. This crop would normally be viewed as a 2"x2,5" crop out of a 30"x20" enlargement of the whole image. Yet I offered it up as a roughly 5"x6" web crop to show the level of detail.

http://www.reddotforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2386&d=1379386621

Sharp enough to notice that with all the jerseys being worn, not a single Packers 4 jersey can be seen :)

Let him take that same shot in January ..... if the Badgers get that far.

I like the image. It brought back memories of a Gator bowl game I went to. I was sitting in the end zone and had a similar view. I find that when people buy an image it is very often associated with a memory they have. They are not looking for technical perfection, they are looking for the memories. Just don't mess up the memories and you can find an audience.

Dear Hernan,

The color is entirely fine on my calibrated system.

This is an important thing to remember in general–– if a photograph you look at online appears to have color or tonal placement problems, don't assume the problem lies in the photograph. There are many possible causes for this: your monitor isn't calibrated, your browser is interpreting the file incorrectly, the color profiles aren't being properly recognized and honored, the web publishing software may be wonky. None of those reflect upon the original photograph.


pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

P.S. With the datum provided by Jack (namely, f/11) I can pretty confidently say it's not about depth of field. Even taken down to the pixel-peep level, the DoF for this lens at f/11 would be, ummm (...one moment... mental arithmetic)... a good 10 meters to infinity, if not wider. The nearest folks are a lot further than 10 meters away.

pax / Ctein

Unrelated to photography, it's hard for me to imagine paying money to see any event from this point of view.

I have nothing to add other than:

GO PACK GO!

Jim
A Packer's fan in PA

Something that I don't often see discussed with regard to camera "shake" is the rotational aspect. I think it's unlikely that camera movement will take place in a purely lateral direction. In fact, it's more likely that it will be rotational. This may result in "sharp in the center, smeared in the corners" effects. Other effects are obviously possibly, involuntary tilting, although with large DOF as here it would seem unlikely that this would be the reason here.

I've also often noticed how unreliable trees are - wind blowing at one side, not the other for example.

The comments to this entry are closed.