F828 - what you see is NOT what you get

artyboy · 11th July 2004

first off, the title is misleading - in a good sort of way.
i just printed out over 40 pics (at 4R size) taken on my F828 this afternoon and here's what i found very interesting :

a) 80% of the prints turn out nicer than what i saw on my PC monitor - overall resolution is better, noise is reduced, and sharpness of the lens really shines thru. the smudginess on the distant night shots is reduced
and overall horizontal/vertical lines are fairly finely outlined (jaggies are more apparent when viewed on the PC screen). the vibrancy of the colors are emphasized much more from the glossy prints.

b) the shots that didnt turn out well seems to have their brightness adjusted by the photolab, there is a general underexposure of abt -1/3 to 2/3 EV esp on high contrast scenes. this is more obvious in the nite scene prints altho a high contrast daylight shot (macro of white flower in bright sunlight) also suffered a similar effect. i suspect its the machine (or the lab staff) trying to average out the overall brightness of the scene.

c) sharpness could have been adjusted slightly higher thru post-processing before making prints i.e. what may appear as "sharp enough" on the PC screen actually needed slightly more amounts of sharpening becos it seems that the sharpness boost is less noticable on a print than on a PC screen.

d) it seems that the F828's forte is in sunny weather pics - the sharpness of well-lit subjects are astonishing, the resolution prowess of the lens is very obvious to the naked eyes. i also noticed that greens are rendered particularly well as seen on the palm trees - very rich and tack sharp to boot. pics taken in cloudy overcast conditions lacks 'bite' and appears flat - which i think applies to most cameras as well, but more obviously so on the F828.

e) the best results of night scenes were those taken at dusk when its not totally dark - smudginess and blurriness becomes less of an issue. i believe this is due to the limitation of the F828's (CCD?) dynamic range capabilities. the scene darkness (existing light or lack thereof) and its high contrast simply required prolonged exposure times - thats where the artefacts (smudginess) and blank pixels start building up.

just my 2 cents worth. thanks.

snowspeeder · 14th July 2004

Indeed, after having developed numerous prints from the lab, the actual prints looked better and sharper. So I've learned not to trust entirely on what I see on my computer screen. The 828 performed well not only on sunny weathers, but also in conjunction with the F32X w/ omnibounce flash. Images taken indoors using this mode looked very good even in terms of sharpness, color and lighting.

artyboy · 14th July 2004

here's another pleasant surprise.
the first time i got my prints back from a standard photolab the prints look nice but there was a 'thinly-veiled' look to it. then i came across 2 of the prints which i had printed before from a different photolab. i took out the old pics and compared it to the new ones and i could see the ones done by the previous photolab was much sharper and vibrant. so i sent back to the old photolab and reprinted a bunch of them and WOAH!! they looked much better!! i showed the previous photolab staff (Raffles Place) the other photos and he said "yes i can see what you mean, they obviously lack a certain equipment that we have" but did not elaborate. the difference is very obvious! i wish i could let u guys see the different quality to the prints but i do not have a scanner. anyone share the same problem? and yes, what i saw on the PC screen was way inferior to what i saw on the final print. you may say its the size difference (which i dun deny to a certain extent) but the difference was there. the only thing i could derive is the fact that im using a LCD monitor instead of a CRT but i may be wrong.

snowspeeder · 14th July 2004

I'm actually using a CRT. Though from what I understand, they say that CRT provides a more accurate color balance to the actual photo as compared to a LCD. But the downside of CRT is that it is not as sharp as LCD.

I print my photos at PhotoHub at OUB centre Raffles Place. If I'm not mistaken they are one of the largest Kodak shops in singapore. The prints when compared to other Kodak shops are sharper and better in quality. So I don't mind the hassle of going there just to print.

mpenza · 14th July 2004

hmm... maybe time to tune the monitor?

artyboy · 14th July 2004

hmm.. seems like the CBD area photolabs take their printing more seriously! mine is from Soo Kee Digital Imaging (yes, the same guys who sells jewellery from what i heard!), and their quality is consistent and they'll be my regular from now on. so it seems quite true that some processing equipment are not up to par. i have a shot which after sharpening reminds me of those expensive postcards probably taken by medium format cameras. yes, i am serious, and i dont own any shares in Sony

i would thk Photoshop shld take the credit more than anyone or anything else. but the basic tool is there to start with.

Tweek · 14th July 2004

very weird, you are talking about your pc/monitor and the prints you get back, what has it got to do with the F828?

yes it's time to calibrate your monitor, so that what you see on the screen is closer to what you get. Not all the time tho cos most labs will make some adjustments before they print, unless you tell them not to.

King Tiger · 15th July 2004

I can't remember the name of the product but CP is selling one which you paste it on the CRT or LCD monitor to calibrate the color of the screen,
it claim that color details is accurate and excatly the same with the photo details which we print out.

artyboy · 15th July 2004

Originally Posted by Tweek

very weird, you are talking about your pc/monitor and the prints you get back, what has it got to do with the F828?

yes it's time to calibrate your monitor, so that what you see on the screen is closer to what you get. Not all the time tho cos most labs will make some adjustments before they print, unless you tell them not to.

i was just making my point in reference to the "medium format quality" of one of the prints - in case other-brand fanboys start flaming me, doubting that Sony digicams are capable of producing "medium format quality" prints. i believe that any decent digicam can produce extremely high quality prints with some added tweaking in Photoshop if the original shot is well exposed/focussed to begin with. the subject of PC Monitor image vs Final Print image was indeed the main point of this original forum thread but if you look my subsequent posts, i was comparing the prints from a standard photolab vs what i got from a better photolab. of course the F828 plays a part in the final image - if a digicam is bad to begin with, no amount of tweaking in Photoshop or adjustments in a well-equipped photolab would be able to make it produce "medium format quality" prints.

by the way, i also got a print which showed extreme purple fringing (window frames against a strong sunny background) so you win some you lose some.

11th July 2004	#1
artyboy Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 258	F828 - what you see is NOT what you get first off, the title is misleading - in a good sort of way. i just printed out over 40 pics (at 4R size) taken on my F828 this afternoon and here's what i found very interesting : a) 80% of the prints turn out nicer than what i saw on my PC monitor - overall resolution is better, noise is reduced, and sharpness of the lens really shines thru. the smudginess on the distant night shots is reduced and overall horizontal/vertical lines are fairly finely outlined (jaggies are more apparent when viewed on the PC screen). the vibrancy of the colors are emphasized much more from the glossy prints. b) the shots that didnt turn out well seems to have their brightness adjusted by the photolab, there is a general underexposure of abt -1/3 to 2/3 EV esp on high contrast scenes. this is more obvious in the nite scene prints altho a high contrast daylight shot (macro of white flower in bright sunlight) also suffered a similar effect. i suspect its the machine (or the lab staff) trying to average out the overall brightness of the scene. c) sharpness could have been adjusted slightly higher thru post-processing before making prints i.e. what may appear as "sharp enough" on the PC screen actually needed slightly more amounts of sharpening becos it seems that the sharpness boost is less noticable on a print than on a PC screen. d) it seems that the F828's forte is in sunny weather pics - the sharpness of well-lit subjects are astonishing, the resolution prowess of the lens is very obvious to the naked eyes. i also noticed that greens are rendered particularly well as seen on the palm trees - very rich and tack sharp to boot. pics taken in cloudy overcast conditions lacks 'bite' and appears flat - which i think applies to most cameras as well, but more obviously so on the F828. e) the best results of night scenes were those taken at dusk when its not totally dark - smudginess and blurriness becomes less of an issue. i believe this is due to the limitation of the F828's (CCD?) dynamic range capabilities. the scene darkness (existing light or lack thereof) and its high contrast simply required prolonged exposure times - thats where the artefacts (smudginess) and blank pixels start building up. just my 2 cents worth. thanks. Last edited by artyboy; 11th July 2004 at 03:56 AM.

15th July 2004	#8
King Tiger Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: In the heart of SengKang Posts: 4,978	I can't remember the name of the product but CP is selling one which you paste it on the CRT or LCD monitor to calibrate the color of the screen, it claim that color details is accurate and excatly the same with the photo details which we print out. Last edited by King Tiger; 15th July 2004 at 01:18 AM.

14th July 2004	#2
snowspeeder Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 35A East Coast Rd Posts: 3,438	Indeed, after having developed numerous prints from the lab, the actual prints looked better and sharper. So I've learned not to trust entirely on what I see on my computer screen. The 828 performed well not only on sunny weathers, but also in conjunction with the F32X w/ omnibounce flash. Images taken indoors using this mode looked very good even in terms of sharpness, color and lighting.

14th July 2004	#5
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	hmm... maybe time to tune the monitor?

14th July 2004	#7
Tweek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: East Posts: 2,149	very weird, you are talking about your pc/monitor and the prints you get back, what has it got to do with the F828? yes it's time to calibrate your monitor, so that what you see on the screen is closer to what you get. Not all the time tho cos most labs will make some adjustments before they print, unless you tell them not to.