Is this picture taken with ff camera?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
These could also have been taken with a point-and-shoot. on sucha small image, IQ is indistinguishable from other formats. Color and contrast can be adjusted ina ny number of ways.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#3
I guess PnS/superzoom.
The fact that the little anime doll fills the frame leads me to conclude that the camera to subject distance was rather small... and yet the dof is not particularly thin, even though it looks like that was the attempt (to isolate the subject with thin dof)...
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#4
Point and shoot camera is those compact camera?? and how do you really define DOF is thin?? i know what DOF mean..but dont really understand the term of DOF that is not particular thin..
 

Last edited:

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#5
can anyone know if this picture taken with FF camera ??? As i notice the IQ of the picture really very good..the color and contrast really look nice...
LOL

this takes the cake

firstly, at web size, IQ doesn't matter that much, especially at lower ISOs.

color and contrast? you don't need FF cameras to get a nice variants of those two parameters.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#6
Point and shoot camera is those compact camera?? and how do you really define DOF is thin?? i know what DOF mean..but dont really understand the term of DOF that is not particular thin..
have you tried macro photography with a dslr?

this is a fork at f/5.6



depth of field depends on three parameters:

1) f stop, smaller f stop = wider aperture = thinner dof
2) focal length - longer focal length all other things equal, thinner dof
3) relative distance of subject to camera (assuming in focus) to distance of background to camera - obviously, if background is further away then perceived thinner dof

now, for macro photography, the main thing is #3.

you are going in very close to your subject, hence the relative background distance is multiplied manyfold.

you need to read up on basic photography, if this dof concept is not properly understood yet.
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#7
erm...it seems that it can project the dolls details pretty well...i have been browsing other pictures with those dolls.. and this seem look pretty good..and also compare with my ones...the color seem look more better than mine one...
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#8
erm...it seems that it can project the dolls details pretty well...i have been browsing other pictures with those dolls.. and this seem look pretty good..and also compare with my ones...the color seem look more better than mine one...
let's be blunt

that is user error, not camera error.

btw, there is obvious editing in the colors of those doll pictures.
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#9
have you tried macro photography with a dslr?

this is a fork at f/5.6



depth of field depends on three parameters:

1) f stop, smaller f stop = wider aperture = thinner dof
2) focal length - longer focal length all other things equal, thinner dof
3) relative distance of subject to camera (assuming in focus) to distance of background to camera - obviously, if background is further away then perceived thinner dof

now, for macro photography, the main thing is #3.

you are going in very close to your subject, hence the relative background distance is multiplied manyfold.

you need to read up on basic photography, if this dof concept is not properly understood yet.
oh ok..i know what u mean by dof is thinner now..i do read up the basic photography..but just some parts i am not very clear of...
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#11
let's be blunt

that is user error, not camera error.

btw, there is obvious editing in the colors of those doll pictures.
ya..i know that my skills still need alot of practices..
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#12
can anyone know if this picture taken with FF camera ??? As i notice the IQ of the picture really very good..the color and contrast really look nice...

http://album.blog.yam.com/show.php?a=booboome&f=5468352&i=6715648&p=31

http://album.blog.yam.com/show.php?a=booboome&f=5369833&i=6264725&p=2
borrow your shot from:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rysouke/4337917102/

left is before, right is after.



cheers.
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#13
wow...so different...how u change it ??
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#14
15 minute job, because you could have really moved that doll forward:

1) bokehfy background - main step, had to make sure the edges didn't halo - basically gaussian blur + layer + erase.

if you get this right in-camera, this step can be skipped. which shortens everything else to a 5 minute job.

2) color balance tweaks to red side

3) layer a cross-processed layer on top, reduce opacity

4) sharpen the image

5) curves

6) vignetting, then erase the vignetting from the top area slightly.

hope this helps. you can make the difference in your photographs.
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#15
ok thank alot..as compare to my one and the link i posted early on...do u notice the details of doll seem difference??

what software u use to edit the images?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#16
ok thank alot..as compare to my one and the link i posted early on...do u notice the details of doll seem difference??

what software u use to edit the images?
no difference, if you ask me. whatever difference is in your head.

photoshop cs 2.
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#17
erm...something wrong with my head...hahaha
 

rysouke

New Member
Apr 25, 2009
294
0
0
#20
hahhaa..thank alot for your help to clear my doubts...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom