Show me your...

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
sweetalienchick's picture
Joined: 10/25/05
Posts: 2106
Show me your...

show me your 100% crops....

OK I'm very curious to know if it's just me being silly or what. But...what's a 100% crop really suppose to look like? Or rather what's your photo really suppose to look like at 100%? Show me one with fill flash (speedlight) and one with natural light. My flash ones the 100% crops look great but when it's natural light and low light (like in my house) I just get a lot of noise instead of a crisp clear photo. Is that normal? I'll post some examples today. I have actually been thinking of testing all of my lenses out so I might do that today Smile But post here if you could. I'm just curious. And if you don't mind sharing, I'd really appreciate it!

~L

EL2
EL2's picture
Joined: 12/05/07
Posts: 1665

To see 100% crop, use your magnification tool and right click on actual pixel and it should show you a 100% crop of the photo.

Here is an example using my 16-35ml lens. I only edited on ACR, no sharpening at all or noiseware. As you can see there is some noise in the 100% crop but not drastic. I was using my speedlight. Settings are ISO 400, f2.8, ss1/80

Original photo:

Here is 100% crop

sweetalienchick's picture
Joined: 10/25/05
Posts: 2106

hey great! Smile thanks for that example photo! Looks great to me! Oh and I know how to see it 100%. But let me rephrase that sentence. I guess what I REALLY mean is how crisp should a photo really be? I've heard of "tack sharp" focus. But what is that really and is your example considered tack sharp or?

fudd8963's picture
Joined: 12/27/07
Posts: 1630

Great question! I have been wondering the same thing.

sweetalienchick's picture
Joined: 10/25/05
Posts: 2106

I'm glad i'm not the only one curious Smile

One thing I've always wondered was...when I'm far away from my subject, and then later on in Photoshop zoom in 100%, they are not always crisp and clear. There is noise (of course that depends on ISO) usually but they are in focus when zoomed out (about 25% in Photoshop). Now, this picture here is an example of what I mean. I edited in ACR for white balance and exposure but I didn't touch the sharpening at all, then just saved. Settings are: aperture f/5, SS 1/250, ISO 400, 63mm using my 28-75mm 2.8 lens. Natural Light of course, no flash.

January 092 by loidaeg, on Flickr

and the 100%crop

January 092crop by loidaeg, on Flickr

now, is this normal? What in the world can I do to fix this? Am I doing something wrong? Should my settings be different? It was a gloomy day and the sun was going down so I had to use a higher ISO. Is this a BAD picture, technically? Is there anything wrong with this picture? I'm very curious because this is something that has been bugging me for a very very long time.

fudd8963's picture
Joined: 12/27/07
Posts: 1630

That is exactly how my pictures look also! I figured as long as I don't want to blow them up HUGE, then I would be ok. But I would LOVE to learn how to fix it.

sweetalienchick's picture
Joined: 10/25/05
Posts: 2106

Yeah I wonder how other people get their photos printed so big without them looking all funny. I hope someone else knows Smile

jamie81's picture
Joined: 11/10/07
Posts: 164

Great thread! I'll be curious to see what others say too!

AmberBella's picture
Joined: 02/15/07
Posts: 1831

Don't worry about blowing those things up. Noise always seems to look much worse on my computer than on printed photos.

Also, you'll never percieve your far away subjects looking as crisp as your close up subjects. I think it has something to do with the way our brain works. There just aren't as many pixels making up the eye in a far away shot, so the eye doesn't show as much detail, and you perceive more noise in it.

Also remember, that there is a lot more noise in the dark parts of a photo. So, the shadows and blacks look much noisier than the rest of the image. The best way to protect against excessive noise (other than keeping the ISO low) is to make sure you expose the image properly. This is one reason people like to expose to the right...it lessens the amount of noise in the image.

Somewhere on my computer I have an example of a photo taken (underexposed) at ISO 1600 and then properly exposed at ISO 2500. There appears to be less noise in the 2500 version even though ISO 2500 really should produce more noise. Because it is properly exposed...it looks cleaner and crisper.

EL2
EL2's picture
Joined: 12/05/07
Posts: 1665

I agree with Amber. I think it is also associated with the pixels on the sensor of the camera.

Amy_&_Eva's picture
Joined: 08/23/07
Posts: 2378

I agree about exact exposure minimizing the noise; but I would think that when a subject is farther away, a camera naturally cannot acquire as much detail as it can with a closeup subject, just like our own eyes can't. So the resulting camera image has more "messy" pixels for the parts that are farther away. I would like to read more about this though.

sweetalienchick's picture
Joined: 10/25/05
Posts: 2106

Thanks Amber! Always appreciate your input Smile so my image is totally normal huh? I was actually pretty worried for awhile there Lol I just never knew how to say it. I'm glad I posted this then. I always expose to the right. I've always found my images look a lot better that way.

fudd8963's picture
Joined: 12/27/07
Posts: 1630

Great explination Amber! Makes total sense now that I hear it. I always try to expose to the right, but now I know why they look better that way.