There's bokeh, bot there's also noise, which in this case doesn't bother a bit (and considering the ISO, one can understand is quite intentional). Which brings to my mind another question. I know there are ways to minimize it (and I don't mean by using NoiseNinja or something like that), mostly when the background is all in one color and tone (as for example, a sky background) using some Photoshop techniques (which I haven't tried BTW: more advanced than what I do). But I'm getting really frustrated at the way some of my photos come out when I post them here, because I can't see that noise after I finish the PP, even after I downsize it for posting. Valentin once told me that it is probably the way the server compresses more the images (I'm using Photobucket, BTW). Do you people suffer the same situation? And, another question, for you Echi, and for the other who read this response, how much is too much?
Anyway, isn't f1.2 real fun, the way one can focus in just a part of a face real close?
I'm not sure about the noise. You say yours goes away when you post? That's interesting. Mine is usually intact. It's the colors that somehow get into trouble in my case. Although lately, it's been ok as I usually "save for web" which automatically convertsmy aRGB profile to sRGB. I also use photobucket, btw. There might be merit to VB's explanation.
How much is too much noise or bokeh? Dicey. If you look at pointillism, you can almost say that the technique is what comes to the fore with the content being a bit secondary. It then becomes a really close second that works well with the technique once you back away and look at a Suerat(?) painting from afar.
Same with bokeh probably. Depends, man. Sometimes it can be THE subject matter.
I'm not sure if I'm alone in this but shooting wide open with a 21mp camera seem to yield a bit more sharpness versus, say, my old 12mp 5D. Which makes shooting wide open really great
has more to do with the lens's characteristics, even though using a full-frame sensor will always result in a much better image quality. But I'm not sure if a full frame sensor will necessarily yield more sharpness. My D-Lux 4 takes super-sharp pictures. So much so, in fact, that if I apply sharpening I can ruin them. In this case, I'm sure it's the lens (since I shoot RAW), and now, using the DSLR and post processing with NoiseNinja I'm always applying the 50D profile (I didn't before) and I'm finding out that sharpening is almost never needed since NoiseNinja does apply some sharpening.
As far as I'm concerned, the AF micro adjustment feature is for experts. I wouldn't know where to start to do the adjustments.
I still hate noise, but not grain. But a beautiful bokeh is a marvelous thing, and this does depend on the lens, doesn't it? The new 100mm IS Macro's bokeh is superb (they say better than the original 100mm), as is the 50mm f/1.2. But I also own the 70-300 DO, and this lens does have a strange bokeh, which I don't mind much anyway since I prefer to carry this lens than a much bigger one.
yes, the lens. Prime lenses just give 3d like sharpness right off the bat. And like your DLUX4 experience, further sharpening will ruin the image. In this case, the 85 just kicks ass in this department. Sharpening becomes more of a "touch up" affair rather than a major part of the process.
Secondly, especially when shooting at high ISO, I RARELY sharpen. And even when I do, selectively. Simply because general sharpening just sharpens digital noise as well. As it is, digital grain is disconcerting enough for me. I apply film grain to my images whenever i can to "paint" over the digital grain. The trick here is, in reverse to what we're usually taught, to sharpen FIRST so that we don't sharpen the grain after application.
i always go back to check photographs from before. film sharpness is more realistic than digital that's why i leave it alone. Its defined at the edges but not in an abrupt way. If you'll notice, if you don't sharpen, the images from digital already have that film sharpness quality to it. But we don't recognize it because we've been accustomed to digital sharp images. We say the image is "soft" when in fact that is how our eyes perceive objects in reality. And there is nothing wrong with that. Look at the stuff around you. You don't perceive them to be digital sharp around the edges, right? Defined, but soft. I don't know why some have associated softness as a negative when it isn't.
Of course, it's different in inkjet print, yes? You need to sharpen abit as ink is absorbent and will make a soft image softer. So to cut a long story short, I have weaned myself away from sharpening. I used to get all excited when I reach this part of the process but i find myself now skipping it more frequently.
If only one would have the time to try all this. Sharpening has always been a difficult theme. I know they advice to sharpen first, and then at the end again. I always do noise reduction though. It's part of my routine. Since I PP for TIFF and then lower the size for Save for Web, I have (well, I don't really HAVE) to sharpen again. And, yes, for printing the advice is to sharpen again almost until you are able to see the halos.
And then there are the different techniques for sharpening... Enough to drive one crazy.
