3 ms·

5d's image looks remarkably better in terms of colour depth and details.. wondering whether it's due to the sensor size (full frame vs aps-c) or some other fact

5d's image looks remarkably better in terms of colour depth and details.. wondering whether it's due to the sensor size (full frame vs aps-c) or some other factor?

sgk284 9y ago
As is shared in the article, the largest contributing factor is likely how Lightroom was used during post-processing.
- antongribok 9y ago
  Although there are differences in post-processing, you can see significant differences in quality in the zoomed-in crop: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/03/Compare_with_circles.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/03/Compare_with_ci... This is not surprising considering we're comparing a 60D that was released in Aug 2010 and a 5D4 released 6 years later.
  - pizza234 9y ago
    That's true, but Risman is clearly very liberal with photoshopping ("moon-stitching" liberal), and it seems to me that that's the largest factor. The turquoise tone in the waves has been overlayed (it's fake, in other words), and I bet other areas of the photo has been very heavily modified in an artificial way. I would be curious though to read a professional analysis, since this is a very interesting (and I think rare) case of how a photo looks before and after fabric... I mean, after "art has been applied". /s (Also, I wonder if Risman used a polarizing filter, while Gendron didn't, as it generally contributes to this type of difference (deeper blue tones, and increased resolution due to dehazing)).
tlrobinson 9y ago
Are you just looking at the low resolution images in the article? If so, I think most of it can be attributed to post-processing. At that resolution the sensor size isn't going to make a big difference.
- murukesh_s 9y ago
  But I wonder why I cant get the same "look" (despite post-processing for ever) similar to the wallpapers of yesteryear which were mostly 720p :)
kabouseng 9y ago
The histogram could just be stretched differently for both photos. By changing the gain and offset of the picture, you could possibly get more closely matched photos.
dancek 9y ago
A photographer makes a lot of decisions before collecting the data (ie. shooting) and a lot more in post-processing. Framing and timing the shot are some of the most important ones, and here they were almost exactly the same. But even at the time of shooting, given the same equipment, you'd have the choice of aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity (ISO). Also things like whether your lens is in the sun or the shade may affect the result tremendously. If you made these choices well, you have unspoiled data with a good dynamic range, and that allows all kinds of post-processing. And of course post-processing is an art in itself. What I'm trying to say is, photography is more about skill than equipment. In the given situation there was a lot of light so even a relatively bad camera equipment would have sufficed.
rangibaby 9y ago
I will edit this to reply properly later but from the pic it looks like the main difference is the lens

5d's image looks remarkably better in terms of colour depth and details.. wondering whether it's due to the sensor size (full frame vs aps-c) or some other factor?

sgk284 9y ago

As is shared in the article, the largest contributing factor is likely how Lightroom was used during post-processing.

antongribok 9y ago
Although there are differences in post-processing, you can see significant differences in quality in the zoomed-in crop: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/03/Compare_with_circles.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/03/Compare_with_ci... This is not surprising considering we're comparing a 60D that was released in Aug 2010 and a 5D4 released 6 years later.
- pizza234 9y ago
  That's true, but Risman is clearly very liberal with photoshopping ("moon-stitching" liberal), and it seems to me that that's the largest factor. The turquoise tone in the waves has been overlayed (it's fake, in other words), and I bet other areas of the photo has been very heavily modified in an artificial way. I would be curious though to read a professional analysis, since this is a very interesting (and I think rare) case of how a photo looks before and after fabric... I mean, after "art has been applied". /s (Also, I wonder if Risman used a polarizing filter, while Gendron didn't, as it generally contributes to this type of difference (deeper blue tones, and increased resolution due to dehazing)).

tlrobinson 9y ago

Are you just looking at the low resolution images in the article? If so, I think most of it can be attributed to post-processing. At that resolution the sensor size isn't going to make a big difference.

murukesh_s 9y ago
But I wonder why I cant get the same "look" (despite post-processing for ever) similar to the wallpapers of yesteryear which were mostly 720p :)

kabouseng 9y ago

The histogram could just be stretched differently for both photos. By changing the gain and offset of the picture, you could possibly get more closely matched photos.

dancek 9y ago

A photographer makes a lot of decisions before collecting the data (ie. shooting) and a lot more in post-processing. Framing and timing the shot are some of the most important ones, and here they were almost exactly the same. But even at the time of shooting, given the same equipment, you'd have the choice of aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity (ISO). Also things like whether your lens is in the sun or the shade may affect the result tremendously. If you made these choices well, you have unspoiled data with a good dynamic range, and that allows all kinds of post-processing. And of course post-processing is an art in itself. What I'm trying to say is, photography is more about skill than equipment. In the given situation there was a lot of light so even a relatively bad camera equipment would have sufficed.

rangibaby 9y ago

I will edit this to reply properly later but from the pic it looks like the main difference is the lens