"superior image quality" of Canon

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

"superior image quality" of Canon

Postby Onyx on Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:33 am

User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au

Postby ajo43 on Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:41 am

Is it D70 vs 300D.

I'm always willing to have a go at canon but I can't believe that the canon shot is straight out of the camera without any in camera processing or post processing. The pictures are just too fundamentally different. The canon shot is markedly softer (you can't even see her freckles)

One thing is at least the colours seem to be similar.

Thanks for the pics.
Regards

Jonesy
User avatar
ajo43
Member
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby birddog114 on Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:41 am

I like the first ones, cos her natural skin tone and cann PP after
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby Greg B on Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:13 am

Isn't it the same photo? Looks like it to me with more PP on #2 than #1.

I can't spot any difference in the position, expression etc.

In the words of Matt K - prove me wrong
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne

Postby phillipb on Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:41 am

Agreed 100% Greg, down to every little strand of hair in exactly the same position. What are they trying to prove?
User avatar
phillipb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Milperra (Sydney) **Nikon D7000**

Postby W00DY on Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:13 am

Teh two photos have possibly been taken at the same time as you can see a little difference in position by the gold stripe down her top.... But that could also just be cropping.

Anyhow, I am not sure if Onyx is saying the Canon shot or the Nikon shot is better?

W00DY
Andrew
Nikon D3 and lot's of Nikon stuff!!
User avatar
W00DY
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Sydney - Hills District

Postby Nnnnsic on Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:24 am

Even though I'm a Nikon user... as if the Canon shot hasn't been Photoshop'd... geeze... look at that airbrush work!

There is no way in hell that the Canon lens dodges the detail as such and leaves the skin looking plastic, and yet keeps all other details in-tact.

The giveaways here are the lips and the eyes... if everything else has soft focus, why don't the lips or the eyes? Hell, a few strands of hair near the air look like they've been blurred slightly to gel with everything else.

This looks more like a propaganda job to me. :)
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
User avatar
Nnnnsic
I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW

Postby gstark on Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:38 am

Same image.

Different PP.

Or, to be more correct, levels of PP applied.

It's not even two images shot at the same time as there's no paralax differences between the model and the background.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22896
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby gstark on Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:40 am

phillipb wrote:What are they trying to prove?


It's an intelligence test!
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22896
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby Glen on Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:43 am

I will buy a Canon for my wife if that was real, she would never have to apply make up again, the camera would do it for her
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Onyx on Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:29 am

...taking the piss....

Gary's right - it is an intelligence test. ;)
User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au

Postby sirhc55 on Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:24 pm

Tried a test - opened the nikon shot in PS and then placed the canon shot on a new layer and lowered the opacity - the result a definitive YES that they are one and the same shot
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby Matt. K on Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:53 pm

Test it this way....place the images into seperate layers in PS and change the blend mode to /difference/

Where 2 pixels have exactly the same value they will cancel out and produce a black pixel. If 2 images are exactly the same the image will go totally black. Where the image has been manipulated you will see the pixels in differing colours. The chances of 2 images taken by different cameras having the same overall pixel value are astronomical. If the general outline/hair/shoulder shape cancel out to black then it's the same image.
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9980
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby Charandane on Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:04 pm

There is no way that the second image came straight out of a Canon or any other camera. It would look good in Mme. Tussaud's wax museum though. :P I sure hope that whoever started this hoax meant it as a joke.
Regards,

Andy
User avatar
Charandane
Newbie
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:12 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Postby Greg B on Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:07 pm

Where did these shots come from Onyx?
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne

Postby Killakoala on Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:03 pm

Yep. Fake.
Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 |
Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com
Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
User avatar
Killakoala
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5398
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: Southland NZ

Postby Onyx on Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:18 pm

Let's all ignore it and make it go away. It has not gone the way it's intended...and I can't seem to delete this thread!

Yeah yeah, I didn't take the pics... and the person who did might get cranky at me if they knew that I'd posted.
User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au

Postby Raydar on Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:26 pm

What a joke!!

Sloppy PP work to, it stops at the jaw line, nothing has been done to the girl’s neck?? :?


Cheers
Ray :P
>> All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism<<
User avatar
Raydar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Lismore, Northern - NSW

Postby Kris on Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:11 pm

Glen wrote:I will buy a Canon for my wife if that was real, she would never have to apply make up again, the camera would do it for her


hehe.. the Canon shot is horrible. Definately the result of extensive PP
User avatar
Kris
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:31 am
Location: East, Sydney

Postby Matt. K on Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:33 pm

Hey Onyx
I knew it was a tongue in cheek post from the very start. And I enjoyed it. Thanks mate!
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9980
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests

cron