Fun with Photoshop

[designdog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For many photographers, the 28mm focal length is a challenge, and 35mm is a preference. I moved on from 35mm some time ago, with many shots on a Nikon equipped with a Zeiss 2/28 ZF.2, relative of the famous "Hollywood" Zeiss lens. From that I moved to the new Nikon 28mm 1.4E, a lovely lens that happens to live on my D5. So I am no stranger to 28mm.

 

Recently I viewed a YouTube video praising the new upscaling algorithm in Photoshop CC (mine is 19.1.2) This stuck in my craw for some reason, and this morning I tried a simple experiment: I took a nice processed raw image from the Q, and made a 4800px x 3200px selection right in the middle of it. Just like the frame lines for a 35mm image in the Q EVF. I copied that selection, pasted it in a new document, and used the new algorithm to upscale it "back" to 6000px x 4000px, the original Q sized image.

 

The results were pretty amazing. On my Retina display I absolutely cannot tell the difference in sharpness etc when I view the original and the "35 mm" at the equivalent magnification (so they both look the same size on the monitor.) With each at 100%, or each at "fit to window" they both look great.

 

What does this mean, in the real world? It means, if you really prefer the 35mm focal length, you can shoot raw with the 35mm frame lines and crop to match them in processing, without fear of lost quality - at least with Photoshop. If you do it a lot you could probably write an action to do the crop/upscale automatically. Now, I am assuming you are not going to be further upscaling that image — one has to draw the line somewhere!

 

Technology. Don't you love it?

 

 

[bags27]

For some of us--at least for a luddite like myself--the title of your post is oxymoronic. But thanks so much for doing the work to prove that eyeballing a reasonable crop doesn't reveal much of a (or any!) difference. I always shoot at 28 figuring I can crop in post, but it would be a good exercise to go out sometime (in fact, maybe today!) with it set at 35 or 50 mm. thanks again.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[HighlandK]

It would be interesting to know just how far you can push this upscaling before there is a loss of definition. The acid test is not on a retina display but in a print because a computer display is not equivalent to a 300 dpi print. The problem as I see it is that cropping to 35mm or larger equivalent is fine with a 24MP sensor and in my experience good quality prints can be made certainly to A3. My issue is that when you upscale a crop back to the original pixel dimension where are the extra pixels coming from. Well, they are being 'invented' by the upscaling algorithm in Photoshop. Therefore the final image is only as good as that algorithm. A crop retains the original pixel information as captured.

[designdog]

Correct. Of course, one could also point out that the original pixels are, if not being invented, at least being interpolated, in the original conversion process.

 

Ah yes, printing. To my left is a very large, very expensive Epson Pro printer. Every now and then I run a print through it, as large as it goes, just for fun (Aside: those papers don’t last long between use. They curl to the extent that the printer won’t accept them.) l admire the print, put it down somewhere, and forget about it. Just like the images I post!

 

Anyway, this was just a curiosity I thought to pass on...

Edited March 28, 2018 by designdog

[stuny]

Any idea how well this works, if at all, with jpegs?

[designdog]

Sorry, never work with jpegs. However, the Photoshop algorithm is not file format specific. Obviously you have to have a good file to begin with. Also, jpegs are lossy, so some file deterioration is inevitable. 

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not to change the subject here, but I have a question on something that has been bugging me for a bit and I wonder if anyone may chime in on it:

I am under the impression that if I shoot in 35mm crop mode with the Q and then open the dng in Photoshop, I will see the 28mm non cropped version of this shot. Well this just does not happen to me, for whatever reason. Photoshop will always open the cropped version (Lightroom on the other hand opens the non cropped version). If I select the crop tool in Photoshop (as has been suggested to me), I STILL do not see anything different. Photoshop will always show me the cropped image as if I was looking at the jpg...every single time no matter what I do.

I don't understand what is going on here. Actually I do prefer the way it does this but I wonder why, as others have stated otherwise.

Again, sorry if I have hijacked anything here but it seemed the most appropriate place to bring this up.

Edited March 30, 2018 by jay968

[robgo2]

It would be interesting to know just how far you can push this upscaling before there is a loss of definition. The acid test is not on a retina display but in a print because a computer display is not equivalent to a 300 dpi print. The problem as I see it is that cropping to 35mm or larger equivalent is fine with a 24MP sensor and in my experience good quality prints can be made certainly to A3. My issue is that when you upscale a crop back to the original pixel dimension where are the extra pixels coming from. Well, they are being 'invented' by the upscaling algorithm in Photoshop. Therefore the final image is only as good as that algorithm. A crop retains the original pixel information as captured.

 

 

I agree that the acid test is a print. For the record, I use ImagePrint as my printing program. The image resizing built into IP is fantastic. I have made enlargements of heavily cropped photos that look really good. It's a very easy to do all resizing at the printing stage. All you need is your final edit output from which you can print larger or smaller almost on the fly. It is certainly possible that the new PS resizing algorithm does as well or better, but it is more complicated. I previously used On1's Perfect Resize, but ImagePrint is at least as good.

[Guest]

It is not about upscaling/cropping to a different focal length. Actual 35mm focal length will render the image differently to a 35mm equivalent crop of an image taken with a 28mm lens. Most people have a misconception that they can simply crop an image taken with a wider angle lens and get the same rendering as a more telephoto lens. Yes you get the same magnification but not the same rendering of the image

[jaapv]

What do you mean by "rendering"? The only difference you will see is a change in DOF. And, of course, a quality degradation with extreme crops. As long as you don't change position, there will be no change in perspective.

[microview]

I am under the impression that if I shoot in 35mm crop mode with the Q and then open the dng in Photoshop, I will see the 28mm non cropped version of this shot. Well this just does not happen to me, for whatever reason. Photoshop will always open the cropped version (Lightroom on the other hand opens the non cropped version). If I select the crop tool in Photoshop (as has been suggested to me), I STILL do not see anything different. Photoshop will always show me the cropped image as if I was looking at the jpg...every single time no matter what I do.

 

I would agree with that. In LR the imported (Library) file is uncropped but click on the crop box in Develop and it shows the 35mm crop from 28. Exporting the original image from LR cataloge as a DNG and PS (v3 which is all I have!) shows the cropped version.

 

Experimenting further: if you do click on the 'crop' tool in PS you can then drag image out to enlarge up to full 28 fov view and then save, eg as a tiff.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 15, 2018 by microview