clear eyes that stand out

[Elly]

does face detection detect eyes or the whole face? and is it used in single point autofocus?do you know if nikon uses a lot more contrast and sharpening then canon in jpegs?sorry for lots of questions but curious.

[Ads]

[ErectedGryphon]

does face detection detect eyes or the whole face? and is it used in single point autofocus?do you know if nikon uses a lot more contrast and sharpening then canon in jpegs?sorry for lots of questions but curious.

I don't know on either count, I have an old Canon 5D (and love it), I use my eyes for face/eye detection.

[ClickyPicky]

Canon Vs. Nikon. Scroll for an identical shot of an eye taken with high quality canon and nikon glass.

Robert Seale Photography Blog » Nikon vs. Canon Hi-Res shootout

Same in terms of sharpness.

[Elly]

thank you clickypicky.it might be alot to do with the differences between the out of camera settings.am i right in saying nikon jpegs produces more contrast,sharpening and vibrance out of camera on default?

[Zeckson]

General Statement:
All digital SLRs with even an ordinary lens can give very sharp and nice images and they are much better than compact cameras.

Why images are sharp?
It is because

1. There's ample light falling onto the subject that the camera can focus easily.
2. Camera's focusing mechanism is good.
3. Lens converge light very well onto the sensor.
4. There is enough contrast on the subject.
5. Post processing is done inside the camera.
6. Author further enhance the sharpness in post production.

But the majority of the sharpness you see on the Internet comes from post production using photo editing softwares. It is how the author prepares his/her images for viewing on the Internet.

[Early]

hiya. I've looked at portrait photos made by canon and nikon cameras and many times the nikon portraits make the eyes look more sharp and stand out more than the canons. why is this? my friend said it is because of better autofocusing or lenses with more contrast. Is this true? has anyone else noticed this on both cameras?

I seriously doubt you've seen enough photos to compare. Besides, it would greatly depend on the lens being used. Not so long ago, someone showed a portrait taken with a Canon 50mm f1.4 that displayed outstanding detail in the eyes, un-retouched.

[newrmdmike]

this thread is awesome . . .. haha, I WANT SO BADLY TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE WORST WAY,
in fact . . . i think i will KenRockwell.com there.

All kidding aside, i think good glass will get you the furthest, and so i don't worry much about camera bodies. in fact i don't even worry about that unless the shot in mind needs glass to lend its personality to it. The last shoot i did i used a d3 with a 17-55 and a point and shoot. . . for the final product it looks like i will end up using more shots from the point and shoot; i never would have expected that, but it was easier to climb with a point and shoot than with loaner d3.

YOU CREATE THE IMAGES, and it is therefore important to learn more and become more capable of understanding how to get desired results . . . the gear may lend itself to those results but is not always RESPONSIBLE for those results. From my own experience learning how to utilize the positive attributes of what gear you have access to will get you a long ways.

[Elly]

I seriously doubt you've seen enough photos to compare.

haha, you couldn't be further from the truth .

Mike like you say different gear has different attributes.that's why i'm asking questions to understand the different attributes .

so back to the question- am i right in saying nikon jpegs produces more contrast,sharpening and vibrance out of camera on default?

[UUilliam]

I would say Yes to ON DEFAULT

however Canon has a colour menu (style menu?) that I changed and got better results than nikons.
Well nikons aimed at the same user group atleast.

[newrmdmike]

"clear eyes that stand out" = knowledge of how to use your format and lens to your favor + processing knowledge+light+makeup+shadows. NOT xformat by xbrand + xlens = clear eyes that stand out.
i have used nikon . . . and traded with people and used canon. . . these companies do a good job not creating too many directly competing cameras, so its difficult to compare sometimes. i was shooting a d200, and preferred my friends 5d because of the full frame sensor, and tended to like its out of the camera color better than nikons out of the camera raw color . . . although with nikon jpgs i have been pleased, except it doesn't really matter because i shot raw all of the time.

I would say it doesn't matter, and i've used both, and still really liked my nikon. I would also say that if your not beating your camera up and are in the price range i was in that canon may end up being more cost effective.

with nikon and canon shooting raw you have the controls to pretty much do whatever, so that leaves you with lenses, and both companies have awesome lenses . . . some more and less awesome. some not so awesome.

go to Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ and start reading if your interested in very specific narrow details and differences.

BUT, i promise it won't make much of a difference, try your best to get over gearhead tendencies. What you put in is always what you get back, and knowledge will get you further than gear. GEAR ISN'T as big of a deal as people tend to think.

[gopal]

elly...if u are a nikon user stick to it, otherwise there may be more comparisons with panasonic, oly, sony etc....i feel company many not be faulty, since the lenses and cameras pass thorough checking...and it is a matter of reputation also.

[Derrel]

Okay, back to Elly's sample photo, of the blonde woman whose eyes really stand out Flickr Photo Download: :::Ania O:::

I downloaded the sample photo in its largest size,and applied a very steep curves shift to it to look for evidence of heavy-handed fakery. I can see none. THe photo has been lightened quite a bit in post; with a slight downward movement of the curves, it's possible to see more easily that she has some actual real skin pores under her eyes; the hair at her temple area on both sides, is very crisply rendered--even the wispiest little hairs. Pulling the curves downward even more, it is clear that her lips are in focus and very slightly chapped. The photographer's outline is clearly visible against the simple skylight that is illuminating her. This photo is not heavily processed or photoshopped extensively.

What you are seeing is the way a full frame D700 and a the superb Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D renders a close-up subject when shot at ISO 200, at f/1.6 at 1/320 second. One of the things that makes her eyes stand out is simple: shallow depth of field due to a wide aperture, used on a large sensor d-slr, from close range, and very carefully focused. If you pull the curves down, you can see MORE detail in her cheeks,hair,and lips, and that competes for attention with the eyes. With her light blonde hair, raising the curves up and lightening the images makes the darkest in-focus area, here eyes, go Pop!

The 85mm 1.4 AF-D has superb defocused areas, and superb bokeh--it was long considered Nikon's "bokeh king" until the new 200mm f/2 AF-S VR-G overtook it. I would suggest anybody who is interested simply download the photo,and pull the curves down,and see that this is a straight, unmanipulated photo, made with about $4,000 worth of premium equipment. You cannot make this photo using a DX sensor and an 85mm lens that tops out at f/5.6--this is FF, shallow depth of field, wide-aperture work. This photo could have been made on a full-frame Canon or a Nikon or a Sony, with the premium 85mm lenses of any of the three systems with its aperture set to f/1.6.

[newrmdmike]

clap clap derrel! i apply curves like that to check for processing flaws to!

best answer i have seen yet . . .

[newrmdmike]

now then point out that canon has gear that will make the same photo, the same way. . . and your at square one . . .it isn't company dependent for this particular shot. (although that nikon 200 f/2 is WICKED!!!!!!!!!) the most important part to remember i think is that it does rely on full frame coupled with the lens to make it possible.

[mitsugirly]

I'm a Sony girl...you can "pop" any eyes in the right situation. It's not the camera.

There are tutorials on how to pop the eyes. Done in PS.

Here's a partial eye pop I did on my grandson:




Also, there are programs out there that are for glam portraits...you can not only sharpen and pop the eyes, you can whiten them, change their color, brighten them and even change the shape.