>> |
Anonymous
>>85856 >>85858 1. Where does OP live? 2. There's a point in the year where the moon is lowest in the sky, and therefore best to be shot (usually). In the northwestern quadrant of the globe, it was quite a few months back. I don't know what time it hits the others.
>>85895 I'm almost certain it's a noise reduction thing raping it. I've seen good results from Fuji cameras. The crappiness looks like the wake of noise reduction, and the other shot (taken at ISO 100) looks much better.
Diffraction also might play a role. If I understand things correctly (and I could be completely wrong on this; optical theory is my weak suit when it comes to technical issues in photography), the smaller the sensing area, the larger the aperture diffraction begins to take a toll at, though this is fortunately balanced out by smaller sensors having more depth of field. I've heard most point-and-shoots actually perform best wide open, though the one I own (A Panasonic FZ-8) is sharpest two stops down. This all could be a flaw with the testing: most point and shoots don't shoot raw, and a larger aperture means less noise and hence less noise reduction.
OP, why did you shoot at ISO 200, 1/400th? Why not ISO 100, 1/200th? 1/200th is still an awfully fast shutter speed.
Regardless of technical issues, the first one is still a great shot, one of the best landscapes I've seen on /p/. The color's wonderful and it all seems to remind me somehow of all that contemplative old Japanese art. Resize it down to probably somewhere between 700-1000 pixels on its longest side, and it should display well on the web.
The second one is well-composed, but having everything in focus just doesn't work for it and it didn't turn out too well as a result.
|