• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / MTF sharpness testing with Lightroom

MTF sharpness testing with Lightroom

January 5, 2015 JimK Leave a Comment

From the mailbag:

Nice A7II IBIS test.  It would be great to compare to the A7 sans IBIS.  A comment and a question:

It looks like the A7II has a stronger AA in one direction (H), similar to the A7 and D6x0.

Assuming you are trying to evaluate the capabilities of the (IBIS) hardware, why introduce unknown/arbitrary software parameters into the equation (LR) instead of simply rendering to TIFF via dcraw -d -4 -w and feeding that TIFF to Imatest?

With this latter approach you would need to properly set white balance in-camera (or via -r in dcraw) but you could then indeed make quantitative MTF50 comparisons to the sensor’s pitch related limit.  If on the other hand LR is part of the equation, results become more qualitative because one never knows how much of the MTF50 is simply due to sharpening by the adaptive rendering algorithms.

WRT the comment: bang on.

About the question. What you are recommending is indeed the high road, and, if I ever tried to do absolute testing of lens performance, I’d certainly consider taking it. However, I’m interested in posts like yesterday’s only in relative performance, and I don’t see how using Lightroom’s default settings with their mild sharpening would affect relative rankings.

Using Lr has some things to recommend it.

First, it’s fast and easy, letting me pick images, form sets, label them with keywords, crop to save disk space, write out with descriptive file names, etc in an efficient manner. I will stipulate that I’m lazy. Well, not lazy exactly; I hate to do work that seems unnecessary. Let me also stipulate that I am prone to error, and that I hate to make errors. The Lightroom workflow that I’ve worked out with its multiple crosschecks, helps me keep from making too many errors and having to redo too much work.

Lr is also indicative of the tool that a typical photographer might use to develop raw files, and their default settings appear to me to be well thought out.

But thanks for the suggestion.

 

The Last Word

← Testing IBIS on the Sony a7II Let’s keep this equipment analysis in perspective →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.