Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 25, 2016, 3:57 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi rainrunner,
Yes, I really like this. Did you get this from the the raw? What version of Photoshop are you using?
..... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2016, 2:40 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Hillsboro, Or
Posts: 267
Default

I adjusted the raw file, and I am using Photoshop CC.
rainrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2016, 9:50 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,522
Default

VTphotog's results from your JPEG:


... don't look a lot different from rainrunner's results with your RAW. .
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 8:40 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi TCav,
Not a lot, but there are noticeable differences. VTphotog's shows some graininess between the top darkness and the halo of the lamps on the left side. Also, the tree on the left side is more defined, and the yellow building is clearer in rainrunner's. (These differences may not even show in the larger versions. I don't know). I'm not trying to be critical here, I can't do as well as either one.
...... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 3:52 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,208
Default

Rainrunner's rendition is definitely sharper overall and shows better definition. Some of it could well be that the resizing algorithms I used weren't optimum. I am currently without a version of Raw Therapee, but in the past, I have found it to be able to get the best out of Raw from just about any camera. Taking the time to learn how to use it, though, can be daunting.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 4:15 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Hillsboro, Or
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Rainrunner's rendition is definitely sharper overall and shows better definition. Some of it could well be that the resizing algorithms I used weren't optimum. I am currently without a version of Raw Therapee, but in the past, I have found it to be able to get the best out of Raw from just about any camera. Taking the time to learn how to use it, though, can be daunting.
As for the noise graininess, you can always down load the Nik Software suite for free from Google. It has a noise reduction software.
https://www.google.com/nikcollection/
rainrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 5:21 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,208
Default

I have that, just didn't think to try it, as I have gotten out of the habit of doing post-processing on my own shots. I get the results I want from my camera, and seldom shoot Raw anymore. For John's photo, I would probably have set camera to HDR-Auto, and let it take the sequence. No muss, no fuss.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 1:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi,
rainrunner... Yes, I'll try the Nik noise reducer. Thanks.
VTphotog ... I've been trying Raw Therapee for a few days now, but can't seem to get as good a result as rainrunner did with PhotoShop. (It could be just that I'm not familiar with it.) HDR-Auto? I don't think my FZ150 has such a setting??
...... john

Last edited by Shinnen; Nov 29, 2016 at 1:46 PM. Reason: diction
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 6:14 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Alright. I think this is the best I can do. I was not able to get the result I wanted using 858 (neither raw nor jpg. I just don't have the raw editing skills). So, I went to 857, which was exposed twice as long (1 sec. vs. 0.5 sec. for 858) And I was not able to get it from the 857 raw either, so I used the jpg. As I mentioned before,I think it's very difficult to improve on the FZ150 jpg, unless one is very skilled at editing raws, which I am not. In any event ..... here's my FINAL effort. (I don't know why it's so fuzzy. The full size is quite clear.)
Name:  P1130857aRTabsmall.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  70.2 KB

Last edited by Shinnen; Nov 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM. Reason: comment about image
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 7:49 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,522
Default

The simple act of downsampling removes most noise.

Noise is errant pixels. Downsampling (converting a high resolution image to one of a lower resolution) averages out noise (the effect of a single errant pixel is overwhelmed with the neighboring accurate pixels). You downsampled your photos in order to post them here. The mere act of displaying an image on your computer monitor, a 2MP output device, means it was downsampled from it's original 12MP resolution, means that the noise was reduced.

Just because you can see noise at 100% doesn't mean it will adversely affect the quality of your image when you view it in its entirety.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:11 PM.