Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Fujifilm (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/fujifilm-22/)
-   -   HS10 Smearing & Mush (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/fujifilm-22/hs10-smearing-mush-171450/)

Cornwall David May 25, 2010 6:35 PM

HS10 Smearing & Mush
 
This only happens in SOME circumstances, overall I love my HS10, this I hate!
Attached are links to two pictures of the sea in front of my house. It was shot in Raw + JPEG. The first is the JPEG and is straight from camera, the second is a developed RAW (the only change being WB, no noise reduction or sharpening etc, as will be VERY apparent LOL)

ISO 100, 1/200th F8 7mm, Pattern Metering

These are hosted on Flickr, view original size to see full effect.

Original JPEG
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2538519...46085/sizes/o/

"Developed" RAW
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2538519...49993/sizes/o/

gjtoth May 25, 2010 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornwall David (Post 1099572)
This only happens in SOME circumstances, overall I love my HS10, this I hate!
Attached are links to two pictures of the sea in front of my house. It was shot in Raw + JPEG. The first is the JPEG and is straight from camera, the second is a developed RAW (the only change being WB, no noise reduction or sharpening etc, as will be VERY apparent LOL)

ISO 100, 1/200th F8 7mm, Pattern Metering

These are hosted on Flickr, view original size to see full effect.

Original JPEG
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2538519...46085/sizes/o/

"Developed" RAW
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2538519...49993/sizes/o/

First, did you do the 1.02 firmware upgrade? If so, do a reset and then set your sharpness to "Standard". I had the same issues and that took care of it.

You often look at your images in original size so you have to scroll all over the screen?

JimC May 25, 2010 6:55 PM

FWIW...

You may want to try avoiding using f/8 with that type of camera, as chances are, you're going to start getting softer photos from diffraction stopping down the aperture to around f/5.6 or so, especially on the wide end of that lens.

IOW, you're better off leaving the aperture wide open (as you'll have pretty good depth of field at wider focal lengths with an actual focal length that short anyway (7mm in that example), and diffraction will cause softer photos with cameras using sensors that small (sensor size of 1/2.3", which is under 1/2") if you try to stop down the aperture that much (f/8 in that example).

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

Keep in mind that you're going to have dramatically more depth of field for a given subject framing and aperture with a camera using a sensor that small (because you'll have a much narrower angle of view for a given actual focal length), as compared to a camera using a larger sensor or film size.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

As a result, you don't need to stop down the aperture as much for equivalent depth of field (and if you do stop down the aperture much, you can expect softer photos due to diffraction issues).

Cornwall David May 25, 2010 7:06 PM

Thanks. To be honest I do get this mush at other apertures as well but only get it on areas of foliage or stonework and it depends on the amount and position in the photograph. Will try the upgrade from 1.01 however not confident that this will make any difference have read what issues it is said to address. Will try what you suggested and will do a more scientific test tomorrow.

Like I said I love the HS10 but find this occasional issue rather frustrating.

2raj May 26, 2010 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornwall David (Post 1099578)
Thanks. To be honest I do get this mush at other apertures as well but only get it on areas of foliage or stonework and it depends on the amount and position in the photograph. Will try the upgrade from 1.01 however not confident that this will make any difference have read what issues it is said to address. Will try what you suggested and will do a more scientific test tomorrow.

Like I said I love the HS10 but find this occasional issue rather frustrating.

Would be interesting to compare your pre and post 1.02 update pics, JPG and RAW converted.

Photo 5 May 27, 2010 9:52 AM

I've never had an issue like this. I am use 1.01. I need to update at some point when I have the time

dave

Photo 5 May 27, 2010 11:21 AM

I went back through my photos from the past wekend and notice on a couple of them with some ghosting in the upper corners but believe that is sun flare and the guy standing next to me was flashing off a pretty powerful flash. Not really an issue as I just cropped it out.

dave

AnniM May 29, 2010 11:22 AM

You mean like this?
 
This image was practically point-blank range at 200 ISO (used only because - well, you ever try to take a photo of a moving black cat in the shade?). If it wasn't for the fact that her EYES are sharply focused and her whiskers are razor-still, I'd have sworn this was motion blur - there's nearly zero detail in the branches or her fur, just muted suggestions - everything's smeared. Argh.
http://toths.us/AnniM/main.php?cmd=i...%2C+2010-3.jpg

JimC May 29, 2010 11:57 AM

What you're seeing is a shallow depth of field because you're filling the frame with a relatively small subject.

Your camera isn't in the list, but if you select another camera with a the same sensor size (1/2.3 inch) like the Fuji S2000FD you'll find in this calculator's list, you can get a better idea of how that works. That shot was using an actual focal length of 23mm at an aperture of f/4.5, and I'd guess you were probably around 4 or 5 feet away when you took it, only allowing for a few inches of depth of field in front of and behind your focus point before the other elements start to get blurry.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

That can be a good thing if you're trying to isolate your subject from distracting elements in an image (so that other elements are blurry to help your subject stand out from them), or a bad thing if you want more of the image to be in focus.

The longer your focal length, and the closer your are to you subject (where a smaller subject occupies a larger percentage of the frame, as in a head and shoulders shot of a smaller subject like a cat, versus a wider shot where the cat would be occupying a smaller percentage of the frame), and the wider your aperture (smaller f/stop numbers), the shallower your depth of field will be (amount of the image that is in focus as your get closer to or further away from your focus point).

JimC May 29, 2010 12:12 PM

BTW, a camera with a larger sensor or film size would have a much shallower depth of field (even less of the image in focus as you get further away from your focus point when filling the frame that much with a smaller subject) for a given aperture setting.

So, the camera you have is going to be much better than many cameras if you want more depth of field with shots like that one (especially compared to cameras with much larger sensors like virtually all dSLR models). ;-)

That's one reason many users go with a dSLR (to get a shallower depth of field to help their subjects stand out from distracting backgrounds). That's far more difficult with a camera that has a smaller sensor size like your Fuji (requiring you to fill the frame a lot more by getting closer or zooming in more to get the desired effect). That's because with wider shot of a larger subject (like your typical people photos), you will tend to have too much of the image in focus for the desired effect, making it more difficult to blur distracting backgrounds to help isolate your primary subject from them.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.