Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 10, 2010, 1:05 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Hi Sarah, I think something went horribly wrong in post production or uploading this photo.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 1:39 PM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

It does like like it's been edited in some way or something else went wrong during post processing, especially in the areas with water (or the forums software caused the issue if it wasn't within the allowed file size or dimensions).

Increasing noise levels is a byproduct of trying to use an editor on an image to boost brightness in darker areas, etc. (which many features in an editor will do using auto levels, curves, adjusting contrast or brightness, etc.). Sharpening an image will also bring out noise levels. But, that image looks like it may have some compression artifacts, too (and posterization may have also contributed if the editor changed much when working with an 8 bit jpeg, since that's a common issue when post processing). The water is very bad.

I can't see what editor or camera settings were used, since the EXIF has been stripped out (either by the editor if you're trying to use something like Save for Web with Photoshop, or by our forums software if the file size was larger than the allowed size shown in the attachments box you'll see when uploading an image).

IOW, if you're not careful to stay within the set limits, the forums software will automatically recompress an image using a much lower JPEG quality.

See the comments in this post about it:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ge...ml#post1026659

In any event, I'd probably point out if you've done anything to an image you post showing how a camera performs, as you may not realize the impact any editing has on the appearance of an image on some monitors, and that can make users think images from a given camera model are going to look that way by default.

Ditto for making sure it's within the limits for file size and dimensions allowed by the forums software (because if it's not, an image is going to be recompressed at a much lower jpeg quality).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 2:07 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S.

Sarah, given it's small file size, my guess is that it was recompressed by the forums software (unless you're using a relatively low jpeg quality setting).

To begin with, we just wouldn't allow a photo to be uploaded if the set dimensions or file size were exceeded. But, we later changed it so that users can still upload an image that is larger than the allowed sizes (file size or dimension limits we have set), by letting the forums software resize and/or recompress the image.

The downside of that approach is that you can end up with a much lower quality image being displayed, because the forums software is using a relatively low jpeg quality when it does recompress an image that exceeds the allowed file size or dimensions. It also strips out the EXIF from an image (if it was there to begin with) if it needs to resize and/or recompress an image to stay within the set limits.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 2:23 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
Cresho-

As promised I worked more on the new Fuji S-200. Here is the 01/10 sunrise along the Oregon Coast.

Sarah Joyce

hmm..looks like an oil painting. Ill be posting some of my results and we will get this thing figured out.

for others asking about software used, she uses photohshop on a mac.

Last edited by Cresho; Jan 10, 2010 at 2:25 PM.
Cresho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 9:18 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Here it is again.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2010, 6:36 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Thanks Sarah. But, that appears to be a different photo, or at least cropped differently. It's using an even smaller file size compared to the last one, too (and the EXIF is still stripped out).

No biggie. I appreciate you showing them.

I just wanted to help figure out what may be going wrong with the uploads. You may want to check your JPEG Quality slider in the software you're using to downsize them (Elements I presume) to see if it may be set to a very low quality or something along those lines.

Note that if you use "Save for Web", Adobe products like Photoshop and Elements will always strip out EXIF information, too. Using Save As instead of Save for Web should solve that. Or, if the file size is too large (more than about 250KB), it could be the forums software doing it (as that is a "quirk" with the way we have it setup right now. It could also be that there was just not enough detail in that image to warrant a larger file size.

BTW, I wish I had that kind of view here. You must really enjoy it when you have some time off. I'm jealous. :-)
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 4:57 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Hi again!

Well since my last post I bought the S200EXR and after 2 days playing around with it, I can confirm that the noise is definitely avoidable, and it's only in a few auto-modes that you get no say in the ISO. It's just unfortunate that this very cool mode "Pro Focus" happens to be one of those fully automatic modes. Having said that though, the noise is easily disguised using the noise filter on my photo editor.

But there's another 'auto' mode in this camera called "High ISO & Low Noise", located in the EXR menu, where you DO get to choose the ISO. The results are really impressive and have made quality indoor shots without a flash now possible for me! And there's *another* cool auto-mode called "Pro Low-Light" that combines 2 or 3 shots to create a 'noise free' version. So thankfully this camera gives you options!

Just to comment on what Cresho said about Fujifilm - I agree, and I realise now that it's not going to be as straightforward to say "the S200EXR is better/worse than my old Canon Powershot SX10". Each behaves in it's own way and the shutter speeds and apertures and ISOs that I'd previously engraved in my memory must now be discarded because they bear little resemblance to the equivalent 'measurements' on this Fuji camera. For example, ISO 400 on my old SX10 had more noise than ISO 1600 on the S200EXR. But also, the types of shots I'm taking with this camera are very different to those I made last year, and so I think photography itself forms in response to what your camera offers. So as I kiss goodbye to that 20x zoom and try hard to ignore those little birds at the far end of the garden, I take great pleasure in being able to walk outside at dusk and take some moody noise-free pictures.

The only thing I miss desperately about the Powershot is the swivel LCD! Never appreciated how useful it was until now!

Anyway, so far so good!
fibbling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 11:58 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,092
Default

Good choice in word and excellent observation!


Fujifilm cameras are great and I found that automatic modes are not as good as the Canon or the Panasonic. BUT!!!! Fujifilm has better images produced if you go into manual or semi-manual settings.

My Camera arrives tomorrow! Glad to see a fellow birdwatcher/photographer.


I'll also be playing with the Raw files and I hope my linux software can open these files. If not, ill rely on wine to do all the work translating windows program to work on linux.

Ill post some shots of raw stuff in my personal info. I already have pics in there of my j10, s3800, and ill throw some s200exr raw images as well.
Cresho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 7:18 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cresho View Post
I'll also be playing with the Raw files and I hope my linux software can open these files. If not, ill rely on wine to do all the work translating windows program to work on linux.
It's supported in dcraw.c, which means any raw converters using that source code as a model (and many linux and windows applications do) should also support raw files from that camera, provided you're using a relatively up to date version of them.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 7:24 AM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S.

You may also want to give the latest RawTherapee 3.0 Alpha 1 a spin. I haven't tried this Alpha release yet. But, I've seen others report that it's stable (at least under Linux). All of the existing 2.4.x features are not yet implemented though, from what I can tell of the press release about it.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/
JimC 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 3:59 PM.