Steve'sDigicams

KyoceraM400 · May 4, 2005, 8:59 AM

When I shoot rainforest at normal sunlight, I feel that the
color of the sky is a little different from the real sky.
It's not as bright as my Pentax. Have I done anything wrong?

Kyocera Kid · May 4, 2005, 2:09 PM

Hi .... Rainforest, sunlight and sky are items that would normally be considered to be mutually exclusive ....if you get my drift! I think we may need to have a little more detail ....or even an example shotto give an opinion.

However, if pushed ...I'd mumble something about either ......

metering methods and angles of view

or......... automatic white-balance differences for each camera

Tell us more ... KK

KyoceraM400 · May 5, 2005, 8:45 AM

Attached is a picture I shot on a sunny morning.
It seems a bit soft and the sky is not as blue as
it seemed.

KyoceraM400 · May 5, 2005, 8:50 AM

After auto levels, it becomes slightly more clearer and
more blue. What other operation can I do in order to make
it more realistic?

Kyocera Kid · May 5, 2005, 10:08 AM

Hi KyoceraM400

There are so many variable factors ... it's hard to know where to begin! I admit to being no expert on this ....but here are a few things to consider. In none of the following am Itaking into accountanything to do with printing the images ....just viewing them on a computer screen. In printing, there lies a whole new topic (minefield) best left alone for now.

Sorry if I am teaching my Granny tosuk eggs ....but I don't know your level of expertise! Even if you ignore most of the following .... with a.... YES! Yes! I know all that! ....but find one of my comments useful ...I'll be a happy man!

1) Before even considering the camera(!) are you happy with the monitor setup that you are using. I find my perceived opinion on an image's color quality will vary depending on the ambient light levels. I prefer to view images critically when the room my PC is in has only low/moderate lighting ....usually at night. There are many good pages on WWW explaining how to get the best out of your monitor.

2) Again, I'm no expert on this but the photo/Image editor/viewer program thatyou are using to view the images may have a "set-up" option to optimize the viewing of images.

3) Assuming the above are optimally set and you are still unhappy, in general, with the output of the camera, the next thing to look at is the settings that the camera is set to. Parameters like auto exposure method, metering area, exposure compensation, white balance, Chroma, sharpness, and contrastwill all affect the output. Many M410R users report on this site that they prefer to use EXT mode to enable them to optimize the settings that they prefer, this would apply equally to the M400R.

It may take some time, practice, and careful reviewing of settings and output to get the results you want.

4) Bold is Beautiful! ...... Hmmmmm! ....Here is a very personal view on this!Allow me to step back to film for a sentence or two. I find that for certain subjects, a slightly underexposed, higher saturation slide will look punchier, sharper and maybe even more life-like to the original ...or our memory(!) of the original... than a "normal" slide! For an average subject, a little tweaking upof the saturation will give a more pleasing result ... certainly more impressive on a computer screen than one that has been faithfully scanned from a slide that closely matches the original subject. But I must recognize that thatis what I may have done ..... exaggerated for effect!

The same is true for some subjects of digital camera images. If we have a color shot ...that is what we want ....COLOR! I don't have a major problem with this ...and often apply some increase in saturation myself and use auto levels to extend the range of tonesto impress the viewer. But did I do it because I felt that the image lacked saturation compared with the original scene, or just to impress? Most of the time it will be difficult to judge if the image is life-like or under/over saturated compared with the original, frequently we don't have the original in front of us!

Certainly, whatever media we try to record an image on, itwill have a smaller range of tones that the original scene. Trying to restore the image back to your memory of the original scene is an art form!

Some testing of how well your camera records a scene/objects that you can compare the output to is well worth the effort and adjusting the parameters mentioned earlier to get the output to your taste.

I hope the abovehelps .... on my screenboth your shots look "realistic". Different to each other? Yes! But then ....I wasn't there when you took them! :-)

Cheers, KK.

May 5, 2005, 8:45 AM	#3
KyoceraM400 Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 33	Attached is a picture I shot on a sunny morning. It seems a bit soft and the sky is not as blue as it seemed. Attached Images

May 5, 2005, 8:50 AM	#4
KyoceraM400 Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 33	After auto levels, it becomes slightly more clearer and more blue. What other operation can I do in order to make it more realistic? Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

May 4, 2005, 8:59 AM	#1
KyoceraM400 Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 33	When I shoot rainforest at normal sunlight, I feel that the color of the sky is a little different from the real sky. It's not as bright as my Pentax. Have I done anything wrong?

May 4, 2005, 2:09 PM	#2
Kyocera Kid Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 694	Hi .... Rainforest, sunlight and sky are items that would normally be considered to be mutually exclusive ....if you get my drift! I think we may need to have a little more detail ....or even an example shotto give an opinion. However, if pushed ...I'd mumble something about either ...... metering methods and angles of view or......... automatic white-balance differences for each camera Tell us more ... KK

May 5, 2005, 10:08 AM	#5
Kyocera Kid Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 694	Hi KyoceraM400 There are so many variable factors ... it's hard to know where to begin! I admit to being no expert on this ....but here are a few things to consider. In none of the following am Itaking into accountanything to do with printing the images ....just viewing them on a computer screen. In printing, there lies a whole new topic (minefield) best left alone for now. Sorry if I am teaching my Granny tosuk eggs ....but I don't know your level of expertise! Even if you ignore most of the following .... with a.... YES! Yes! I know all that! ....but find one of my comments useful ...I'll be a happy man! 1) Before even considering the camera(!) are you happy with the monitor setup that you are using. I find my perceived opinion on an image's color quality will vary depending on the ambient light levels. I prefer to view images critically when the room my PC is in has only low/moderate lighting ....usually at night. There are many good pages on WWW explaining how to get the best out of your monitor. 2) Again, I'm no expert on this but the photo/Image editor/viewer program thatyou are using to view the images may have a "set-up" option to optimize the viewing of images. 3) Assuming the above are optimally set and you are still unhappy, in general, with the output of the camera, the next thing to look at is the settings that the camera is set to. Parameters like auto exposure method, metering area, exposure compensation, white balance, Chroma, sharpness, and contrastwill all affect the output. Many M410R users report on this site that they prefer to use EXT mode to enable them to optimize the settings that they prefer, this would apply equally to the M400R. It may take some time, practice, and careful reviewing of settings and output to get the results you want. 4) Bold is Beautiful! ...... Hmmmmm! ....Here is a very personal view on this!Allow me to step back to film for a sentence or two. I find that for certain subjects, a slightly underexposed, higher saturation slide will look punchier, sharper and maybe even more life-like to the original ...or our memory(!) of the original... than a "normal" slide! For an average subject, a little tweaking upof the saturation will give a more pleasing result ... certainly more impressive on a computer screen than one that has been faithfully scanned from a slide that closely matches the original subject. But I must recognize that thatis what I may have done ..... exaggerated for effect! The same is true for some subjects of digital camera images. If we have a color shot ...that is what we want ....COLOR! I don't have a major problem with this ...and often apply some increase in saturation myself and use auto levels to extend the range of tonesto impress the viewer. But did I do it because I felt that the image lacked saturation compared with the original scene, or just to impress? Most of the time it will be difficult to judge if the image is life-like or under/over saturated compared with the original, frequently we don't have the original in front of us! Certainly, whatever media we try to record an image on, itwill have a smaller range of tones that the original scene. Trying to restore the image back to your memory of the original scene is an art form! Some testing of how well your camera records a scene/objects that you can compare the output to is well worth the effort and adjusting the parameters mentioned earlier to get the output to your taste. I hope the abovehelps .... on my screenboth your shots look "realistic". Different to each other? Yes! But then ....I wasn't there when you took them! :-) Cheers, KK.