Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 2, 2014, 7:00 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by popellis View Post
Catbells

If I'm reading this right, the images that I see that are suppose to be straight out of the camera, and sharp as a tack, is a how do i say, a pipe dream or a lie. That the only way to get these type of images is in post processing. By the way I do like your images, although image #1 looks a little overdone to me.
I'm not trying to start trouble but if all we need to do is master post process software, why do we keep upgrading cameras and lenses.

Thanks
You can definitely improve the sharpness of images in post, but I don't think images straight off the camera should look that soft.
sumx4182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 7:12 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 263
Default

Take this photo for example.

This is straight off the camera with no post other than a watermark.

Straight Off Camera by CCampbell2, on Flickr

This is the photo with only lens correction enable to fix the distortion and vignetting caused by my Sigma 18-250 lens.

Lens Correction Only by CCampbell2, on Flickr

This is the photo with the lens correction and what I would consider a reasonable amount of post processing.

Normal Post Production Treatment by CCampbell2, on Flickr

I consider all photos to be pretty sharp, especially for a superzoom. Here's a crop from the center of the photo.

Crop by CCampbell2, on Flickr

You should be able to get photos like this from the camera. I didn't work all that hard to get this photo. Point, focus, and shoot.
sumx4182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 7:32 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
hnikesch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,814
Default

Lots of advice, the only thing I can add is you may need some lens focus adjustment, try shooting an image of a subject using both the view finder with AF enabled and shoot the same image (with same exposure settings) using live view. Live view uses the image sensor with contrast detect AF while when using the finder uses the phase detect sensors. If you see the live view image is sharper your AF requires adjustment. You say that you had soft images with both the KX and the K5 so it might be the lens and that might be correctable using the AF adjustment. Also as stated above most lenses are sharpest at about f5-f8
__________________
Hans

...It is better to burn a roll of film than curse the darkness. Equip. K30, Q7, DAL 55-300, DA 35 f2.4, DA 50 f1.8 DA 18-135, SMC-M 28 f3.5, SMC M 50 f1.4, Canon P&S S100 w/CHDK Beta, Panasonic DMC-GM5, Flickr:
hnikesch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 9:02 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,522
Default

As Hans says, not much to add to all the good advice, but will give my 2 cents...

These do look much lower in sharpness and local contrast than I'm used to seeing, even with "straight from the camera" shots. Part of this may be the size of the photos you are posting. When you resize, be sure to check the final image size. If it's more than 240 KB, the forum software will automatically resize them further, and soften them significantly.

Also, as Sumx has demonstrated, it is possible to get sharp, high quality images without much post-processing. Since all your shots were taken with the same lens, there's a good chance the lens may need to be calibrated. I used to use a "superzoom" lens (Tamron 18-250), but was never satisfied with the out-of-the-camera images. Have since given that lens away, and purchased a number of fixed focal length lenses which seem to give much better quality images.

As far as your photos themselves, several show your talents in composition and your eye for the unique and for the story. Hope you will continue posting your work!
mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 12:14 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
popellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 157
Default

Mole

How do you resize to 240k. If I try to resize to that, I get a picture that is 350 pixels wide (3-1/2") by 232 pixels high (2-3/8") and 100 pixels in resolution. It so pixelated that I couldn't tell if it is a good shot or not. Although when I saved file it reduced even further to 101K in Jpeg compression PIC1. So I saved it as a Tiff file but you cannot post Tiff files. I went back and resized the photo to 800 pixel x 530 pixel saved as Jpeg at 11 in quality to get a 238K file size PIC2.

Evidently there is more to posting the pictures than I was aware.

See test shot resized before posting.
By the way the following pictures are not an endorsement for Disney or for Drinking
Attached Images
  
__________________
Panasonic FZ-100, FZ-150, LX5, LX7, Pentax K-x & K-5, Bower Flash, FA-50 1.7,FA-100 2.8, FA-135 2.8, DA-35 2.4,DA-18-135 3.5,DA Limited 15 4, DA Limited 70 2.4, DAL 18-55, DAL 55-300, Pentax 1.7 Teleconverter, Sigma 70-200 2.8
popellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 12:54 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by popellis View Post
Mole

How do you resize to 240k. If I try to resize to that, I get a picture that is 350 pixels wide (3-1/2") by 232 pixels high (2-3/8") and 100 pixels in resolution. It so pixelated that I couldn't tell if it is a good shot or not. Although when I saved file it reduced even further to 101K in Jpeg compression PIC1. So I saved it as a Tiff file but you cannot post Tiff files. I went back and resized the photo to 800 pixel x 530 pixel saved as Jpeg at 11 in quality to get a 238K file size PIC2.

Evidently there is more to posting the pictures than I was aware.

See test shot resized before posting.
By the way the following pictures are not an endorsement for Disney or for Drinking
Get a Flickr account. It removes alot of the guess work and then at least if you're not happy with the way it gets posted, we can just click on the images and view the original at full size. Can't beat 1TB of free storage and then you don't have to worry about resizing images to meet the requirements of the forum.
sumx4182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 12:55 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
popellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 157
Default

Ok

Here goes nothing. 4 shots 2 with the 18-135 with and without the ultra clear filter, and 2 with 70mm prime with and without the filter. Taken at 70mm or as close to it as I could get. Custom white balance. Camera mounted on tripod and 2 second timer. resized in PSE 10. Saved in Jpeg format with quality set at 11.

What are your conclusions
.
What do most of you use for post processing and why. I have been using PSE since version 1 although I skipped version 4,5,6,7,8,and 9.

Well I learned something new, while doing this. If the board resizes your photos to fit, it strips the EXIF data.

Thanks everyone for your time.
Mark
Attached Images
    
__________________
Panasonic FZ-100, FZ-150, LX5, LX7, Pentax K-x & K-5, Bower Flash, FA-50 1.7,FA-100 2.8, FA-135 2.8, DA-35 2.4,DA-18-135 3.5,DA Limited 15 4, DA Limited 70 2.4, DAL 18-55, DAL 55-300, Pentax 1.7 Teleconverter, Sigma 70-200 2.8
popellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 1:42 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
popellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 157
Default

Sumx8142

I had a picassa account is Flickr better? Although I have to remember how to get into picassa.
__________________
Panasonic FZ-100, FZ-150, LX5, LX7, Pentax K-x & K-5, Bower Flash, FA-50 1.7,FA-100 2.8, FA-135 2.8, DA-35 2.4,DA-18-135 3.5,DA Limited 15 4, DA Limited 70 2.4, DAL 18-55, DAL 55-300, Pentax 1.7 Teleconverter, Sigma 70-200 2.8
popellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 1:43 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 263
Default

I'm not sure, I never had a picasa account. I've always had flickr. I like it well enough.
sumx4182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 3:33 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
popellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 157
Default

Test link to picassa

original photos I think unless picassa resizes.

I see it removed the EXIF data again. I am learning a lot today. (what doesn't work)
Pic1 18-135 @68mm
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-J...-no/18_135.JPG
Pic2 [email protected] with filter
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-4...135_filter.JPG
Pic3 70mm
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--.../70mmprime.JPG
pic4 70mm with filter
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-b...ime_filter.JPG
__________________
Panasonic FZ-100, FZ-150, LX5, LX7, Pentax K-x & K-5, Bower Flash, FA-50 1.7,FA-100 2.8, FA-135 2.8, DA-35 2.4,DA-18-135 3.5,DA Limited 15 4, DA Limited 70 2.4, DAL 18-55, DAL 55-300, Pentax 1.7 Teleconverter, Sigma 70-200 2.8

Last edited by popellis; Jan 3, 2014 at 3:40 PM. Reason: took off photos
popellis 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 8:04 AM.