what is wrong with this image?

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 09:39 AM

can someone tell me what is wrong with this image.

Taken with K10D and SMC 300mm F4 (set to F6.3) and 1.7x AF TC

Exposure was 1/100th at ISO 1600 hand held - no flash

taken at max resolution JPEG, no post processing except resize to post

*Venturi* · 09-30-2008, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

can someone tell me what is wrong with this image.

Taken with K10D and SMC 300mm F4 (set to F6.3) and 1.7x AF TC

Exposure was 1/100th at ISO 1600 hand held - no flash

taken at max resolution JPEG, no post processing except resize to post

Well, it does have a little Flicker in it. But other than that it looks pretty good to me.

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Venturi

Well, it does have a little Flicker in it. But other than that it looks pretty good to me.

Actually it is a rather big Flicker

. and thanks for the comment.

I really thought I would post this because given the conditions, I don't think any camera could do better, and I thought people who like to pick on the K10D and pentax could post similar examples from other makers that are better under the same conditions.

As for lenses, unless someone had perhaps something like a 600mm F4, but I defy them to hand hold that sucker, I think a 30 year old lens, and an 18 year old TC did pretty well.

The only compensation I actually had to do, was in metering, use green button then stop down 1.5 stops to account for the K10D metering error.

That is actually something I would like to comment about. On my *istD, even manual metering allowed for exposure compensation, but the K10D does not. Given there are cases where you know the metering is off by 2 stops in manual, it would be nice to be able to dial that in.

lunelson · 09-30-2008, 10:06 AM

It looks a little underexposed but it could be the monitor I'm using at work. Also, it seems like the white balance is off -- again, it could be the uncalibrated monitor.

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by lunelson

It looks a little underexposed but it could be the monitor I'm using at work. Also, it seems like the white balance is off -- again, it could be the uncalibrated monitor.

right on both counts.

Exposure is off only because day was intermittent overcast and sunny, plus estimated error for exposure, by counting clicks of the apature ring after metering wide open. it is about 1 stop under.

WB is off because it is done with daylight, and the green leaves trhow that off somewhat.

*Frank Fletcher* · 09-30-2008, 10:46 AM

It's interesting that you chose to stop down instead of decreasing time in a low light situation.

I'm not sure how exposure compensation in manual mode would do anything other than confuse the operator. My K10D still displays the "compensation" or deviation from the metered EV. All I need to do is "fiddle with the dials".

Hmm... on retrospect, I do see what you might be after - the automatic "re-tuning" of the meter so you don't have to change aperture or duration. Again though, I'm not sure it would help me much given that once my exposure was correct for the given light, I could happily shoot again and again without metering, perhaps fine-tuning as I go.

Am I missing something?

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Fletcher

It's interesting that you chose to stop down instead of decreasing time in a low light situation.

decision to stop down was for depth of field, note this is a lens with a close focus of about 12 feet, and I was very close to that limit, hence DOF is very narrow,
Additionally, the lens performs much better stopped down a little than wide open, and 1/100 is all I was willing to go down to on shutter speed, again note the "rule of thumb" suggests 1/500 (focal length)/1.5 (crop factor) or 1/750th hand held. I was essentually 3 stops below that which kind of suggests shake reduction actually does something useful. This was one point the posting is intended to demonstrate

I'm not sure how exposure compensation in manual mode would do anything other than confuse the operator. My K10D still displays the "compensation" or deviation from the metered EV. All I need to do is "fiddle with the dials".

the K10D has an interesting problem. The light meter has an inherent error that is introduced by the focusing screen. I have posted about this before, but in essence, only a lens at F4 is correct. Faster lenses tend to under expose, slower lenses over expose. You don't notice this with "A" lenses when in A mode because the camera is programmed to correct for the error, BUT manual lenses are a different story all together. So are "A" lenses when you use a TC. As a result, even if you are in manual mode, the metering can and is wrong. I prefer to be able, for example with my Sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 when used with a TC be able to dial in the compensation and correct it once and for all, not have to meter, then check, or look at the histogram. With the combination I had, I was metering wide open, then stopping down without moving my eye from the view finder manually to get the correct exposure, Not a very convenient way to work

Hmm... on retrospect, I do see what you might be after - the automatic "re-tuning" of the meter so you don't have to change aperture or duration. Again though, I'm not sure it would help me much given that once my exposure was correct for the given light, I could happily shoot again and again without metering, perhaps fine-tuning as I go.

Am I missing something?

The only thing you are missing is that you have to make the correction for each time you meter in different light, as opposed to being able to set it once, and then forget it. up until the K10D, every pentax I owned, film and digital, let you apply the same compensation to all metering modes. Many people did this to compensate for example with slides, and kodachrome, to protect highlights.

wildman · 09-30-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

can someone tell me what is wrong with this image.

Taking you at your word that you really want an opinion...

Other than what others have already said the image lacks detail and the background is a bit too busy and distracting. It looks to me as if the pic is out of focus or there is excessive camera movement - did you use a tripod?

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by wildman

Taking you at your word that you really want an opinion...

Other than what others have already said the image lacks detail and the background is a bit too busy and distracting. It looks to me as if the pic is out of focus or there is excessive camera movement - did you use a tripod?

Composition points noted, but unfortunately birds don't go where you tell them to, otherwise I would have this guy on a single tree branch in full sunlight, and blue sky behind him.

As for slight blurr and lacking detail, I also cannot argue too much, but note, ISO 1600 in the shade under tree cover, and hand held 500mm lens at 1/100th No tripod no flash.

by the way, I like your shots, can you post EXIF data, I would be interested in a comparison, just to demonstrate the point. I really intended this to show what can be achieved under extremely adverse conditions

RiceHigh · 09-30-2008, 12:41 PM

Do you want to ask for Image Critique or about the technical matters of the image?

For the latter case, I think the WB of the bird / image is terribly off.

Well, below are some very old examples of mine, all taken with an *ist D almost five years ago. And, sometimes taking photos of those small birds are particularly difficult.

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

can someone tell me what is wrong with this image.

Taken with K10D and SMC 300mm F4 (set to F6.3) and 1.7x AF TC

Exposure was 1/100th at ISO 1600 hand held - no flash

taken at max resolution JPEG, no post processing except resize to post

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Do you want to ask for Image Critique or about the technical matters of the image?

For the latter case, I think the WB of the bird / image is terribly off.

Well, below are some very old examples of mine, all taken with an *ist D almost five years ago. And, sometimes taking photos of those small birds are particularly difficult.

RH

Technical critique, not image.

See comments above, WB is not off as much as the light is influenced by the green overgrowth.

Again, Can you post settings of yoru photos, as the EXIF is not available

*Frank Fletcher* · 09-30-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

decision to stop down was for depth of field, note this is a lens with a close focus of about 12 feet, ...

...The light meter has an inherent error that is introduced by the focusing screen. I have posted about this before, ... As a result, even if you are in manual mode, the metering can and is wrong....

The only thing you are missing is that you have to make the correction for each time you meter in different light, as opposed to being able to set it once, and then forget it....

Ah... got it. Thanks.

I remember dialling down, protecting the highlights and increasing saturation.

RiceHigh · 09-30-2008, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

RH

Technical critique, not image.

I still don't get it - I don't understand what "technical critique" is about.. "Image Critique" is commenting on shooting techniques and the quality of the final pictures produced. Technical discussion is of course, more about the gear and the images it produces, in technical sense.

See comments above, WB is not off as much as the light is influenced by the green overgrowth.

It'd be better to use AWB, then.

Again, Can you post settings of yoru photos, as the EXIF is not available

Those images were PPed and cropped by me. I have re-uploaded the un-retouched originals (except just downsizing) below, which the EXIFs are intact:-

flyer · 09-30-2008, 01:15 PM

Something to write on the calendar: Rice High posted some pictures.

Nothing personnal, Rice High, it's just that we hardly expected pictures posted from you. It's nice to see you posting pictures instead of bashing Pentax. Hope we'll see more in the future!

Lowell Goudge · 09-30-2008, 01:17 PM

RH

I was looking for comments regarding the image produced based upon equpment used, i.e. technical comments

Re your photos, I liked the origonals better, not the corpped images

Also, I always liked the High ISO of the *istD, just I had the K10D with me this time. (note I don't normally shoot this lens on the K10D but use it on the *istD)

Your shots went wide open, (I would guess FA300 F4.5) at 1/500 and 800/1600 ISO. I went the other way on F stop and shutter, playing a little with the shake reduction.