[alfa75ts]

I would remark that the pics do appear to show signs of posterisation on my monitor. Most commonly caused I think by too much jpg compression.

I agree, it doesn't show on the cheap Aldi 50" 4k tv I'm using as my monitor unless viewing at an angle but does show on my 10" netbook.

Note: 50" is a tiny bit big for 4k at the distance I sit because you get a bit of screen door effect BUT my images look great at this size.

Yeah, "z" is quite often used where an "s" should be, Quite common between American and Australian spelling. But, not really the point of my query, more concerned that pentaxfall's pictures were not rendering up on screen as I imagine, he would like to be actually presenting them, and whether or not it was just my monitor , the browser, the file host, or, the actual image that was uploaded. I noticed that they are linked from Flickr, but not in the normal way, thinking the links are only to a low res preview and not the higher resolution version. Doesn't really matter anymore.

The British folks were unaffected by President Teddy Roosevelt's drive to "modernize and standardize" the English Language. He had the idea that since English is a phonetic language, and people who talk the way he did (upstate New York regional dialect) all sound alike, that must be "standard English".

[marcusBMG]

I merely wanted to clarify the distinction between posterisation and solarisation. The definitions I copied and pasted included the alt spellings.

[taks]

taken at Coulon Beach Park along Lake Washington. K3 and DA300+TC




spotted a humming bird but too fast for me to catch him in flight K3 and DA300


so he was kind enough to stop for a second and pose

[Racer X 69]

Solarisation (often spelled Solarization) is the effect in photography in which the image recorded on a negative (or on a photographic print) is wholly or partially reversed in tone. Simply put dark areas appear light and light areas appear dark.

Posterization or posterisation of an image entails conversion of a continuous gradation of tone to several regions of fewer tones, with abrupt changes from one tone to another.


I would remark that the pics do appear to show signs of posterisation on my monitor. Most commonly caused I think by too much jpg compression.

I'm with Marcus here.

Some, but not all of Pentaxfall's images do have some degree of posterization.


But I see it on other images too, in many areas of the forum. I have even seen it on some of my images, ones I may have processed a bit too much, or reduced too much in resolution to upload to the web.

Also, it doesn't always manifest itself in every image, on every monitor or screen. Some images may look OK on one computer, and not so good on another.

[ChipB]

I'm not sure if it's my monitor, but there is some serious solarization going on in all your backgrounds, or maybe it's the file host dumbing down the image????? But I'm only seeing it in your images, and not anyone elses. Are these uploaded here to PF or on another host???

Solarisation (often spelled Solarization) is the effect in photography in which the image recorded on a negative (or on a photographic print) is wholly or partially reversed in tone. Simply put dark areas appear light and light areas appear dark.

Posterization or posterisation of an image entails conversion of a continuous gradation of tone to several regions of fewer tones, with abrupt changes from one tone to another.


I would remark that the pics do appear to show signs of posterisation on my monitor. Most commonly caused I think by too much jpg compression.

Whatever it's called, I see it also - and I've only seen the effect in this forum in these photos.

[joehenryd]

Was at Nisqually waiting for the Barn Owl to show its face. Left to go see what else is out there. Saw a Snipe off the board walk. Grabbed a few quick shots. K3II with Sigma 500mm F4.5 and 1.4X extender. Joe

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[pentaxfall]

I'm not sure if it's my monitor, but there is some serious solarization going on in all your backgrounds, or maybe it's the file host dumbing down the image????? But I'm only seeing it in your images, and not anyone elses. Are these uploaded here to PF or on another host???

Darktable output profile was by mistake set to LinearRec2020 and that was causing those artifacts.

---------- Post added 03-08-19 at 11:18 PM ----------

[zzeitg]

DFA 150-450

[derekkite]

DFA 150-450

Those are lovely!

Still looks fuzzy to me. Did a good bit of experimenting with it, and no part of the picture is really in focus by my lights. Earlier, I'd said I thought it must be focussing ahead of the point I intended to focus on, but I've changed my mind. Took about a hundred and fifty pictures with it this morning, at all different (terrestrial) distance ranges, but I'm convinced I'm getting much clearer and sharper pictures with D FA 24-70mm and D FA* 70-200mm lenses. This picture is developed from DNG as uncompressed JPEG, and cropped. No "enhancements" otherwise, either in the camera or postprocessing. Just doesn't seem right, particularly contrasted with pictures posted by zzeitg (among others). What do y'all think?

[luftfluss]

Still looks fuzzy to me. Did a good bit of experimenting with it, and no part of the picture is really in focus by my lights. Earlier, I'd said I thought it must be focussing ahead of the point I intended to focus on, but I've changed my mind. Took about a hundred and fifty pictures with it this morning, at all different (terrestrial) distance ranges, but I'm convinced I'm getting much clearer and sharper pictures with D FA 24-70mm and D FA* 70-200mm lenses. This picture is developed from DNG as uncompressed JPEG, and cropped. No "enhancements" otherwise, either in the camera or postprocessing. Just doesn't seem right, particularly contrasted with pictures posted by zzeitg (among others). What do y'all think?

This shot looks like mine do when I just miss focus.

A good test would be to mount the lens on a sturdy tripod (or other structure) and focus on something with a lot of texture - like a tree - on a sunny day and machine gun 4 or 5 shots with a shutter speed of 1/1000s or faster.

From photos I've seen that were made with the DA 560, there seems to be a luminous quality that is not quite there with other long tele lenses, even the DFA 150-450. I could be mistaken, though, as the sample size is small. Maybe @zzeitg can chime in, since he has both big guns. But it seems like not only are your photos lacking sharpness, but also the contrasty tonal rendering the DA 560 is known for, so it really does seem like the lens is defective.

[mstahulak]

Still looks fuzzy to me. Did a good bit of experimenting with it, and no part of the picture is really in focus by my lights. Earlier, I'd said I thought it must be focussing ahead of the point I intended to focus on, but I've changed my mind. Took about a hundred and fifty pictures with it this morning, at all different (terrestrial) distance ranges, but I'm convinced I'm getting much clearer and sharper pictures with D FA 24-70mm and D FA* 70-200mm lenses. This picture is developed from DNG as uncompressed JPEG, and cropped. No "enhancements" otherwise, either in the camera or postprocessing. Just doesn't seem right, particularly contrasted with pictures posted by zzeitg (among others). What do y'all think?

Can you post the full un-cropped version of this? It's hard to tell how bad it is without seeing the full image…

[zzeitg]

Those are lovely!

Thanks!

This picture is developed from DNG as uncompressed JPEG, and cropped.

Can you post the full un-cropped version of this? It's hard to tell how bad it is without seeing the full image…

The best would be if you could upload the original DNG file.

If the EXIF is correct...
- ISO800
- f/10
- 1/500s

I'd suggest to set f5.6 or f/6.3 and higher ISO, which would lead to faster shutter speed.
(I personally use the TAV mode for wildlife shooting most of the time.)

And what about a test with some APS-C camera (K-3 instead of K-1, which is IMHO too slow for wildlife shooting anyway)..?

This shot looks like mine do when I just miss focus.

It could be combination of missed focus and motion blur (caused by slower shutter speed).

From photos I've seen that were made with the DA 560, there seems to be a luminous quality that is not quite there with other long tele lenses, even the DFA 150-450. I could be mistaken, though, as the sample size is small. Maybe @zzeitg can chime in, since he has both big guns.

Prime vs Zoom
560 mm f/5.6 vs 450 mm f/5.6
100 mm vs. 80 mm front element.
No doubts who's the winner in this competition.

DA560

[marcusBMG]

This picture is developed from DNG as uncompressed JPEG, and cropped. No "enhancements" otherwise, either in the camera or postprocessing. Just doesn't seem right, particularly contrasted with pictures posted by zzeitg (among others).

Well you've upped the asa and got a 1/500 shutter but the bottom line is the light is dull dull dull, that shutter speed is still not that fast, more than susceptible to vibration and shake affecting the end result, and your shot is still a stop under exposed, as per the histogram (faststone, fyi). While it would be useful to get the RAW into eg LR and see what the max is that can be extracted from the pic (the default jpg is going to reflect the dull light and underexposure), even a quality lens can only do so much when the llght is poor. You can't really conclude much from comparing with zzeitg's sun illuminated finches.
Are you doing the max to make sure you are isolating optical performance from other factors? I'm talking: big solid weighted tripod or, better, beanbag/sandbag on a solid surface like a wall; static subject; remote shutter release (the use of which is not emphasised as much as it should be IMO); good light (sun behind you) = 1/1000 min shutter. Then take a bunch of test pics at 5.6, f8, f11, and also see if there is visible distinction between AF and MF, the latter using magnified live view ideally with a loupe on the lcd (or at least shade the lcd). Pic 2 shows the test subject I put together (wishing I had a stuffed bird!) for my 400mm lens supertest (in progress), the flat banknote is to test resolution of fine detail and mitigate DoF issues - at eg 400mm and 10m distance the depth of the in focus region is only a few cm.
If there is a discrepancy between AF and MF then you will need to go through adjusting the AF.