The "reach" of the Q - images

stormtech · 12-08-2012, 03:00 PM

Thanks for your Kingfisher story Scott - and I thought it was just me!

I can see the river from my house, and directly off my lawn there is a deep hole which holds a lot of fish even when the water is low in the summer. There is a pair that live right there along the opposite bank.

I can hear him from the house and look out to see him flying back and forth and diving for dinner. As soon as I walk half way from the house, he moves upstream just out of reach like you say. I will sit for a while, and they will carry on up above. After I finally give up after a while and go back up to the house, I look out the window and there he is chattering away as if laughing at me!

However if I sit quietly in our pavilion along the bank, he will land on a certain branch - the same branch every time and clean himself. It's a nice open shot without anything in the way. The only problem is this is ~150' away. I've shot away with my 300mm but it just isn't enough to get a decent fill of the viewfinder. I am hoping the Q will fix that especially that he will sit still of 10-15 minutes at a time on that branch.

Here is what I get with the FA*300

And a pretty heavy crop of the same image

Last edited by photolady95; 04-17-2016 at 02:10 AM.

**crewl1** · 12-08-2012, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by ChrisJ

Again sorry for the delay, coupling a Q to a scope is easy and cheap just a Q>C mount adapter and a C mount to 1.25 Inch tube coupler which just slips into the lens holder of the scope.

Thanks for the info Chris, looks funny to see the tiny Q on that big lens. Look forward to more of your shots.

hnikesch · 12-09-2012, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by stormtech

I look out the window and there he is chattering away as if laughing at me!]

I have a pair that taunt me also and my view with my 300 is about the same as yours, I will have to wait till next summer to get them with the Q

Hans

Sagitta · 12-09-2012, 10:58 PM

If I go for the Q, I have some osprey that are going to find themselves on the receiving end of some old prime glass. Have an old 200mm that's itching to be used.

hnikesch · 12-10-2012, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Sagitta

If I go for the Q, I have some osprey that are going to find themselves on the receiving end of some old prime glass. Have an old 200mm that's itching to be used.

My favorite lens on my Q is a $10 estate sale Super Tackumar 200 f4 you will love it just pull the trigger before all the Q's are gone

Hans

**crewl1** · 12-13-2012, 04:21 PM - **2 Likes**

Finally had a bit of patchy sun after some cloudy, rainy days. This hummingbird was enjoying getting warmed up a bit.
Q + DA*300, 1/160 sec, ISO 125, F5.6

Just a test to see why pictures uploaded to Photobucket look soft when shared, sorry.

2nd Photobucket test, resized before upload

**jva59** · 12-13-2012, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

Finally had a bit of patchy sun after some cloudy, rainy days. This hummingbird was enjoying getting warmed up a bit.
Q + DA*300, 1/160 sec, ISO 125, F5.6

Just a test to see why pictures uploaded to Photobucket look soft when shared, sorry.

Excellent shots, Crewl1, realizing the potential of the Q.

hnikesch · 12-13-2012, 04:45 PM

Very nice Larry, great composition and detail. I have yet to get a hummer with any of my cameras

Hans

**crewl1** · 12-13-2012, 04:48 PM

Thanks JVA. The Q+DA*300 actually produces very good IQ results.
(I've been a bit frustrated because I've been using Photobucket to share my pics and when I post them here they always look rather soft as compared to the shots I share through Flickr.
I think the mistake I have been making is that I don't resize my shots before uploading. My investigation continues.)

**crewl1** · 12-13-2012, 04:50 PM

Thanks Hans. I'm lucky that I have a few that stay here year round, and I keep feeders up all year so they are always around.
When I see other folks from other places shooting some fabulous birds I feel jealous, but I guess I should be more grateful for what I have access to.

stormtech · 12-13-2012, 05:12 PM

Thanks for sharing the hummer shots Larry - you really get me itching for when I can get my Q combo out for some wildlife when the weather turns around again (in 4-5 months

). Very nice detail for sure!

While I don't seem to have a problem with the forum software softening images - maybe it is because I am hosting my images on my own rented web space - I've read where others said that you need to resize your photos locally before you upload them (which I have been doing). The main reason for this is that if the images are larger than allowed here, the forum software will automatically resize them which is not being gracious to our photos. The hummer shots you posted look good and sharp - I see you hosted them on flikr and have it sized at 1024x768. That should do the trick I think. I'm pretty sure that Adam just increased the allowed size of displayed images in the forum recently to 1200x800.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/forum-suggestions-news-help/203806-news-l...hed-posts.html

Anyway, I think the key is to not let the forum software resize your photos.

**crewl1** · 12-13-2012, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by stormtech

The hummer shots you posted look good and sharp - I see you hosted them on flikr and have it sized at 1024x768. That should do the trick I think. I'm pretty sure that Adam just increased the allowed size of displayed images in the forum recently to 1200x800.

Ahhh Ok thanks Stan. The first shot is on Flickr and looks sharper to me than the other two which are on Photobucket. The last one is resized before export but it just doesnt have the detail of the one from Flickr.
I'll keep trying.

snostorm · 12-14-2012, 01:29 AM

Hi Larry,

Nice work!!!

Now I know why I've always hated people who live on the West Coast. . .

About all the birds I'll be seeing for four months will be House Sparrows and the now ever-present Canada Geese -- they're good for practice, but I have literally thousands of shots of them. . .and even in the summer, we only have Ruby Throated Hummers. ..I've never even seen any other species, except in zoos

It's okay though -- I have quite a few new toys to experiment with over the winter. . .and shovel snow. . .and build snowmen. . .

I always downsize and usually PP (a little NR and sharpening to offset the blurring from downsizing interpolation) my shots before posting. That way I don't leave anything to the whim of the forum software.

Scott

**crewl1** · 12-14-2012, 03:34 PM

Thanks Scott. So is your workflow: downsize first, then PP? I may be doing it backwards as I PP the full image, then downsize on export.

snostorm · 12-14-2012, 11:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by crewl1

Thanks Scott. So is your workflow: downsize first, then PP? I may be doing it backwards as I PP the full image, then downsize on export.

Hi Larry,

Actually I have a dedicated workflow for posting since I'm downsizing more than I would normally. I normally shoot in jpeg ***, Natural, high iso NR set to low (and to "off" with DSLRs), in-camera sharpening at -4 (I don't like the way Pentax sharpening biases towards the dark side of edges -- it adds a dark outline where it should not be), and tweak the colors to what I see. This gives me close to what a converted unprocessed RAW file would in a jpeg. My primary PP is done with Topaz DeNoise and InFocus, and these plugins only work with 8 bit files, so I'm not really losing much if I get the exposure close.

I first tweak exposure and contrast if needed

Downsize to about 3/4 res (3000 pixels on the long side) and apply light NR so subsequent sharpening won't exaggerate noise much, then I apply light sharpening to accentuate finer detail so it won't be smoothed over by further downsizing.

Downsize to 1/2 res (now at 2000 pixels on the long side) I add another application of light sharpening if I see I've lost some detail, otherwise just go to the next downsizing.

Downsize to 1700 pixels on the long side, examine, and light sharpening again if needed otherwise . .

Downsize to 1300 pixels on the long side, same as before

Downsize to final 1024 on the long side, add very light sharpening and light NR if needed. I look over the final image looking for excess contrast from sharpening and go over any with the "soften" brush at 3-4% opacity just to take the edge off.

Save to a different file name (usually just add a code that shows res and general PP done) at about 200-250 KB

I downsize in steps so fewer details are lost to the interpolation algorithm and the extra steps allow me to see if I'm losing too much along the way.

I use PSPP X4 with Topaz Denoise for NR and Topaz InFocus for sharpening -- I've developed my own presets for InFocus using only deconvolution sharpening and micro contrast with no conventional sharpening

This is about as close to the original as I can get in such a low res file. It's been slowly evolving for quite a few years. . .and probably will continue to in the future. Kind of involved, especially since the Topaz plugins are relatively slow for what they do, but they're the best that I've tried so far, and I don't post that many pics. . . and I like to show the good ones off a bit. I've gotten so used to the drill, I can almost do it all with my eyes closed now.

Scott

12-13-2012, 04:21 PM - 2 Likes	#171
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Finally had a bit of patchy sun after some cloudy, rainy days. This hummingbird was enjoying getting warmed up a bit. Q + DA300, 1/160 sec, ISO 125, F5.6 Just a test to see why pictures uploaded to Photobucket look soft when shared, sorry. 2nd Photobucket test, resized before upload Last edited by crewl1; 12-13-2012 at 05:04 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2199	2 Days Ago 10:28 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
"Focus Adjustment Washer" replacement...(with images)	Catalana	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	18	11-04-2012 03:40 PM
"Real Life" K5 AF.C images yet?	jpzk	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	69	02-02-2011 03:48 AM
How do I turn this so-called "film" into images?	Todd Adamson	Pentax Medium Format	12	01-07-2011 03:33 PM

12-08-2012, 03:00 PM	#166
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Thanks for your Kingfisher story Scott - and I thought it was just me! I can see the river from my house, and directly off my lawn there is a deep hole which holds a lot of fish even when the water is low in the summer. There is a pair that live right there along the opposite bank. I can hear him from the house and look out to see him flying back and forth and diving for dinner. As soon as I walk half way from the house, he moves upstream just out of reach like you say. I will sit for a while, and they will carry on up above. After I finally give up after a while and go back up to the house, I look out the window and there he is chattering away as if laughing at me! However if I sit quietly in our pavilion along the bank, he will land on a certain branch - the same branch every time and clean himself. It's a nice open shot without anything in the way. The only problem is this is ~150' away. I've shot away with my 300mm but it just isn't enough to get a decent fill of the viewfinder. I am hoping the Q will fix that especially that he will sit still of 10-15 minutes at a time on that branch. Here is what I get with the FA300 And a pretty heavy crop of the same image Last edited by photolady95; 04-17-2016 at 02:10 AM.*

12-08-2012, 09:31 PM	#167
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by ChrisJ Again sorry for the delay, coupling a Q to a scope is easy and cheap just a Q>C mount adapter and a C mount to 1.25 Inch tube coupler which just slips into the lens holder of the scope. Thanks for the info Chris, looks funny to see the tiny Q on that big lens. Look forward to more of your shots.

12-09-2012, 05:52 PM	#168
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	Originally posted by stormtech I look out the window and there he is chattering away as if laughing at me!] I have a pair that taunt me also and my view with my 300 is about the same as yours, I will have to wait till next summer to get them with the Q Hans

12-09-2012, 10:58 PM	#169
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	If I go for the Q, I have some osprey that are going to find themselves on the receiving end of some old prime glass. Have an old 200mm that's itching to be used.

12-10-2012, 08:10 AM	#170
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	Originally posted by Sagitta If I go for the Q, I have some osprey that are going to find themselves on the receiving end of some old prime glass. Have an old 200mm that's itching to be used. My favorite lens on my Q is a $10 estate sale Super Tackumar 200 f4 you will love it just pull the trigger before all the Q's are gone Hans

12-13-2012, 04:41 PM	#172
jva59 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,409	Originally posted by crewl1 Finally had a bit of patchy sun after some cloudy, rainy days. This hummingbird was enjoying getting warmed up a bit. Q + DA*300, 1/160 sec, ISO 125, F5.6 Just a test to see why pictures uploaded to Photobucket look soft when shared, sorry. Excellent shots, Crewl1, realizing the potential of the Q.

12-13-2012, 04:45 PM	#173
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	Very nice Larry, great composition and detail. I have yet to get a hummer with any of my cameras Hans

12-13-2012, 04:48 PM	#174
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Thanks JVA. The Q+DA*300 actually produces very good IQ results. (I've been a bit frustrated because I've been using Photobucket to share my pics and when I post them here they always look rather soft as compared to the shots I share through Flickr. I think the mistake I have been making is that I don't resize my shots before uploading. My investigation continues.)

12-13-2012, 04:50 PM	#175
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Thanks Hans. I'm lucky that I have a few that stay here year round, and I keep feeders up all year so they are always around. When I see other folks from other places shooting some fabulous birds I feel jealous, but I guess I should be more grateful for what I have access to.

12-13-2012, 05:12 PM	#176
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Thanks for sharing the hummer shots Larry - you really get me itching for when I can get my Q combo out for some wildlife when the weather turns around again (in 4-5 months ). Very nice detail for sure! While I don't seem to have a problem with the forum software softening images - maybe it is because I am hosting my images on my own rented web space - I've read where others said that you need to resize your photos locally before you upload them (which I have been doing). The main reason for this is that if the images are larger than allowed here, the forum software will automatically resize them which is not being gracious to our photos. The hummer shots you posted look good and sharp - I see you hosted them on flikr and have it sized at 1024x768. That should do the trick I think. I'm pretty sure that Adam just increased the allowed size of displayed images in the forum recently to 1200x800. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/forum-suggestions-news-help/203806-news-l...hed-posts.html Anyway, I think the key is to not let the forum software resize your photos.

12-13-2012, 05:31 PM	#177
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by stormtech The hummer shots you posted look good and sharp - I see you hosted them on flikr and have it sized at 1024x768. That should do the trick I think. I'm pretty sure that Adam just increased the allowed size of displayed images in the forum recently to 1200x800. Ahhh Ok thanks Stan. The first shot is on Flickr and looks sharper to me than the other two which are on Photobucket. The last one is resized before export but it just doesnt have the detail of the one from Flickr. I'll keep trying.

12-14-2012, 01:29 AM	#178
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Hi Larry, Nice work!!! Now I know why I've always hated people who live on the West Coast. . . About all the birds I'll be seeing for four months will be House Sparrows and the now ever-present Canada Geese -- they're good for practice, but I have literally thousands of shots of them. . .and even in the summer, we only have Ruby Throated Hummers. ..I've never even seen any other species, except in zoos It's okay though -- I have quite a few new toys to experiment with over the winter. . .and shovel snow. . .and build snowmen. . . I always downsize and usually PP (a little NR and sharpening to offset the blurring from downsizing interpolation) my shots before posting. That way I don't leave anything to the whim of the forum software. Scott

12-14-2012, 03:34 PM	#179
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Thanks Scott. So is your workflow: downsize first, then PP? I may be doing it backwards as I PP the full image, then downsize on export.

12-14-2012, 11:31 PM - 1 Like	#180
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by crewl1 Thanks Scott. So is your workflow: downsize first, then PP? I may be doing it backwards as I PP the full image, then downsize on export. Hi Larry, Actually I have a dedicated workflow for posting since I'm downsizing more than I would normally. I normally shoot in jpeg ***, Natural, high iso NR set to low (and to "off" with DSLRs), in-camera sharpening at -4 (I don't like the way Pentax sharpening biases towards the dark side of edges -- it adds a dark outline where it should not be), and tweak the colors to what I see. This gives me close to what a converted unprocessed RAW file would in a jpeg. My primary PP is done with Topaz DeNoise and InFocus, and these plugins only work with 8 bit files, so I'm not really losing much if I get the exposure close. I first tweak exposure and contrast if needed Downsize to about 3/4 res (3000 pixels on the long side) and apply light NR so subsequent sharpening won't exaggerate noise much, then I apply light sharpening to accentuate finer detail so it won't be smoothed over by further downsizing. Downsize to 1/2 res (now at 2000 pixels on the long side) I add another application of light sharpening if I see I've lost some detail, otherwise just go to the next downsizing. Downsize to 1700 pixels on the long side, examine, and light sharpening again if needed otherwise . . Downsize to 1300 pixels on the long side, same as before Downsize to final 1024 on the long side, add very light sharpening and light NR if needed. I look over the final image looking for excess contrast from sharpening and go over any with the "soften" brush at 3-4% opacity just to take the edge off. Save to a different file name (usually just add a code that shows res and general PP done) at about 200-250 KB I downsize in steps so fewer details are lost to the interpolation algorithm and the extra steps allow me to see if I'm losing too much along the way. I use PSPP X4 with Topaz Denoise for NR and Topaz InFocus for sharpening -- I've developed my own presets for InFocus using only deconvolution sharpening and micro contrast with no conventional sharpening This is about as close to the original as I can get in such a low res file. It's been slowly evolving for quite a few years. . .and probably will continue to in the future. Kind of involved, especially since the Topaz plugins are relatively slow for what they do, but they're the best that I've tried so far, and I don't post that many pics. . . and I like to show the good ones off a bit. I've gotten so used to the drill, I can almost do it all with my eyes closed now. Scott