Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-18-2015, 05:43 PM   #1
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Q raw sharpness

I have been playing around with RAW files. I started out using Photoshop to convert the files and had to sharpen considerably. Then I tried converting in the camera. To my surprise, there is a drastic difference, the camera doing a much better job. Has anyone else found similar results.

02-18-2015, 05:52 PM   #2
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
I have been playing around with RAW files. I started out using Photoshop to convert the files and had to sharpen considerably. Then I tried converting in the camera. To my surprise, there is a drastic difference, the camera doing a much better job. Has anyone else found similar results.
I have experienced just the opposite using Adobe Lightroom 2 to develop images from a Q. I have not yet done the same comparison with my Q7.
02-18-2015, 05:54 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
I have been playing around with RAW files. I started out using Photoshop to convert the files and had to sharpen considerably. Then I tried converting in the camera. To my surprise, there is a drastic difference, the camera doing a much better job. Has anyone else found similar results.
Nope.
I always shoot RAW and apply my own sharpness.
02-18-2015, 07:11 PM   #4
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
It's raw and process in LR 5 for me, I do add sharpness, lots, I have a workflow for my processing not only my Q but also my K30 & my Canon S100 all start in raw

02-18-2015, 07:24 PM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
Back in my film daze, I shot slide film almost exclusively, so I never became accustomed to modifying what came back from the processor. Modern digital cameras seem to be much sharper than even Kodachrome was, and I've never consumed the Koolaid of needle sharpness (I used that term instead of "razor sharpness" because I believe that most of us have become addicted to ever more sharpness), and I'd rather take pictures than pursue (unattainable) perfection, so I tend to go with the jpeg produced by the camera unless I see something clearly wrong with the picture. That is just me, however; your mileage may differ.
02-19-2015, 11:16 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
I don't think I am making myself understood. I am saying in a simple raw to jpg conversion, the results are much different depending on what program you convert in. Take a look at what I have posted on Flickr. Photoshop and DNG Converter seem to be distorted and noisy compared to Silky Pix and the Q Camera conversion. Yet the Photoshop and DNG Converter results are sharper. I took the Q Camera Conversion to Photoshop CS2/auto levels/smart sharpen 2 pxls to produce the last image.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24877856@N00/sets/72157648591106723/#
02-19-2015, 01:05 PM   #7
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,108
The Q and Silky Pix probably understand lens distortions and sensor profiles better than 3rd party software. Together they can compensate automatically - as they should. Going to a 3rd party program puts that burden on to you.

I found that the Q needed liberal amounts of sharpening, a boost in saturation and vibrancy, and a rise in definition. The Q seemed to make all of these adjustments for us in its JPG engine. Once I figured this out how to simulate these auto adjustment in Aperture I can get very nice results - sometimes even exceeding what the Q's JPG engine can do! Noise reduction was never an issue for me. I thought the RAW output was fairly clean to begin with.

The Q7 needs the same adjustments but at a much lower setting. I think the sensor captures more details easier and requires less work to pull out them out.

Every image processing engine has its own secret sauce. There are many threads that compare the camera's JPG engine to Lightroom to Aperture to DxO to Capture One to ... you name it. Each one will perform differently. It's up to you to massage the best output that suits you with the tools at your disposal.
02-19-2015, 03:24 PM   #8
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
The Q and Silky Pix probably understand lens distortions and sensor profiles better than 3rd party software. Together they can compensate automatically - as they should. Going to a 3rd party program puts that burden on to you.

I found that the Q needed liberal amounts of sharpening, a boost in saturation and vibrancy, and a rise in definition. The Q seemed to make all of these adjustments for us in its JPG engine. Once I figured this out how to simulate these auto adjustment in Aperture I can get very nice results - sometimes even exceeding what the Q's JPG engine can do! Noise reduction was never an issue for me. I thought the RAW output was fairly clean to begin with.

The Q7 needs the same adjustments but at a much lower setting. I think the sensor captures more details easier and requires less work to pull out them out.

Every image processing engine has its own secret sauce. There are many threads that compare the camera's JPG engine to Lightroom to Aperture to DxO to Capture One to ... you name it. Each one will perform differently. It's up to you to massage the best output that suits you with the tools at your disposal.
Thank you. At least one person understands what I am talking about.

02-19-2015, 06:50 PM - 1 Like   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
Thank you. At least one person understands what I am talking about.

That's grossly unfair and a little rude towards everyone who took the time to respond. Your first post was quite simple and only needed simple responses, Your second post was more detailed about what you really mean't.
02-19-2015, 09:22 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote

That's grossly unfair and a little rude towards everyone who took the time to respond. Your first post was quite simple and only needed simple responses, Your second post was more detailed about what you really mean't.
Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. I do like other opinions and appreciate the time spent to help. 6BQ5 seems to be the only person by her answer, understood what I was trying to say. Please accept my apology.
02-20-2015, 05:13 AM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 226
If you are using Photoshop or Lightroom - with an up to date copy of ACR - make sure you have the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box ticked in the "profile" tab of the "Lens Corrections" section. This will correct for all the various distortions and aberrations, but it isn't turned on by default. It will make quite a noticeable difference. You should also do this for DSLRs as well with all of the recent lenses, although there won't be quite as dramatic an improvement.
02-20-2015, 06:24 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul Ewins Quote
If you are using Photoshop or Lightroom - with an up to date copy of ACR - make sure you have the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box ticked in the "profile" tab of the "Lens Corrections" section. This will correct for all the various distortions and aberrations, but it isn't turned on by default. It will make quite a noticeable difference. You should also do this for DSLRs as well with all of the recent lenses, although there won't be quite as dramatic an improvement.
I am using CS2 and does not have the tab, but thanks for the info. Guess I will have to stick with using Silky Pix.
02-20-2015, 07:32 AM   #13
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul Ewins Quote
If you are using Photoshop or Lightroom - with an up to date copy of ACR - make sure you have the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box ticked in the "profile" tab of the "Lens Corrections" section. This will correct for all the various distortions and aberrations, but it isn't turned on by default. It will make quite a noticeable difference. You should also do this for DSLRs as well with all of the recent lenses, although there won't be quite as dramatic an improvement.

The topic as originally posted refers to sharpening. Initially I had the same findings as reported by Rimfiredude. I find Borisís comments about the sensor profiles to be very informative. Basically that was the information I was attempting to uncover when I asked if anyone was using Lightroom 2. In that thread Jatrax provided me with what settings were working for him and I used that as a starting point to develop my own settings.

As with Boris I am also using a liberal dose of sharpening and for our photographs of miniatures that is up near the 100-140 settings in Lightroom with detail set at 100 for the original Q camera. Such settings produces this sort of detailed image. Those figures are less than an inch tall and that vintage car is just over one inch tall.





Not to be offensive here but I fail to understand the relevance of the lens correction issue. How is that relevant? Does the lens correction provide some enhancement of sharpness to say compensate for the difference in sharpness between the 02 and 01 lenses or what? It is my understanding that the lens corrections only provide some degree of compensation for lens aberrations. Or am I missing something here?

I am also a bit cornfused by Paulís comment on an update ACR (Adobe Camera RAW)? Per the Adobe site, it is my understanding that ACR as related to Lightroom is only necessary to convert non DNG formats to be more compatible with Adobeís DNG format. Is there more to it than that? Since the Q series provides a DNG output file what is the need for ACR?
02-20-2015, 08:14 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
Not to be offensive here but I fail to understand the relevance of the lens correction issue. How is that relevant? Does the lens correction provide some enhancement of sharpness to say compensate for the difference in sharpness between the 02 and 01 lenses or what? It is my understanding that the lens corrections only provide some degree of compensation for lens aberrations. Or am I missing something here?

Denny,

This is the distortion I was taking about. Notice the difference between the DNG converter and Silky Pix. The DNG conversion is distorted.
Attached Images
 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
02-20-2015, 08:22 AM   #15
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
Not to be offensive here but I fail to understand the relevance of the lens correction issue. How is that relevant? Does the lens correction provide some enhancement of sharpness to say compensate for the difference in sharpness between the 02 and 01 lenses or what? It is my understanding that the lens corrections only provide some degree of compensation for lens aberrations. Or am I missing something here?

Denny,

This is the distortion I was taking about. Notice the difference between the DNG converter and Silky Pix. The DNG conversion is distorted.
I understand what you are showing here but if you go up to your original posting you talked about "Sharpness". Are you asking about sharpness or distortion? They are not the same. They are two separate issues.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, files, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Q-S1 filter in raw paranoia23 Pentax Q 7 02-19-2015 04:28 AM
Pentax Q to K adapter: Increased sharpness? GibbyTheMole Pentax Q 6 07-14-2014 10:00 AM
Q sharpness pntx Pentax Q 5 07-18-2013 05:01 PM
Which free RAW editing software to increase sharpness more kamisu Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 05-22-2012 04:34 AM
Sharpness of K10D RAW Photos Kit Zoom vs Prime Lenses? StevenDeLapp Photographic Technique 19 01-04-2008 08:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top