Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-18-2016, 02:33 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4
Hello ~ New & Question for experienced Q users

Hello. New here but have had my Q for a few years. I love it and can't give it up yet for a newer model even though I'll eventually need to. I'm an amateur photographer learning on my own along the way. Most of my photography is macro but I'm attempting to learn effective landscape photography without having to use landscape mode. Both before and after slight editing (I don't like to edit heavily, I don't even have photoshop, I use picmonkey to lighten/darken, adjust contrast, shadows, etc for my photo editing needs) I find that my landscape photos don't have the greatest clarity. I'm posting a recent one here to see if anyone can offer advice. I shot it in landscape mode because the light was insanely bright out there in my eyes so I couldn't see my display to shoot in manual properly. Just showing this for example and it has not been edited yet. If you look at it at 100% - clarity is not good. If anyone can offer advice on how to get better clarity in landscape photography with the Q I thank you profusely in advance! Via my exif data you may be able to see what I did wrong or just perhaps using landscape was not a great choice but it happens to me in manual as well.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
09-18-2016, 02:56 PM   #2
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,726
QuoteOriginally posted by halloweengal Quote
Hello. New here but have had my Q for a few years. I love it and can't give it up yet for a newer model even though I'll eventually need to. I'm an amateur photographer learning on my own along the way. Most of my photography is macro but I'm attempting to learn effective landscape photography without having to use landscape mode. Both before and after slight editing (I don't like to edit heavily, I don't even have photoshop, I use picmonkey to lighten/darken, adjust contrast, shadows, etc for my photo editing needs) I find that my landscape photos don't have the greatest clarity. I'm posting a recent one here to see if anyone can offer advice. I shot it in landscape mode because the light was insanely bright out there in my eyes so I couldn't see my display to shoot in manual properly. Just showing this for example and it has not been edited yet. If you look at it at 100% - clarity is not good. If anyone can offer advice on how to get better clarity in landscape photography with the Q I thank you profusely in advance! Via my exif data you may be able to see what I did wrong or just perhaps using landscape was not a great choice but it happens to me in manual as well.
The first suggestion I would make is that you get a "loupe" {either by Hoodman, or a cheap Chinese-made clone}, which essentially turns your LCD into a viewfinder; this is essential to do any reasonable framing in bright sunlight.
09-18-2016, 05:04 PM   #3
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 587
First, looking at the exif, the camera was set on landscape mode with "distant focus" on a scene that obvioulsy isn't a landscape nor distant... Moving water and waves isn't the best subject to show any clarity/sharpness problem. The other thing is that the Q line isn't a pixel peeper dream, particulalrly the Q/Q10. I don't know what were your expectations , but don't expect results that are comparable to those you would get with a DSLR.

It may also be related to the software you're using. All aren't created equal, and clarity/sharpness results can very a lot between them. You also doesn't specify if you work from the RAW or JPG file. The get the best results, you should work from the RAW. Don't expect miracles if you works from the jpg.

With the 01, for a landscape, you can set the aperture at f2.8 or 4.0, at ISO 125 and should get quite good results. You can get a look at this thread I started about a year ago and showing multiple landscape shots with this lens and settings on the Q. It's probably as good as it get with this gear. The shots were all processed from the RAW files with Lightroom and some Topaz Plugins.
09-18-2016, 11:02 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
Technically, I donʻt see that you did anything terribly "wrong". Low ISO, medium aperture, plenty of shutter speed. Other than perhaps shooting a different time of day when the light may be more dramatic, my main suggestion would be to shoot RAW instead of jpegs and learn the art of post-processing. I went way overboard on my example of your shot, but creatively you can do a lot to improve a RAW image from so-so to special.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
09-19-2016, 07:10 AM   #5
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Thanks for the helpful responses. I used to shoot in RAW but saw no difference when viewing very close up. I'm going to experiment this week some more & when I can afford it get a tripod. Yes it was a bad time of day to shoot this particular photo but it was a surprise trip that put me there at that time of day with the wrong light. Had to go with it. I don't get to the beach often 3 hrs away. Thanks again.
09-19-2016, 08:53 AM   #6
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by halloweengal Quote
Thanks for the helpful responses. I used to shoot in RAW but saw no difference when viewing very close up. I'm going to experiment this week some more & when I can afford it get a tripod. Yes it was a bad time of day to shoot this particular photo but it was a surprise trip that put me there at that time of day with the wrong light. Had to go with it. I don't get to the beach often 3 hrs away. Thanks again.
Without post-processing, jpegs will look better than RAW images on many levels, but with post-processing the RAW uncompressed file can handle a lot of improvements. If you have the time and software for PP, then RAW will improve your final images considerably. If you donʻt, then stick with jpegs and just be careful to set things in your menu to optimize your subjects.
09-20-2016, 11:07 AM   #7
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Thanks, Alex and Professor Batty! I switched to natural instead of the vibrant it was for some reason set on. I must have done that long ago and forgot about it. Smh. I've been experimenting with shooting in RAW the past couple of days. Would the natural setting be good in RAW too or should I go with the default bright setting?

I was trying to sell some of my older better sharper photos for stock images and they always look fine technically according to the place I'm trying to sell them to except for "camera shake" they keep saying. They won't accept them due to camera shake even though I do have shake reduction enabled. The images look really sharp to me at 100% and I notice no evidence of camera shake but I'm not a professional - yet! I hate using tripods. But I'll have to invest in one.

Thanks again!

---------- Post added 09-20-16 at 11:13 AM ----------

p.s. Alex, your edit of my shot reflects how that beach and the color of the water look in winter time even though I took it last week in the heat. A bit darker in your edit but very close.
09-20-2016, 12:32 PM   #8
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by halloweengal Quote
Would the natural setting be good in RAW too or should I go with the default bright setting?
These settings only are applied to the JPG. The RAW file is simply the basic data as gathered from the camera sensor. The processing settings are then applied to these data to get a usable image. Note that once you have the RAW file, you can applied any of the settings or filter after the shot and get many versions of the same pictures. Look in your manual about how to process the RAW in camera. It's quite useful.

QuoteOriginally posted by halloweengal Quote
I was trying to sell some of my older better sharper photos for stock images and they always look fine technically according to the place I'm trying to sell them to except for "camera shake" they keep saying. They won't accept them due to camera shake even though I do have shake reduction enabled. The images look really sharp to me at 100% and I notice no evidence of camera shake but I'm not a professional - yet! I hate using tripods. But I'll have to invest in one.
To be honest, I would not put too much trust on the comments of the stock images reviewer. Don't forget they review all day long pictures taken with high resolution full frame cameras with some software processing. The images from the Q might be just fine, but just look soft compared to the average ones they see when looked at 100%, particularly if you send them JPGs from the camera without any other processing. In stock photography, the competition is now very hard. With the Q, it's like going to a fight with one arm tied in your back... I would say that now, the bare minimum to get a picture accepted in the main stock agencies is an APS-C 24MP, and a 24MP FF certainly isn't a luxury. In terms of IQ, the Q isn't even near that and unless your image is an outstanding one redefining the genre, I would expect it to be refused with comments like "soft, noisy, out of focus"...

09-20-2016, 02:47 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by halloweengal Quote
Thanks, Alex and Professor Batty! Would the natural setting be good in RAW too or should I go with the default bright setting?
I hate using tripods. But I'll have to invest in one.

Thanks again!

---------- Post added 09-20-16 at 11:13 AM ----------

p.s. Alex, your edit of my shot reflects how that beach and the color of the water look in winter time even though I took it last week in the heat. A bit darker in your edit but very close.
Carl is correct in that RAW is not affected by any of those Natural or Vibrant type settings.

I think of tripods like having a 4x4 vehicle; slower and more cumbersome, less fun BUT it opens up a whole new world of off-road possibilities with very long shutter speeds, great depth-of-field, with low ISO. Nowadays, there are many affordable ball heads with quick-release shoe and carbon-fiber light to chose from.

As I mentioned, the example of how I changed your original was too extreme, and I agree with the increased contrast and more saturated color, it would look more winter like.
09-20-2016, 03:35 PM - 1 Like   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,850
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Carl is correct in that RAW is not affected by any of those Natural or Vibrant type settings.
You will never 'see' a RAW IMAGE. A RAW file is a data file. What you see, whether it's in-camera or in a post-processing/browser program is an image file (normally JPG) that is a translation of the RAW data. The confusion lies in understanding which translation image you're seeing.

In-camera, what you see will be a translation determined by the JPG settings (Normal, Vibrant, etc.) that you've set in the camera. If you haven't made any adjustments you'll see the JPG image as defined by the camera's default settings.

In a PP program it will either be the JPG settings defined in the camera or a default chosen by the program designer.

If you shot and open a JPG image file in PP you start from the preset JPG settings and you have lost access to the additional data in the RAW data file which has been discarded.

If you open a RAW file in PP what you see is a default JPG translation which you can modify as you wish from the original RAW file which offers access to the entire captured data. But once you save a RAW file as an image file (JPG, PNG, TIFF) you are once again limited to the information in the translated image file - although you haven't affected the original RAW file and can start over again. You can still change the translated image but only to the limits of the saved image data.
09-22-2016, 07:54 AM   #11
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
You will never 'see' a RAW IMAGE. A RAW file is a data file. What you see, whether it's in-camera or in a post-processing/browser program is an image file (normally JPG) that is a translation of the RAW data. The confusion lies in understanding which translation image you're seeing.

In-camera, what you see will be a translation determined by the JPG settings (Normal, Vibrant, etc.) that you've set in the camera. If you haven't made any adjustments you'll see the JPG image as defined by the camera's default settings.

In a PP program it will either be the JPG settings defined in the camera or a default chosen by the program designer.

If you shot and open a JPG image file in PP you start from the preset JPG settings and you have lost access to the additional data in the RAW data file which has been discarded.

If you open a RAW file in PP what you see is a default JPG translation which you can modify as you wish from the original RAW file which offers access to the entire captured data. But once you save a RAW file as an image file (JPG, PNG, TIFF) you are once again limited to the information in the translated image file - although you haven't affected the original RAW file and can start over again. You can still change the translated image but only to the limits of the saved image data.
Yes, I'm aware of all that. Thanks.

---------- Post added 09-22-16 at 08:00 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
These settings only are applied to the JPG. The RAW file is simply the basic data as gathered from the camera sensor. The processing settings are then applied to these data to get a usable image. Note that once you have the RAW file, you can applied any of the settings or filter after the shot and get many versions of the same pictures. Look in your manual about how to process the RAW in camera. It's quite useful.



To be honest, I would not put too much trust on the comments of the stock images reviewer. Don't forget they review all day long pictures taken with high resolution full frame cameras with some software processing. The images from the Q might be just fine, but just look soft compared to the average ones they see when looked at 100%, particularly if you send them JPGs from the camera without any other processing. In stock photography, the competition is now very hard. With the Q, it's like going to a fight with one arm tied in your back... I would say that now, the bare minimum to get a picture accepted in the main stock agencies is an APS-C 24MP, and a 24MP FF certainly isn't a luxury. In terms of IQ, the Q isn't even near that and unless your image is an outstanding one redefining the genre, I would expect it to be refused with comments like "soft, noisy, out of focus"...
Thank you, Carl. I normally do edit my photos (slightly) but was directed not to for that stock photo site. They said the customer would do any editing/post processing.

I've been experimenting with RAW this week but I'm having to use RawTherapee which I don't like. I'm going to eventually need to invest in Photoshop.

Thanks again!

---------- Post added 09-22-16 at 08:04 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Carl is correct in that RAW is not affected by any of those Natural or Vibrant type settings.

I think of tripods like having a 4x4 vehicle; slower and more cumbersome, less fun BUT it opens up a whole new world of off-road possibilities with very long shutter speeds, great depth-of-field, with low ISO. Nowadays, there are many affordable ball heads with quick-release shoe and carbon-fiber light to chose from.

As I mentioned, the example of how I changed your original was too extreme, and I agree with the increased contrast and more saturated color, it would look more winter like.
Thanks Alex, great analogy, I'll be getting one soon.
09-22-2016, 06:00 PM   #12
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,223
Halloweengal, do you have the Pentax supplied Raw converter that came with the Q. With multiple Pentax cameras I don't remember if Q came with Pentax or Silkypix editing software. Whichever, try it.
Thanks
barondla
09-23-2016, 05:47 AM   #13
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by halloweengal Quote
Thank you, Carl. I normally do edit my photos (slightly) but was directed not to for that stock photo site. They said the customer would do any editing/post processing.
Yes, they all say that, but I think they mean they don't want to see photo with funky or so called "creative filters" applied on them. But they certainly want pictures on which the basic adjustemnts (WB, exposure, constrast, sharpness, denoising...) have been done. For these, Lightroom is certainly a better choice than Photoshop. Or, as mentioned above by Barondla, the software provided could also be an option for these basic asjustments (although somewhat akward to use).
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!
advice, alex, camera, clarity, default, images, jpg, landscape, mirrorless, mode, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, photography, q-s1, q10, q7, settings, translation
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Q body & Q/K adapter @ $129 for my 55-300mm or mirror telephoto for K30 @ $159 MD Optofonik Pentax Q 18 07-14-2014 06:51 PM
PEN & Q users: Accessories, Lenses, Filters, Fun for sharing? Sarahdear Pentax Q 5 07-31-2012 03:55 PM
Q for the Q & DSLR users jezza323 Pentax Q 6 02-05-2012 09:13 AM
Question for experienced developers lbenac Pentax Film SLR Discussion 8 05-17-2010 02:37 PM
Film Question for Experienced Portra Users. straightshooter Pentax Film SLR Discussion 12 05-17-2008 01:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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