Lack of detail or contrast or.... something.

**mlag** · 12-07-2022, 01:56 PM

Is the program line the same on both cameras? Ibis or SR? Backfocus/frontfocus can be avoided with liveview? ...
Thie program line could yield quite different shutter and aperture settings for the same image in the same circumstances. Landscape setting is more prone to handheld shake than the sports program line setting, night mode will drive up ISO (and noise), as an example.... there is also a program line to maximise MTF, optimal lens sharpness.. etc...

What lens are you using? If it is old(er) film era lens, it might be outresolved by the higher Mpixel of sensor and then the way you crop plays a role. It is a bit strange both ’leaves pics’ show almost same pixel count yet are coming from 16 and 24 mpixel camera , cropping or resizing might influence.

If you attach orignal pictures when posting on forum, they will be reduced in size, indeed less good for details (we got the point from above png cutouts) , but the exif information will be visible , revealing what parameters the camera’s used like lens, shutter and aperture, iso and more.... unfortunately the above images in png format have lost even this basic info. This site will show basic exif info, if we download there are over 100 parameters in exif that we can study...(yes, some forum members will go this deep...)
Since you compare cameras, we have to make sure they use similar settings. Unfortunately there are quite some settings, some deep in menu, on the (newer) camera's that can raise differences in such comparison ( but contribute fortunately to the picture quality if set correctly

). If you forget about one, it can drive you crazy... hence post original raw or jpg format with exif (file out of camera, no processing), not png without info.

Just noted : The first two charts are shot at f4, 1/8 or 1/13 and iso 640. This jpg format is already more usefull but GIMP erased most details in EXIF.
This are dangerous slow shutter speeds, even on tripod it might suffer from mirror and shutter shake, might be camera dependant. Most lenses are sharper at f7...f11 , so I think you need more light for such a chart test? 1/250 or faster, f6.7 and iso100 or 400 are a good minimum target.

Last edited by mlag; 12-07-2022 at 02:28 PM.

**clackers** · 12-07-2022, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by wicked1

That's what I meant.. I did.

And because of that... My last session was only JPEG's! forgot to switch it back to raw.. oops.

Yep, if you post RAW images, I'm happy to have a look, not cropped JPGs.

I think this is something we analyze properly or not at all.

**Robert N** · 12-13-2022, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by wicked1

I posted the "focus issues

" thread.
There's a 2nd issue I mentioned there, maybe you all can help figure out.
Even when focus is perfect (or, good enough for me), there still seems to be a lack of detail.
It doesn't seem to be resolution, though.. I took shots of a resolution chart, and the k3iii can see finer details than the k5iis. (On the raw, I can see lines down to 4.5 on the k3, while the k5 is just gray)

But, detail is always missing. Here are a couple 200% crops on a leaf, to show the issue. On the k5 shot, you can see veins and details on the top right side of the leaf, which just aren't there on the k3 shot. The settings are the same on the screen caps I took here (screen caps of the raw file w/out any processing in my photo editing program). I can't get that detail out of the image in PP.. It's just not there. (The image which appears less zoomed in is the k5).

I think I've seen this lack of detail in every comparison shot between the k3iii and the k5iis, as well as a few other older cameras. But I've only seen several, other than my own. What is missing here, if it's not actually the ability to pick up details? Perhaps contrast? (but like I said, turning up contrast in PP doesn't bring the missing details back).

I guess, I'm mostly wondering if this is normal for this camera. Maybe a consequence of smaller pixels on the sensor?
The k3 images here are definitely better in most ways, other than this lack of detail or contrast or color.. whatever it is...

Some in the past have experienced problems in early firmware versions if the the 'auto horizon correction' was not off or was operated in conjunction with the 2s timer. I also have the composition adjustment off.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lack of panning technique or lack of feature?	Lev	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	11-10-2021 12:33 PM
Why the lack of (or apparent lack of) Pentax-branded merchandise?	Fat Albert	Photographic Industry and Professionals	14	07-06-2016 02:50 PM
Lack of detail?	AgentDisco	Photo Critique	12	04-09-2016 03:41 PM
Lack of detail in picture in strong sunshine	R J P	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	19	07-19-2015 09:33 AM
K-x photos dull, lack contrast	Frank-x	Pentax DSLR Discussion	59	06-17-2010 03:25 PM

12-07-2022, 01:56 PM	#16
mlag Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: Zuiderkempen - Grote Netewoud - Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,410	Is the program line the same on both cameras? Ibis or SR? Backfocus/frontfocus can be avoided with liveview? ... Thie program line could yield quite different shutter and aperture settings for the same image in the same circumstances. Landscape setting is more prone to handheld shake than the sports program line setting, night mode will drive up ISO (and noise), as an example.... there is also a program line to maximise MTF, optimal lens sharpness.. etc... What lens are you using? If it is old(er) film era lens, it might be outresolved by the higher Mpixel of sensor and then the way you crop plays a role. It is a bit strange both ’leaves pics’ show almost same pixel count yet are coming from 16 and 24 mpixel camera , cropping or resizing might influence. If you attach orignal pictures when posting on forum, they will be reduced in size, indeed less good for details (we got the point from above png cutouts) , but the exif information will be visible , revealing what parameters the camera’s used like lens, shutter and aperture, iso and more.... unfortunately the above images in png format have lost even this basic info. This site will show basic exif info, if we download there are over 100 parameters in exif that we can study...(yes, some forum members will go this deep...) Since you compare cameras, we have to make sure they use similar settings. Unfortunately there are quite some settings, some deep in menu, on the (newer) camera's that can raise differences in such comparison ( but contribute fortunately to the picture quality if set correctly ). If you forget about one, it can drive you crazy... hence post original raw or jpg format with exif (file out of camera, no processing), not png without info. Just noted : The first two charts are shot at f4, 1/8 or 1/13 and iso 640. This jpg format is already more usefull but GIMP erased most details in EXIF. This are dangerous slow shutter speeds, even on tripod it might suffer from mirror and shutter shake, might be camera dependant. Most lenses are sharper at f7...f11 , so I think you need more light for such a chart test? 1/250 or faster, f6.7 and iso100 or 400 are a good minimum target. Last edited by mlag; 12-07-2022 at 02:28 PM.

12-07-2022, 05:13 PM	#17
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by wicked1 That's what I meant.. I did. And because of that... My last session was only JPEG's! forgot to switch it back to raw.. oops. Yep, if you post RAW images, I'm happy to have a look, not cropped JPGs. I think this is something we analyze properly or not at all.

12-13-2022, 04:30 AM	#18
Robert N Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Sale, Cheshire Posts: 249	Originally posted by wicked1 I posted the "focus issues " thread. There's a 2nd issue I mentioned there, maybe you all can help figure out. Even when focus is perfect (or, good enough for me), there still seems to be a lack of detail. It doesn't seem to be resolution, though.. I took shots of a resolution chart, and the k3iii can see finer details than the k5iis. (On the raw, I can see lines down to 4.5 on the k3, while the k5 is just gray) But, detail is always missing. Here are a couple 200% crops on a leaf, to show the issue. On the k5 shot, you can see veins and details on the top right side of the leaf, which just aren't there on the k3 shot. The settings are the same on the screen caps I took here (screen caps of the raw file w/out any processing in my photo editing program). I can't get that detail out of the image in PP.. It's just not there. (The image which appears less zoomed in is the k5). I think I've seen this lack of detail in every comparison shot between the k3iii and the k5iis, as well as a few other older cameras. But I've only seen several, other than my own. What is missing here, if it's not actually the ability to pick up details? Perhaps contrast? (but like I said, turning up contrast in PP doesn't bring the missing details back). I guess, I'm mostly wondering if this is normal for this camera. Maybe a consequence of smaller pixels on the sensor? The k3 images here are definitely better in most ways, other than this lack of detail or contrast or color.. whatever it is... Some in the past have experienced problems in early firmware versions if the the 'auto horizon correction' was not off or was operated in conjunction with the 2s timer. I also have the composition adjustment off.