[photolady95]

A UV filter can also cause softness in your otherwise sharp photo. That's why I and crackers said get rid of it.

[clackers]

Because you love flowers so much as subjects, Tony, I reckon we can really hone your technique.

Starting from scratch, can you bring a red rose inside (so it's out of sunshine, and will not move because of wind), put it in a jar and put it beside a window so it's getting only indirect light? We can move on to direct light later.


The shot would be from a tripod at ISO 100, f11 (I'm not convinced the above picture is in focus), and whatever shutter speed it wants, down a stop, focal length around 100mm (stay away from the long end on a consumer grade lens). And shoot with a two second delay.


Then if you put the RAW image up somewhere (like Google Docs or Dropbox or whatever), I'm happy to look at that image and attempt a Lightroom post process in addition to the one you do.

[Tonytee]

Thanks. I don't think it's a question of what's acceptable or not. But, possibly, more viewers will prefer it a bit more exposed. I'm intrigued why you're not able to use a higher ISO setting with that camera.
You said the results seem to be very grainy?

Yes sir, very grainy, especially in the corners. It is terrible. I contacted Canon and they informed me that they believe the sensor is wearing out. Of course, if I choose to send

the unit to them for replacement, it would only cost me a low, low, $450,000.00.USD. Joking of course. I do have a new Canon 80d on the way, should be here by Monday.

We will see what happens. Thanks again.

TT

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 10:54 PM ----------

Because you love flowers so much as subjects, Tony, I reckon we can really hone your technique.

Starting from scratch, can you bring a red rose inside (so it's out of sunshine, and will not move because of wind), put it in a jar and put it beside a window so it's getting only indirect light? We can move on to direct light later.


The shot would be from a tripod at ISO 100, f11 (I'm not convinced the above picture is in focus), and whatever shutter speed it wants, down a stop, focal length around 100mm (stay away from the long end on a consumer grade lens). And shoot with a two second delay.


Then if you put the RAW image up somewhere (like Google Docs or Dropbox or whatever), I'm happy to look at that image and attempt a Lightroom post process in addition to the one you do.

Clackers, I greatly appreciate your assistance. My main problem is that I cannot upload a RAW Image anywhere. I can shoot RAW as I do, I can upload RAW into Photo Editor 10 which came with Windows 10, and I can make adjustments while in RAW, however, I have to make a copy so that it will be converted to JPEG in Photo Editor 10. Photo Editor 10 will not allow me to roll over a RAW file into itself. I can upload an adjusted JPEG file into Flickr., if that is acceptable to you. Please let me know and
again, many thanks.
TT

[clackers]

Clackers, I greatly appreciate your assistance. My main problem is that I cannot upload a RAW Image anywhere. I can shoot RAW as I do, I can upload RAW into Photo Editor 10 which came with Windows 10, and I can make adjustments while in RAW, however, I have to make a copy so that it will be converted to JPEG in Photo Editor 10. Photo Editor 10 will not allow me to roll over a RAW file into itself. I can upload an adjusted JPEG file into Flickr., if that is acceptable to you. Please let me know and
again, many thanks.
TT

Basic Google Drive or Microsoft One Drive accounts are free, Tony. Just create one, take the shot, upload it, share it (which will generate a link automatically for you) and post the link here … easy!

BTW, Adobe Bridge is just one of the free programs that will convert to TIFF and Photo Editor will use that, if you like. There are plenty of others. I'd get rid of Photo Editor 10 if it doesn't let you edit parts of your image instead of the whole thing!

[Tonytee]

Basic Google Drive or Microsoft One Drive accounts are free, Tony. Just create one, take the shot, upload it, share it (which will generate a link automatically for you) and post the link here … easy!

BTW, Adobe Bridge is just one of the free programs that will convert to TIFF and Photo Editor will use that, if you like. There are plenty of others. I'd get rid of Photo Editor 10 if it doesn't let you edit parts of your image instead of the whole thing!

I would like very much to get rid of Photo Editor 10, but there is no way. Believe me I have tried and being it is a part of Windows 10, I am stuck with it. It has become very

troublesome the past six months or so and try as I may to get help from Microsoft, no deal. I am considering getting a new system soon and have nothing to do with Windows 10 and Microsoft.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

TT

[kevinWE]

thanks. I don't think it's a question of what's acceptable or not. But, possibly, more viewers will prefer it a bit more exposed.

^^^^^
this

[GUB]

And I am one of the minority that finds this image refreshingly different. I will be a bit sad to find out a cranky sensor has done it!. I am aware of your processing difficulties Tony but is there any chance of a 1200x800 crop around this area?

Attached Images

 

[K2 to K50]

As someone who learnt the basics (and I mean basics)about the relationships between ASA rating, shutter speed, aperture and DOF way back in the 1970s with first a Pentax K2 and then an ME, I have found reading this thread a fascinating experience. Getting a picture sharp was enough to please me. If I managed occasionally to get a good candid portrait, or great composition (of whatever subject) it was usually by luck, and as like or not I may have even been totally oblivious of why such "luck" shots stood out from all my others.

I gave up photography as a hobby in the early 1980s and only came back to (the now digital) photographic world in October 2018 with the purchase of a 2nd hand K50 and the only modern lens the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens that came with the K50. I used that, and my old collection of film era Pentax M lenses, and tried to get back into some level of competence (at least in trying to get a sharp picture!!). In June this year I went bananas budget-wise and bought a brand new KP, along with 3 modern lenses - the PLM version of the 55-300mm zoom, the 16-85mm, and the 100mm F2.8 Macro.


Like the poster, flowers as subjects has become a major part of my photographic interest, and (perhaps not like TT) I blundered my way from one shot to the next, occasionally remembering to check to see what aperture or shutter speed I was using. I have recently tried TAV mode, in an effort to get a suitable shutter speed (for hand-held shots) together with an aperture that might get me whatever depth of field i thought the shot needed, and let the camera set the ISO. Needless to say, inattention led to some shots being taken with ridiculously high ISO (even for the KP) for subjects in moderate to deep shade.

But to now get to the point.

First, comments about uv filters (I think first by Photolady95) jolted me: one of the first things I did with my new purchases was to buy UV filters and put them on each of my 3 highly prized new lenses, and, of course, left them on regardless of the conditions in which I was shooting, or what I was shooting. Now I learn I should take them off!!!

Second: TT, your description of how much effort, and how many attempts, you made to get a satisfying result - first with the flash, then without, then with different shutter speeds ....Well, this also jolted me, causing me to try and recall how many times I put that much effort into any of my own shots. Not very many, I am ashamed to say. I am lazy!!! To the point where the effort of changing to a more appropriate lens, or getting the tripod out - nah, lets just take a couple of shots and move on.!!! (Maybe it's the Aussie in me coming out - "She'll be right, mate!".

MarkJerling: Sir, that photograph you put into this thread - lovely!! Sharp, nice capture of the lighting between well- lit and shaded areas of the flower, nothing in the background to distract, and clever background of deep gold from one side of the photograph to deep black on the other - beautiful. Was that how it was, or was that PP. Whatever, it works!! And then the EXIF tells me it was shot with an ISO as high as 3200!! And TT was concerned about bumping the ISO up to 400! (and as mentioned here earlier in this ramble I confessed to leaving the ISO to the camera when experimenting in TAV, and not even occasionally checking the ISO the camera gave me!)

Clackers: loved the homework assignment - indoors (no wind to cause subject movement while shooting at low shutter speed, as you say), ambient vs direct light. Of course, that jar better be very clean and clear. And yes, as per your subsequent post, I put only the original DNG files of my pics onto my OneDrive account, whether to just share with friends and family, or as a reference comparison to any cropped JPEGS i sometimes put into the PF threads.


TT, and everyone else: I have not even reached the status of Novice with regard to photo editing software. I have Irfanview, Paint.Net, and of course the built-in Windows Photo app, but never done more than crop, or convert to jpeg and resize for posting into PF. (cannot justify the expense of the likes of Lightroom and photoshop or any of the other programs which I have seen mentioned throghout the PF).

Comments on Irfanview, Paint.net??


Of course, with my recently purchased KP came a disk with Silkypics, which I haven't even got around to installing - did I mention my main prob: I am LAZY!!


The artistry and technical skills that some people achieve with any of these programs is just black magic to me: I recall being impressed with what Drinkkeri did in this thread:
How could this be improved - PentaxForums.com

To get to the main point:

TT: for what it is worth, coming from a person with very poorly developed technical skills of his own, and even less endowed with the level of knowledge and expertise of most of the other posters here, my reaction to the subject in question was: nice pic of a nice red rose contrasted with a black background. You know - nice ? It doesn't POP, though. For me. I know: a totally non-technical, and unhelpful comment. Why (it doesn't POP), I will leave to all the other contributors here to try to explain or guess. I am very able to say when some pics I come across in this remarkable forum POP for me: not remotely qualified to say why, or how the POP could have been achieved.

On the other hand, I chased up a very small number of the many other photos you have posted in this forum, and WOW! In just the small number I looked at, I loved. eg "Nice, Bright and..", and "Nice...".

Looking back, and before actually submitting this post, I realise I have totally hijacked this thread, and wondered if I should just abort it. But after giving it so much time, I had to press the "Submit Reply" button - so hope you all forgive me!!

But I have been alternately surprised, jolted, but mostly inspired to put more concentration and effort into my own photo-shooting by reading this thread - so thank you all. And long live Pentax Forums!!

[MarkJerling]

I would like very much to get rid of Photo Editor 10, but there is no way. Believe me I have tried and being it is a part of Windows 10, I am stuck with it. It has become very

troublesome the past six months or so and try as I may to get help from Microsoft, no deal. I am considering getting a new system soon and have nothing to do with Windows 10 and Microsoft.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

TT

That's very interesting Tony. I have Windows 10 (and it's a very stable and capable operating system in my view) and my machine does not have Photo Editor 10. If you type in "Add or remove programs" in your machine's windows search bar, you should be able to find the program and get rid of it, if you wish.

Windows Photo Editor used to be bundled with Office, but it's no longer supplied. If your machine started life as a Windows 7 machine, and you upgraded to Windows 10, the Photo Editor app may have come along from that. I don't believe it comes with Windows 10 at all, as the Windows 10 version of Office does not have it.

[K2 to K50]

There are some built-in Windows apps that Windows does not seem to like you removing:

I have found this program very usefull for both removing and re-installing some windows apps:

Your version of O&O AppBusteris up to date

[clackers]

Clackers: loved the homework assignment - indoors (no wind to cause subject movement while shooting at low shutter speed, as you say), ambient vs direct light. Of course, that jar better be very clean and clear.

Thanks, K2, just to clarify ... the jar or glass or whatever is just to hold the stem in place. Wouldn't be shooting through it, of course.

[MarkJerling]

There are some built-in Windows apps that Windows does not seem to like you removing:

I have found this program very usefull for both removing and re-installing some windows apps:

Your version of O&O AppBusteris up to date

I don't believe this is one of those bundled programs.

[K2 to K50]

Thanks, K2, just to clarify ... the jar or glass or whatever is just to hold the stem in place. Wouldn't be shooting through it, of course.

HO HO!

For some reason, when I read that post, I conjured up an image of the rose inside the jar, like some specimen!!

Just put me down as an idiot (one, by the way, who doesn't have a single jar or vase with flowers in it anywhere in the house!!)

[Tonytee]

Adjusted image of a red rose. I have to admit I am not exactly in love with this version. I believe at best, it is okay but it doesn't quite fire my rocket. To me and my aging eyes, it appears unnatural

or artificial or perhaps a little overprocessed. However, this was the best that I was able to conjure up. Please do let me know if this is passable or not. Again, many thanks for such valued feedback Best regards,

Tony

[K2 to K50]

Adjusted image of a red rose. I have to admit I am not exactly in love with this version. I believe at best, it is okay but it doesn't quite fire my rocket. To me and my aging eyes, it appears unnatural

or artificial or perhaps a little overprocessed. However, this was the best that I was able to conjure up. Please do let me know if this is passable or not. Again, many thanks for such valued feedback Best regards,

Tony

This time, no rambling.

To be honest, Tony, there is more "POP" in this version, esp because of the greater clarity of detail in the centre. Not being savvy with how the software works, I am going to ask what may be a stupid question: is there any way that centre clarity could have been achieved without lightening up the rest of the rose? Also, in this version, all the empty space is on the right: in the original, it was on the left. Without being up with all the rules of composition, nonetheless this version seems a little "out of balance".

But I do like the extra detail in the centre: it seems to bring the rose "alive". The original was a little dead to me.

I am almost totally ignorant of accepted theories of art, composition etc: this is just my reaction to both versions. But again, how subjective is all this, regardless of who is judging? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".