Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-23-2020, 10:59 PM - 2 Likes   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 142
Bird yoga
Lens: Pentax 50-200mm WR Camera: Pentax KP Photo Location: Bloedel Conservatory ISO: 12800 Shutter Speed: 1/90s Aperture: F5.6 

My second trip out with my new KP and I'm definitely needing to practice more. ISO at 12800 blew me away but it's quite grainy - tried using ISO 100 and it was pitch black or excessively long shutter. I couldn't figure out how to lower the upper ISO threshold while I was taking pictures, and I didn't want to stand around fiddling with settings while people were trying to look at the birds and plants. It was also my first time shooting in such an environment - indoor gardens with a glass dome roof but with large trees. It was also my first time ever shooting RAW, and my first time doing post processing with Darktable and with RAW.

Tips on settings, how to become accustomed to RAW, and tips for darktable much appreciated.

Thank you!

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX KP  Photo 
01-24-2020, 02:37 AM   #2
Senior Member
Prohibitiory's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK
Posts: 178
Exciting! I have my new KP too and can't wait to get it out more and try shooting new nice things.

I would say, for environment and settings you made an excellent job! Little bit of grain is not that horrible considering bird is still main focus and beautiful colours.

I really like this picture, did you try maybe to set aperture on f/4? maybe that would give you bit more of light?

Great job
01-24-2020, 11:12 AM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 142
Original Poster
Thank you for the kind words!

Change the aperture to f4 in darktable? Is that possible? I, too, was wondering how I could lighten the bird a bit more.

Last edited by NotMyFatDog; 01-24-2020 at 10:46 PM.
01-24-2020, 11:35 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Riddler's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 246
Why iso 12800. So high. Don’t understand that. The picture is too dark
This lens isn’t very good at 200 mm. Wide open

The 55 300 plm is much bettter


Last edited by Riddler; 01-24-2020 at 11:41 AM.
01-24-2020, 12:00 PM - 1 Like   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,268
My advise is to find a nice comfy chair in your home and sit there with the camera and manual and get everything figured out and set how you want. I spent a lot of time figuring my K2000 and later K-3 out sitting in a chair in my living room taking pictures of my kid's lego mess. I do this with every camera now.

I have played around a bit with darktable but personally like RawTherapee more for development. There are lots more knobs to turn and does a lot to deal with noise but it has a much higher learning curve than other tools. Also it is really only a raw development tool so cataloging or metadata management aren't it's strong points or really even doable.

If you are up for posting the raw image to download I would be willing to see what I could do and provide the exact steps and settings I used. In looking at the meta data it would appear that the whole area was fairly dark which is some what surprising although I would assume your winter up in B.C. looks much like mine so it shouldn't be too surprising.
01-24-2020, 02:08 PM - 1 Like   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,617
QuoteOriginally posted by NotMyFatDog Quote
Tips on settings
Don't change anything. Well, you could have underexposed by a stop and taken the picture at ISO 6400, but there isn't that much more dynamic room in the RAW file at ISO 6400 instead of 12,800, so boosting the exposure in post-processing isn't going to recover a lot of detail. If you had blown out highlights somewhere in the picture, I would suggest underexposing, but I don't see that here. At 200mm, you don't want a slower shutter speed than 1/100 second (unless you can convince the bird to sit still for you in the same pose). Short of getting a faster lens, like a D FA * 70-200 f2.8 or DA * 200 f2.8, for a much higher cost, you can't use a wider aperture (nor will the 55-300 PLM give you a wider aperture at this focal length).
QuoteOriginally posted by NotMyFatDog Quote
how to become accustomed to RAW
Computer aided noise reduction can help a lot, especially if you don't need a full sized reproduction of the picture. The advantage of working with a RAW file is that the image data isn't compressed and you can manipulate all the data captured by the camera sensor, whereas with JPEG files you can get noticeable artifacts (blotchy spots) every time the image is edited, because compression has averaged out or combined some of the data to get a smaller filesize.
QuoteOriginally posted by NotMyFatDog Quote
tips for darktable much appreciated
I don't use Darktable, but I would look for ways to reduce noise (the graininess you see), such as smoothing or blending. The grainy bits probably had the same colour and brightness as the not-so-noisy bits surrounding them and noise reduction software will try to calculate what those grainy bits should look like. If you blow the picture up to fit a 60" screen, the noise reduction will look unnatural, but on a tablet screen, it will look much better.
01-24-2020, 02:16 PM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 142
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Riddler Quote
Why iso 12800. So high. Donít understand that. The picture is too dark
This lens isnít very good at 200 mm. Wide open

The 55 300 plm is much bettter
Agreed, the 55-300mm PLM is much nicer. It's on the list to attain!

I had the iso range set 100-819200 and all my photos kept coming in at 819200 in anything but the brightest light. So I reduced the top range to 12800 as the grain wasn't as bad but still find that even in bright areas the ISO is high. I was working off TAv mode.

---------- Post added 01-24-20 at 01:30 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by MossyRocks Quote
My advise is to find a nice comfy chair in your home and sit there with the camera and manual and get everything figured out and set how you want. I spent a lot of time figuring my K2000 and later K-3 out sitting in a chair in my living room taking pictures of my kid's lego mess. I do this with every camera now.

I have played around a bit with darktable but personally like RawTherapee more for development. There are lots more knobs to turn and does a lot to deal with noise but it has a much higher learning curve than other tools. Also it is really only a raw development tool so cataloging or metadata management aren't it's strong points or really even doable.

If you are up for posting the raw image to download I would be willing to see what I could do and provide the exact steps and settings I used. In looking at the meta data it would appear that the whole area was fairly dark which is some what surprising although I would assume your winter up in B.C. looks much like mine so it shouldn't be too surprising.
Thank you for the tip on rawtherapee, is it easier to use?

I think where I was standing while taking this photo was a bit darker than other areas of the space. It was all natural light and sometimes beneath a partial tree canopy.

I'll attach the raw file later today.
01-24-2020, 10:45 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 142
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Don't change anything. Well, you could have underexposed by a stop and taken the picture at ISO 6400, but there isn't that much more dynamic room in the RAW file at ISO 6400 instead of 12,800, so boosting the exposure in post-processing isn't going to recover a lot of detail. If you had blown out highlights somewhere in the picture, I would suggest underexposing, but I don't see that here. At 200mm, you don't want a slower shutter speed than 1/100 second (unless you can convince the bird to sit still for you in the same pose). Short of getting a faster lens, like a D FA * 70-200 f2.8 or DA * 200 f2.8, for a much higher cost, you can't use a wider aperture (nor will the 55-300 PLM give you a wider aperture at this focal length).

Computer aided noise reduction can help a lot, especially if you don't need a full sized reproduction of the picture. The advantage of working with a RAW file is that the image data isn't compressed and you can manipulate all the data captured by the camera sensor, whereas with JPEG files you can get noticeable artifacts (blotchy spots) every time the image is edited, because compression has averaged out or combined some of the data to get a smaller filesize.

I don't use Darktable, but I would look for ways to reduce noise (the graininess you see), such as smoothing or blending. The grainy bits probably had the same colour and brightness as the not-so-noisy bits surrounding them and noise reduction software will try to calculate what those grainy bits should look like. If you blow the picture up to fit a 60" screen, the noise reduction will look unnatural, but on a tablet screen, it will look much better.
Thank you! I was feeling some loss of confidence on the settings, so it feels good hearing that I was in the right area with my settings. And you're totally right, getting a faster lens comes at a significant investment and after getting the KP and the DA*300mm I'm not prepared to fork out a ton more. Maybe some inexpensive CPL and ND filters for each of my lenses, and MAYBE trading in my two kit lenses for the PLM or something similarly priced, but going to try to just work with what I have for now.

On darktable, there are a few areas for noise and grain but I don't know which to use or what it should look like when adjusted. It is a very powerful program with overwhelming options it feels like but that just means I need to practice and read the user manual. I'm horrendously bad at not reading manuals and just trying to learn by experimenting.


For @MossyRocks - here is the RAW (PEF) download: I hope this is allowed. IMKP0463.PEF - Google Drive

01-25-2020, 10:22 AM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,268
QuoteOriginally posted by NotMyFatDog Quote
Thank you for the tip on rawtherapee, is it easier to use?
It is harder to use as it is fairly technical. Like I said it has a lot of knobs.

QuoteOriginally posted by NotMyFatDog Quote
For @MossyRocks - here is the RAW (PEF) download: I hope this is allowed. IMKP0463.PEF - Google Drive
Providing a link has been done a number of times over the years and no one has complained. I have pulled the image down and will play around with editing it some later today.
01-25-2020, 01:55 PM - 2 Likes   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,268
Well I played some using on RawTherapee and managed this:
Name:  IMKP0463.jpg
Views: 76
Size:  252.9 KB
A brief rundown of what I did:
  • Demosaicing
    • method: LMMSE
    • Flase color supression steps = 5
    • LMMSE enhancement steps = 6
  • chomatic abberation correction
    • Auto-correction Iterations 5
  • Impulse Noise Reduction = 75
  • Noise Reduction
    • Chrominance
      • Method = Manual
      • Chrominance - Master = 4.79
      • Chrominance - Red-Gree = 74.7
      • Chrominance - Blue-Yellow = 27.9
    • Median Filter:
      • Median method: Weighted L*(little) +a*b*(normal)
      • Median type = 5x5 soft
      • Median iterations = 3
  • Contrast by Detail Levels
    • 0 (finest) = 2.45
    • 1 = 2.14
    • 2 = .67
    • 3 = 1.82
    • 4 = 150
    • 5 (coarsest) = 1.19
    • Threshold = .26
Most of the noise reduction was done in the noise reduction settings but another place to work with it is in contrast by detail levels area. Editing here is basically a very simplified form of wavelet editing which is a really useful tool but has a really steep learning curve. Here it looked like most of the noise was showing up at level 2 so I reduced the contrast there until I felt I started losing detail. With high ISO shots like this I find that the LMMSE method of demosaicing with lots of processing helps get as much usable detail out as possible as the other noise reduction methods will start eating it. If I wanted to go further I would probably load the image into an image editor and do some masking and do a 5 to 7 pixel gaussian blur to the background as well as tone the green channel down some. The Gaussian blur will take some of the harshness introduced from the median filter out of the background bokeh and the green seems a bit too saturated. Then I would probably invert the mask and on the macaw and branch hit with an unsharp mask to give it some more pop



Below is a link to the sidecar file that RawTherapee creates to store all of the development settings so you can download it and see what else I played with and if you want have a place to start from. You will find that there are lots of settings and knobs to play with in that program:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1S6oSqkNXurj4FV8M681X6eb9wg3ypagF
01-25-2020, 03:33 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,617
QuoteOriginally posted by MossyRocks Quote
A brief rundown of what I did
Very impressive! Your "brief" is way more involved that what I normally do in post-processing, but I can't argue with the results.
01-25-2020, 04:00 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,268
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Very impressive! Your "brief" is way more involved that what I normally do in post-processing, but I can't argue with the results.
I normally don't do that much but with that much noise I wanted to give it a good try to show what could be done and see what I could do with it. That was just a brief description of what I did. There were more tweaks that I had made that are in the RawTherapee sidecar file but they deal with getting the most out of an image. I played with the local and micro contrast, as well as diving into the specific wavelet editing section.
01-26-2020, 12:09 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 142
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MossyRocks Quote
Well I played some using on RawTherapee and managed this:
Attachment 485276
A brief rundown of what I did:
  • Demosaicing
    • method: LMMSE
    • Flase color supression steps = 5
    • LMMSE enhancement steps = 6
  • chomatic abberation correction
    • Auto-correction Iterations 5
  • Impulse Noise Reduction = 75
  • Noise Reduction
    • Chrominance
      • Method = Manual
      • Chrominance - Master = 4.79
      • Chrominance - Red-Gree = 74.7
      • Chrominance - Blue-Yellow = 27.9
    • Median Filter:
      • Median method: Weighted L*(little) +a*b*(normal)
      • Median type = 5x5 soft
      • Median iterations = 3
  • Contrast by Detail Levels
    • 0 (finest) = 2.45
    • 1 = 2.14
    • 2 = .67
    • 3 = 1.82
    • 4 = 150
    • 5 (coarsest) = 1.19
    • Threshold = .26
Most of the noise reduction was done in the noise reduction settings but another place to work with it is in contrast by detail levels area. Editing here is basically a very simplified form of wavelet editing which is a really useful tool but has a really steep learning curve. Here it looked like most of the noise was showing up at level 2 so I reduced the contrast there until I felt I started losing detail. With high ISO shots like this I find that the LMMSE method of demosaicing with lots of processing helps get as much usable detail out as possible as the other noise reduction methods will start eating it. If I wanted to go further I would probably load the image into an image editor and do some masking and do a 5 to 7 pixel gaussian blur to the background as well as tone the green channel down some. The Gaussian blur will take some of the harshness introduced from the median filter out of the background bokeh and the green seems a bit too saturated. Then I would probably invert the mask and on the macaw and branch hit with an unsharp mask to give it some more pop



Below is a link to the sidecar file that RawTherapee creates to store all of the development settings so you can download it and see what else I played with and if you want have a place to start from. You will find that there are lots of settings and knobs to play with in that program:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1S6oSqkNXurj4FV8M681X6eb9wg3ypagF

Wow! That is awesome and thank you for explaining everything in detail. I was wondering how I would reduce and blur the background and branch so that the macaw would stand out more, plus increase the lighting on the top of the macaw. I'll play around more.
01-26-2020, 05:28 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,268
QuoteOriginally posted by NotMyFatDog Quote
Wow! That is awesome and thank you for explaining everything in detail. I was wondering how I would reduce and blur the background and branch so that the macaw would stand out more, plus increase the lighting on the top of the macaw. I'll play around more.
Having the branch it is on be sharp seems like it would be fine as it is in the same focal plane so I probably wouldn't blur it. However if you wanted to better blur the background and have some more sharpness in the bird I would do the following:
1. use an image editor and select the bird and branch
2. Use an unsharp mask likely with a radius of 3-4 pixels and a percentage of 70-80 (using photoshop)
3. I may consider doing a second pass of unsharp mask with a radius close to 20 and a percentage closer to 10 (again using photoshop settings)
4. The select the inverse
5. To blur things more and have better subject separation I would probably do a gaussian blur closer to 10 pixels. However this will end up looking a unnatural because it will be almost too smooth compared to the rest of the image so
6. I would add some noise back into the select background area, not a lot but a little bit, I normally don't do this as I don't usually want to increase the subject isolation from the backgrund but have seen lots of people/software where without it things just look off.
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!
bit, camera, chair, critique, darktable, development, iso, light, lot, photography, plm, range, rawtherapee, settings, time, tips
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature coot yoga pose pichaser Post Your Photos! 4 06-21-2019 04:05 PM
Yoga Bird tosudarshana Monthly Photo Contests 6 04-12-2018 07:51 PM
People Bend it like Alexis (yoga model) alan_smithee_photos Post Your Photos! 5 10-03-2015 08:49 AM
Nature Have you heard ...Bird Bird Bird , Bird is the word .... daacon Post Your Photos! 14 02-14-2014 05:08 AM
A black bird, a silver bird, an orange bird, a red bird. cputeq Post Your Photos! 5 07-28-2008 06:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 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