Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-12-2014, 04:04 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,298
Try dialing in some + exposure compensation, you might be experiencing the Pentax "save high-lights at all costs" mentality.
Only problem is that it does not account for the lack of color saturation.

06-12-2014, 08:01 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Kozlok's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,793
One of the things you need to also realize is both of these were shot in harsh mid day light. This lighting will make your photos lack the contrast pop that we all love. Try shooting around 45 minutes before sunset, or just after sunrise. The light is significantly less flat.

As an example, here is the same lens with two different subjects. The parking lot shot is taken around 2:00 in the afternoon. Terrible light, flat looking photo even though I pushed it quite a bit in light room.





And another shot, same lens, better light (15 minutes after dawn), more pop even with less post processing.





Another example: These two shots are both with my DA21, a truly great lens. The post processing between them is quite similar. The light in the first one is very flat, the second one is amazing.




06-12-2014, 08:33 PM - 1 Like   #18
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,057
No one has mentioned monitor issues - both the OP's images - straight and PP'd have a strong green cast to my eye...
06-13-2014, 03:04 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,180
QuoteOriginally posted by Arjay Bee Quote
No one has mentioned monitor issues - both the OP's images - straight and PP'd have a strong green cast to my eye...
The OOC ones don't look greenish to me. The PP'd ones look to me as though Rockwell had a go at them.

06-13-2014, 03:26 AM   #20
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,298
I forgot about the harsh light, good point.
06-13-2014, 04:31 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 1,094
@Dewman
What colour space did you use?
If you set the camera to Adobe instead to sRGB, the picture will be too light and miss contrast, if either your monitor or your viewing program / operating system does support only sRGB.
sRGB is standard for most systems.
If you don't have the needed professional equipment and/or don't want to publish in high quality printed media, you should use sRGB. Unfortunately, the EXIF included in shots shown in pentaxforums do not provide the colour space setting.

@ExFinn.
QuoteQuote:
Does the K2000 use the same sensor as K100D
No, the K2000/K-m is a stripped down K200D (same interiors, but cheaper plastic casing, no grip support, no weather sealing) and uses the same sensor and basicly the same fimware as the K10/K200D.

Last edited by RKKS08; 06-14-2014 at 11:03 AM.
06-13-2014, 06:25 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,234
Dewman what I question is the exposure settings for what appears to be a relatively sunny day. This is a case where center weighted metering may not have been the best choice. If using it was the cause of the camera to select settings of f4.5, 1/2000 & ISO 400 then your first photo would show a darkened exposure with these settings. The same thing with the second photo, the settings are slightly better but still would render darker exposure. Also noted is, the camera must have been on "auto" or you were using scene modes as the exif is showing it using Portrait mode for the first photo and Landscape mode for the second one. If you are using Auto then I would suggest if you want the camera to select setting for you then you are much better off using the P setting. for Landscapes you are much better to use AV where you are selecting aperture to control your depth of field and possibly multi zone metering.

PS... the insignia on your Avatar... Is it the small craft insignia?.. I was a 3 tour pbr river rat in Nam.

---------- Post added 06-13-14 at 10:24 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kozlok Quote
One of the things you need to also realize is both of these were shot in harsh mid day light. This lighting will make your photos lack the contrast pop that we all love.
Bull Puckies... You can get contrast, pop and some great photos with mid day sun. It is all about your subject, scene, composure, use of shadows and/or angles for dimension, exposure, using nd filters, polarizers or using fill flash. Granted golden, twilight or night hours render spectacular light but photography is not limited to certain times of day, a poor choice of subject, scene, composure lacking dimension or incorrectly exposed in morning, evening, night light or any time of day will render photos with lack of contrast, pop or interest.

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 06-13-2014 at 07:46 AM.
06-13-2014, 07:27 AM - 1 Like   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,980
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
Both are full-frame, without changes. They are right out of the camera, but to my old, tired eyes, lack contrast or saturation I like.
I see an even bigger issue: they don't appear in focus. I'm assuming these were shot with the DA 18-55. This is not a great lens, but you should be getting sharper images out of it than appear here. A glance at the EXIF data shows several problems.

First, the shots were taken at ISO 400. The K2000 does not have a very good high ISO performance, and at ISO 400, you're losing resolution. The first image was shot at f4.5. Landscapes should be shot around f8. They should be shot at base (i.e., the lowest possible) ISO (which is 100 with the K2000). And the focus point of the camera should be user selected. The first shot has exposure of time of 1/2000, so hand shake issues should not be an issue. But I have no idea where the point of focus is, because everything seems a bit off. Out of focus images have reduced contrast, because without resolution, you can't really have much in the way of microcontrast.

Just because you're shooting with a DSLR doesn't mean you're guaranteed contrasty, saturated images. It requires good technique. That means shooting in raw; learning how to shoot in manual, instead of program mode (or other dumbed down modes); using the histogram, rather than the camera's light metering system, to determine exposure; learning to distinguish high-quality from low quality light; learning how to use the auto-focus system of the camera, instead of relying on the camera to choose the focus point; learning how to use a polarizer filter to increase saturation and tame harsh light; stopping the lens down for landscape shots to increase edge to edge sharpness and DOF; and using a tripod.

QuoteOriginally posted by mcgregni Quote
Secondly, I think I understand your points about bit-depth loss and banding, but really, surely the level of compression had to be quite high until this affects quality so much?
It's not so much an issue of the level of compression as it is an issue of far less data in the jpg than the raw file. Incidentally, it wouldn't be dramatically different if we were comparing TIFF files with raw files. There is just a lot more data in a raw file than a non-raw file, jpeg or TIFF. When that raw file is turned into a jpeg or tiff file, much of that data is simply thrown out. Going from 14 or 12 to 8 bits is trivial in comparison.

There's another way you can lose a lot of data without perhaps fully appreciating it: that is, by under exposing one's image. That is why exposing to the right of the histogram (rather than relying on the woefully inaccurate metering system of the camera) is a technique often practiced by professional photographers not involved in event photography.


Last edited by northcoastgreg; 07-15-2014 at 06:42 AM.
06-13-2014, 09:51 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,864
I wonder why EXIF thinks your camera is an Olympus. That could be an issue - the wrong camera profile in your processing software.

Using a hood is important enough to say a second time. With a zoom lens, the hood is a compromise design, so it works at all focal lengths. So in some cases, the sun can be out of the image but stray light is still affecting the lens enough to reduce contrast. That's pretty easy to demonstrate with the Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5.

The 18-55 won't have the best contrast at f4.5.

The second shot may just be atmospheric - dust, heat, etc. getting in the way.

I can't quite talk myself into one factor mentioned so far in this thread, but two or three together may be your problem.
06-13-2014, 10:33 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 912
Dewman-- your first shot could have been improved by either partially or fully polarizing to knock the reflection off the water, deepening the green on the plants at the left and deepening the sky color.... Or you could use a film camera with Velvia 50 or 100f... but using a polarizer is more important in your case than whether you use digital or film. It's all photography.
06-13-2014, 01:04 PM   #26
Veteran Member
abmj's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Central California
Posts: 600
When I had a Km (K2000,) it invariably underexposed a bit. I just got in the habit of keeping the exposure compensation set to +2/3. The other thing that may help is to stop trying to set your own in-camera adjustments and just change the recording mode from natural to vivid - or vibrant, I don't recall what it was called on the Km.

The histograms on the last couple of shots show them to be a bit under. You will get better results by "exposing to the right." In other words, the "mountain" in the histogram should be more to the right or upper end, without falling off the end into overexposure. Give the Jpeg processor as much light to work with as you can without blowing out the high end and it will produce better images.
06-13-2014, 01:24 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Dewman's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Idaho
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,259
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by desertscape Quote
Dewman-- your first shot could have been improved by either partially or fully polarizing to knock the reflection off the water, deepening the green on the plants at the left and deepening the sky color.... Or you could use a film camera with Velvia 50 or 100f... but using a polarizer is more important in your case than whether you use digital or film. It's all photography.
Actually, I was using a Circular Polarizing filter. The glare off of the water was terrible and I had it set to eliminate as much as I could. I also bracketed my exposures and the one shown was what I considered the best of the lot. As far as histograms, I'm still totally in the dark as to how and what they're tell me, but all things in time. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate all the guidance I can get.

---------- Post added 06-13-14 at 02:35 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
I wonder why EXIF thinks your camera is an Olympus. That could be an issue - the wrong camera profile in your processing software.

It is indicating Olympus because I'm using the software that came with an Olympus VR-310 pocket camera I have. I know, I know.... don't laugh! I'm on a very limited budget and I'm trying to make the best of what I have. Actually, I like the program and I find it very user-friendly. So far, it has suited my purposes.

Using a hood is important enough to say a second time. With a zoom lens, the hood is a compromise design, so it works at all focal lengths.

I had one of the "tulip" style hoods on the 18-55mm lens, but at full 18mm, it showed in the photo. Obviously, it must be the wrong one, eh? I finally got fed up and took it off, only using it when the situation allowed.

The 18-55 won't have the best contrast at f4.5.

I'll definitely remember that!

The second shot may just be atmospheric - dust, heat, etc. getting in the way.

Yes, it was quite hot, 90+ degrees and the distance - the magnitude of the scene would definitely add a significant amount of haze. Dust? Maybe, probably.

I can't quite talk myself into one factor mentioned so far in this thread, but two or three together may be your problem.
Thanks for your input. I appreciate all the help from all the members. I have a long way to go, understanding all the terms and such, but..... all things in time!

---------- Post added 06-13-14 at 02:40 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I see an even bigger issue: they don't appear in focus. I'm assuming these were shot with the DA 18-55. This is not a great lens, but you should be getting sharper images out of it than appear here. A glance at the EXIF data shows several problems.

First, the shots were taken at ISO 400. The K2000 does not have a very good high ISO performance, and at ISO 400, you're losing resolution. The first image was shot at f4.5. Landscapes should be shot around f8. They should be shot at base (i.e., the lowest possible) ISO (which is 100 with the K2000). And the focus point of the camera should be user selected. The first shot has exposure of time of 1/2000, so hand shake issues should not be an issue. But I have no idea where the point of focus is, because everything seems a bit off. Out of focus images have reduced contrast, because without resolution, you can't really have much in the way of microcontrast.

Just because you're shooting with a DSLR doesn't mean you're guaranteed contrasty, saturated images. It requires good technique. That means shooting in raw; learning how to shoot in manual, instead of program mode (or other dumbed down modes); using the histogram, rather than the camera's light metering system, to determine exposure; learning to distinguish high-quality from low quality light; learning how to use the auto-focus system of the camera, instead of relying on the camera to choose the focus point; learning how to use a polarizer filter to increase saturation and tame harsh light; stopping the lens down for landscape shots to increase edge to edge sharpness and DOF; and using a tripod.



It's not so much an issue of the level of compression as it is an issue of far less data in the jpg than the raw file. Incidentally, it wouldn't be dramatically difference if we were comparing TIFF files with raw files. There is just a lot more data in a raw file than a non-raw file. When that raw file is turned into a jpeg or tiff file, much of that data is simply thrown out. Going from 14 or 12 to 8 bits is trivial in comparison.

There's another way you can lose a lot of data without perhaps fully appreciating it: that is, by under exposing one's image. That is why exposing to the right of the histogram (rather than relying on the woefully inaccurate metering system of the camera) is a technique often practiced by professional photographers not involved in event photography.
Last year, I suffered a severe brain injury and it has effected my vision a great deal, so I try to use the AF almost exclusively. My vision is improving somewhat, but it has been a very slow recovery. I also have a massive amount of floaters that hinders my overall vision. That may be why the pictures look out of focus. But, in spite of this, I'm going to keep at it. Thanks for the input. It all helps.... every little bit!

---------- Post added 06-13-14 at 02:58 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Oldbayrunner Quote
Dewman what I question is the exposure settings for what appears to be a relatively sunny day. This is a case where center weighted metering may not have been the best choice. If using it was the cause of the camera to select settings of f4.5, 1/2000 & ISO 400 then your first photo would show a darkened exposure with these settings. The same thing with the second photo, the settings are slightly better but still would render darker exposure. Also noted is, the camera must have been on "auto" or you were using scene modes as the exif is showing it using Portrait mode for the first photo and Landscape mode for the second one. If you are using Auto then I would suggest if you want the camera to select setting for you then you are much better off using the P setting. for Landscapes you are much better to use AV where you are selecting aperture to control your depth of field and possibly multi zone metering.

Copied and pasted! Thanks for the great information. Yeah, I noticed it showed Portrait mode on one shot and Landscape on the other. I have no idea why, because I didn't change anything.... I don't think.

PS... the insignia on your Avatar... Is it the small craft insignia?.. I was a 3 tour pbr river rat in Nam.

L-R, Good Conduct, National Defense, Naval Unit Commendation, Vietnam Service & Vietnam Campaign. I was a 2-tour Navy photographer aboard the USS Ticonderoga, CVA-14. '66-67.

---------- Post added 06-13-14 at 10:24 AM ----------



Bull Puckies... You can get contrast, pop and some great photos with mid day sun. It is all about your subject, scene, composure, use of shadows and/or angles for dimension, exposure, using nd filters, polarizers or using fill flash. Granted golden, twilight or night hours render spectacular light but photography is not limited to certain times of day, a poor choice of subject, scene, composure lacking dimension or incorrectly exposed in morning, evening, night light or any time of day will render photos with lack of contrast, pop or interest.
......
06-14-2014, 04:31 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,234
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
Copied and pasted! Thanks for the great information. Yeah, I noticed it showed Portrait mode on one shot and Landscape on the other. I have no idea why, because I didn't change anything.... I don't think.
In auto mode your camera acts more like a point and shoot so it will select different scene modes and adjust the exposure accordingly, based on what the camera is metering, and you can't override the selected settings.. After my post I realized the K2000's P mode isn't like other Pentax models that have the ability to program shift the exposures, so you would be better off using the AV, TV, SV , M and EV shift for better exposure control.

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 06-14-2014 at 04:37 AM.
06-14-2014, 11:20 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 1,094
QuoteOriginally posted by Oldbayrunner Quote
After my post I realized the K2000's P mode isn't like other Pentax models that have the ability to program shift the exposures
The K-m / K2000 has basicly the same firmware as the K10 and the K200D, so it should provide program shift (in the German manual it's called Hyper Program, just as with the film models Z20 / Z1).

The *istD / DS / DL models do not offer it (but the analog *ist does).

But I want to ask the OP once more, if he really has set the camera to sRGB colour space, and not Adobe colour space.
Because this would explain the lack of contrast and saturation.
06-15-2014, 06:54 AM   #30
Site Supporter
Dewman's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Idaho
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,259
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RKKS08 Quote
The K-m / K2000 has basicly the same firmware as the K10 and the K200D, so it should provide program shift (in the German manual it's called Hyper Program, just as with the film models Z20 / Z1).

The *istD / DS / DL models do not offer it (but the analog *ist does).

But I want to ask the OP once more, if he really has set the camera to sRGB colour space, and not Adobe colour space.
Because this would explain the lack of contrast and saturation.
Yes, it is set to sRGB.
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, contrast, day, dust, exposure, film, focus, hood, increase, k2000, lack, lack contrast, lens, lenses, light, olympus, pentax help, photo, photography, photos, pop, scene, settings, software, thanks, time, water
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5: Contrast adjustment affects saturation? khenna Pentax K-5 4 12-10-2013 07:43 PM
Why do all shoulder straps seem to attach to the tripod mount? bdery Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 53 06-11-2013 05:21 AM
K-x photos dull, lack contrast Frank-x Pentax DSLR Discussion 59 06-17-2010 03:25 PM
Contrast and saturation question yeatzee Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 01-12-2010 01:46 PM
Do you customize the Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation settings on your DSLR? lastdodobird Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 01-30-2008 07:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 AM. | 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