Originally posted by Dewman 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.
Originally posted by mcgregni 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.