Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2009, 07:08 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryM Quote
Bingo. If the ultimate purpose of this stuff isn't to produce prints, then we would have never needed more than a few megapixels. IMO, the 100% pixel-view method of measuring image quality has seriously distorted the real measure of image quality - which may, perhaps, not be something that can ever be properly conveyed over the internet.
I think there's some balance to be struck here. I plainly admit to being a pixel-peeper, but I moderate that with the evaluation of "real prints"... As was said, the ISO 6400 pix from the K20D, printed at full frame on 8.5x11 photo paper with a pigment based 5-gray+black ink set produces beautiful black and white images reminiscent of everything that was good about Tri-X. The pixel-peeping is what I use to evaluate the 'enlargeability' of a system, if you will. If it's sharp at 100%, I can count on making some pretty large prints and retaining that stinging sharpness these systems are capable of. It's of academic interest to me to understand whether the noise of the K-7 or K20D looks more pleasing (I think it's a wash), but I constantly question the 'real life' view. Your point is VERY well made - the K20D @800 produces images of sufficient quality for a full cover bleed on a glossy magazine, and the 3200 good enough for a full single page.

07-15-2009, 07:59 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
I've shot a bit with the K-7 at ISO 3200 and ISO6400 in somewhat dim conditions.
So far I'm quite pleased with the results.

Using a fast prime like the FA 50mm f/1.4, coupled with the K-7's much improved low-light Autofocus, the overall package really makes a VERY good low-light camera.

"Exposing to the Right" by applying a moderate +E/V, without blowing out any highlights, helps a lot with noise. Viewed full-screen or printed out on A4, its fine.

There's no point trying to pick on a 100% crop at ISO3200 - of course its noisy. But for practical photography - viewing the whole photo on-screen or printing - I'm quite happy with it.
07-19-2009, 11:30 AM   #33
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 182
Even a "pushed backlit image" with a lot of noise as the example in this thread can become decent with proper use of noise reduction. I did 5 minutes of post processing of the posted clip and think it improved quite a lot. And if I had access to the original (and even better, in RAW) I think it could become quite OK (in the posted example there are some JPEG artifacts due to the compression of the image)

First the original, and then my processed.

Best regards,
Haakan
Attached Images
   
07-21-2009, 08:16 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by Haakan Quote
Even a "pushed backlit image" with a lot of noise as the example in this thread can become decent with proper use of noise reduction. I did 5 minutes of post processing of the posted clip and think it improved quite a lot. And if I had access to the original (and even better, in RAW) I think it could become quite OK (in the posted example there are some JPEG artifacts due to the compression of the image)

First the original, and then my processed.

Best regards,
Haakan
Looks good. Care to divulge your secrets for people like me?

07-21-2009, 08:40 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by augustmoon Quote
handheld, but I got some acceptable results by exposing to the right as far as I could get away with.

RAW from lightroom, no noise correction, but because I exposed to the right, I brought down the brightness a bit and boosted the black level to get a normal looking pic.

the 1600 looks even better. It's definitely "different" looking than K20D noise. More noticeable at first (coarser?) but maybe more acceptable due that it seems to have less chroma in it?

But I think that even ISO 400 (with the K-7) can be ruined if it gets even slightly underexposed.
Looking good, and thanks for the info
07-21-2009, 08:53 AM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 182
Hi vinzer,
not much secrets. What I did was to use Neat Image noise reduction SW (even the free demo version works quite well). Instead of having the program select area itself I selected the trees as "noise area".

I also used Focus Magic (free demo is available, limited to 10 images), to sharpen the image.

I played with the curves somewhat in Photoshop to make it look less "flat" and make the grass in the foreground stand out more. I also used a trick that benjikan has shared in this forum, which is to use a very small radius, but rather high amount of sharpening in photoshop, but being careful to not have artifacts or emphasing noise again. This trick also makes the image look less flat.

Last edited by Haakan; 07-21-2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason: Correcting spelling errors
07-21-2009, 09:40 AM   #37
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: grenoble france
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4
i take one in 3200...its not so bad...no retouch.

07-21-2009, 10:34 AM   #38
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wilmore, KY
Posts: 350
I think the issue in ETTR has to do with how digital camera sensors record data. Exposing to the right seems to cause the sensor to record more shadow data. Correcting back left in PP then brings out the shadow details better.

At least that was what I thought I heard when I thought I understood what I thought was probably an explanation that was not completely wrong....

...educate me folks if I've missed this

07-21-2009, 02:53 PM   #39
Veteran Member
krypticide's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,079
ETTR deals with noise from posterization, not from the sensor. Because a sensor's response is linear, but light is exponential, it is advantageous to shoot TTR at a higher ISO than expose "properly" at a lower ISO. You simply collect more data that way, even though the resultant exposure is the same.
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, dslr, iso, ninja, noise, photography, snail
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black & White This is what ISO 3200 used to look like! brkl Post Your Photos! 5 01-10-2010 03:35 PM
iso 3200 jolee1990 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 12-22-2009 08:26 AM
K-x vs K7 at iso 3200 artemapei Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 11-18-2009 08:05 PM
ISO 3200! Only PP in lightroom metroeloise Post Your Photos! 3 12-12-2008 07:25 PM
Tests iso 200 to iso 3200 with k100d Deni Post Your Photos! 0 06-20-2007 05:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:34 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