Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-13-2007, 02:33 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
Sorry, but I cant see any blue or blueish lines..... Something there is, some very slight vertial pattern, but is is so light that it is barely visible in this 100% crop and thus I cant believe you can see it in real life.

If some dealer is so allergig for noise in pictures that this is not good for them, oh boy, what they would have said about TriX and Rodinal negative prints :-)

There is really many other more important qualities in pictures than minimal noise/grain..... in this level it is most important thing only for maniac engineers.

How do you PP your pictures? Have you raised the lightness level in any stage of your PP workflow? DO you PP your pictures?

06-13-2007, 02:51 PM   #17
Trub
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Harald Quote
Sorry, but I cant see any blue or blueish lines..... Something there is, some very slight vertial pattern, but is is so light that it is barely visible in this 100% crop and thus I cant believe you can see it in real life.

If some dealer is so allergig for noise in pictures that this is not good for them, oh boy, what they would have said about TriX and Rodinal negative prints :-)

There is really many other more important qualities in pictures than minimal noise/grain..... in this level it is most important thing only for maniac engineers.

How do you PP your pictures? Have you raised the lightness level in any stage of your PP workflow? DO you PP your pictures?

My workflow does include Photoshop. I adjust color balance, exposure and what not. But not on every picture as each one is different. That is the nature of stock photography, to have every picture gone over with a fine tooth comb.
06-13-2007, 03:39 PM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by Trub Quote
I forgot to say that it was taken at ISO 100! And I have to "pixel peep" for stock photography. The inspectors at iStockphoto.com can see noise/artifacting from a mile away.

So the Canon sensors do a better job when it comes to less noise?
Actually, by nature the CMOS sensor has more noise than the CCD. Canon acheives it's images through an in camera image processor that removes noise. That's where the Canon "plastic" look comes from. You can get those results with any camera using the right technique. Run Noise Ninja or Neat Image on you photos and they will have no noise. Some areas may come out looking plastic, similar to Canon.

I would like to see some of the images that you have sold so that I can see the difference between them and these that are substandard. Might be helpful in prescribing a solution.
06-13-2007, 03:47 PM   #19
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, AU
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Harald Quote
Sorry, but I cant see any blue or blueish lines..... Something there is, some very slight vertial pattern, but is is so light that it is barely visible in this 100% crop and thus I cant believe you can see it in real life.

If some dealer is so allergig for noise in pictures that this is not good for them, oh boy, what they would have said about TriX and Rodinal negative prints :-)

There is really many other more important qualities in pictures than minimal noise/grain..... in this level it is most important thing only for maniac engineers.

How do you PP your pictures? Have you raised the lightness level in any stage of your PP workflow? DO you PP your pictures?
I can see it quite clearly in both the resized pic and the 100% crop. Not good.

06-13-2007, 04:37 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Posts: 810
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
Come on, tell us how you really feel.

How about a dose of reality, high ISO has always sucked and always will. The images shown on this thread are not pretty, but they are pretty much what I would expect from high ISO. Using high ISO doesn't really turn up the sensors sensitivity to light, it only boosts the signal, which amplifies any latent issues (exposure, shadow density, et al). The IS vpn in the second image. It is fixable, and not with a new camera or a firmware update. It is fixable with corrections in exposure and color balance (the image is quite blue, which is the channel that the K10D vpn is in).

Another thing, have you tried printing it? Noise is usually worse on a monitor than it is in a print.
But you know Mutley is right.
Less noise than the Sony, more chromatic noise than the Nikon and then add VPN to it and you get a real K10D.

I have printed several pictures showing VPN on screen. The last time was two weeks ago:
Re: Iso 800? ( 1IMG): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I sincerely don't understand that print/monitor thing. If you have agood monitor and a good printer and color manage them you get prints that looks like the picture on the monitor. There is no magic filter in the process that removes noise, patterned or not.
06-13-2007, 05:00 PM   #21
Senior Member
MikeH's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 273
Yes, that is vertical pattern noise, an ongoing, occaisional issue with the K10D. AFAIK, there is not much that you can do about it in certain situations. Use the lowest ISO possible, expose properly (not underexposed), and hope for the best.
06-13-2007, 07:27 PM   #22
Trub
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
I would like to see some of the images that you have sold so that I can see the difference between them and these that are substandard. Might be helpful in prescribing a solution.
My iStock photos can be seen in my portfolio here I've used Noise Ninja and they always get rejected, maybe I don't know how to use it correctly, but it takes a lot of detail out.
06-13-2007, 08:37 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonas B Quote
But you know Mutley is right.
Less noise than the Sony, more chromatic noise than the Nikon and then add VPN to it and you get a real K10D.

I have printed several pictures showing VPN on screen. The last time was two weeks ago:
Re: Iso 800? ( 1IMG): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I sincerely don't understand that print/monitor thing. If you have agood monitor and a good printer and color manage them you get prints that looks like the picture on the monitor. There is no magic filter in the process that removes noise, patterned or not.
I have only seen VPN on underexposed images so I can't say that I know any such thing. I have not noticed any obtrusive noise in low ISO, properly exposed images. I have noticed that the K10 is slightly noisier at mid ISOs than the 6 mp models, which is to be expected. My point is that the noise I see when I see it is exactly what I would expect from high ISO and/or underexposure. I am sad to hear that others are not having the same experience. If people are having problems with their Pentax gear and are unable to resolve it then it makes no sense to stay with Pentax and they should get something else. Especially if you are trying to make a living with your work.

06-13-2007, 08:46 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by Trub Quote
My iStock photos can be seen in my portfolio here I've used Noise Ninja and they always get rejected, maybe I don't know how to use it correctly, but it takes a lot of detail out.
Yes, it does take a lot of detail out. That is how you get rid of noise. That is how Nikon and Canon do it. When the D200 first came out the Pentax forums were buzzing with now soft the images were when the in camera noise reduction was applied, all hoping that Pentax would not have such softening. It didn't. Pentax opted to let the user take care of noise reduction in PP.

As I said in the last post, if you are trying to make a living with this and your gear does not meet your requirements then you need to change gear. I don't say this to drive people away, it is just the truth. If you are a carpenter trying to build cabinets with wood that is full of knots you replace it with better wood. It's nothing personal against the wood, it just doesn't meet the needs of the job.
06-13-2007, 10:18 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 313
QuoteOriginally posted by Trub Quote
I forgot to say that it was taken at ISO 100! And I have to "pixel peep" for stock photography. The inspectors at iStockphoto.com can see noise/artifacting from a mile away.

So the Canon sensors do a better job when it comes to less noise?
Emailing this photo & close-up detail to Pentax for their reaction of course is a given. Maybe even Ben will get a definitive answer about this in his meeting with Pentax, though we are aware he, personally, has zero problem with it.

After Pentax saw your pics, what was their specific reaction wording? Did they try to suggest they never had a single complaint along these lines? When you mention this needs to be fixed on your camera (therefore all K10Ds) as it is ruining shots - can they put it in a firmware update, what did they say specifically?

If you didn't even contact Pentax about this and go through at least those questions with a degree of imperitiveness that they take it seriously and don't just blame you for the problem - then contact Pentax with those photos.

Please let us know what happens, as that is the only way this will ever be solved. The problem is called VPN, and many experience it just when they need it the least. Having an extra $1000+ to just buy one of the new camera bodies in the fall that will like magic completely fix this, is not good enough.

Larry

Last edited by mutley; 06-13-2007 at 10:24 PM.
06-14-2007, 06:57 AM   #26
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
Worse than normal?

QuoteOriginally posted by Trub Quote
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but when I shoot @ ISO 200 and above, the I get this weird streaking going from top to bottom. It's more noticable @ 400 and above. I was wondering if anyone else has seen this before?
I get VPN issues sometimes but seldom at ISO lower than 1000 unless I mess up the exposure. I have never seen it at ISO 100 and frankly cant see it in your example either, but if you are experiencing issues at ISO100 I would send the camera back for a replacement.
06-14-2007, 09:26 AM   #27
Senior Member
rhermans's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Europe - Belgium - Antwerp
Photos: Albums
Posts: 213
Count me lucky, the only time I've seen VPN is when I completely miss the exposure and the postprocessing raised the exposure in the image to make it viewable.

I've got enough shots at 800 and 1600iso that are (although noisy) more than usable.

So I don't dare to say where your problem is comming from, but I would take a walk back to the store and see what they say.

I don't mind the remark that Canon has better sensors, and I'm not going to start raving about how more or less detail they have, but if you search the web for "canon banding problem" you'll have enough reading for the next days
06-14-2007, 06:26 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by rhermans Quote
Count me lucky, the only time I've seen VPN is when I completely miss the exposure and the postprocessing raised the exposure in the image to make it viewable.

I've got enough shots at 800 and 1600iso that are (although noisy) more than usable.

So I don't dare to say where your problem is comming from, but I would take a walk back to the store and see what they say.

I don't mind the remark that Canon has better sensors, and I'm not going to start raving about how more or less detail they have, but if you search the web for "canon banding problem" you'll have enough reading for the next days
I agree. Only in grossly underexposed photos have I seen VPN from my K10D, and I'd have to pixel-peep to find it, something I don't really wanna do.

Of course, all of us want and hope Pentax to address it via firmware update (if possible), but I don't really see it as a hindrance to get great pictures. I actually feel that the ISO1600 performance of the Pentax is way better than the ISO1600 performance of my old 300D, and so, it's definitely an upgrade for me.

And with regards to chroma noise vs. film grain, I think that people will eventually get used to chroma noise, and for the non-pixel-peepers in this generation, is perfectly acceptable.
06-15-2007, 05:22 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Posts: 810
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
I have only seen VPN on underexposed images so I can't say that I know any such thing.
That makes me surprised. Maybe i shouldn't use an expression like ...you know he is right... but saying you have only seen VPN in underexposed pictures is not what I expected. There has been several perfectly exposed pictures with VPN in them showed.

QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
I have not noticed any obtrusive noise in low ISO, properly exposed images.
In this thread we see VPN in a picture taken at ISO100. Granted, i don't know about the exposure as we haven't seen th eoriginal picture.

QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
My point is that the noise I see when I see it is exactly what I would expect from high ISO and/or underexposure. I am sad to hear that others are not having the same experience.
I guess we are back to the old question about people being more or less sensitive to noise, patterned or not.

QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
If people are having problems with their Pentax gear and are unable to resolve it then it makes no sense to stay with Pentax and they should get something else. Especially if you are trying to make a living with your work.
I'm an amateur and have no interest in going pro, or semi pro. I have decided to accept the noise level of the K10D. My 5 month adventure with a Canon 5D showed me that i don't really need that image quality to be happy with my hobby. So, there we can agree; anyone troubled with facts should get other tools. There is no reason to use the wrong tool.

regards,
06-15-2007, 08:37 PM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonas B Quote
That makes me surprised. Maybe i shouldn't use an expression like ...you know he is right... but saying you have only seen VPN in underexposed pictures is not what I expected. There has been several perfectly exposed pictures with VPN in them showed.



In this thread we see VPN in a picture taken at ISO100. Granted, i don't know about the exposure as we haven't seen th eoriginal picture.



I guess we are back to the old question about people being more or less sensitive to noise, patterned or not.



I'm an amateur and have no interest in going pro, or semi pro. I have decided to accept the noise level of the K10D. My 5 month adventure with a Canon 5D showed me that i don't really need that image quality to be happy with my hobby. So, there we can agree; anyone troubled with facts should get other tools. There is no reason to use the wrong tool.

regards,
I meant my photos, not other peoples'. What I mean when I say that is that in my camera I am not seeing the VPN issue. I saw it in a couple REALLY underexposed images when I first got it. I used it at 400 ISO at a wedding recently and had no VPN, even in the shadows in the backbround. I have agreed that others have had a problem, I have not.
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, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Default ISO 200 vs ISO 100 joodiespost Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 01-09-2010 05:50 PM
Iso 200 pingflood Photographic Technique 49 03-30-2009 07:29 PM
iso 100 or iso 200 kiwao Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 03-05-2009 01:02 PM
Night photography with K10D - High ISO short exposure VS Low ISO long exposure pw-pix Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 02-03-2008 01:37 AM
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 08:30 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