Tough job for a small sensor

FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm equiv),
hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to Low;
compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:
FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm
equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to
Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

Site seems to be down from here.

David

On Nov 30, 6:43 pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
John Navas wrote:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg
Site seems to be down from here.
David

Yes, it's obviously completely beyond the capability of that camera -
given the link doesn't work... (O:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm
equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to
Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

Site seems to be down from here.

Not the site, but that particular server, so I've replaced the image:
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

In article , Mr. Strat
says...

Nice burnt highlights. Glad to see that histogram is doing well for you.

If you saw what DSLR images Roger posts to his site you would say "nice
burnt shadows".
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm
equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to
Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

Site seems to be down from here.

Not the site, but that particular server, so I've replaced the image:
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg

Thanks for reposting, John.

All the detail in the foliage at the back is lost - possibly due to the
noise reduction. Nice photo, though.

Cheers,
David

On Dec 1, 4:43 pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
John Navas wrote:
...
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg
...
All the detail in the foliage at the back is lost - possibly due to the
noise reduction. Nice photo, though.

Cheers,
David

It is a nice *scene*, but as David notes, the foliage has lost a large
amount of detail, and as Mr Strat notes, the highlights are a touch
over (although that isn't a big deal)..

It is not a technically good image - even at the reduced size, the
foliage is clearly (heh!) mush, and detail is completely obliterated
in the darker areas (ie almost all of the background). A large print
of that image would not be a good idea. Yet a DSLR, competently
handled, would have sailed through this test with flying colours. Pun
intended..

That type of low-contrast fine detail is a indeed a tough test for
digitals - especially small sensored ones - and this one has failed
the test.

To get better results, you could use a better camera (O:, but if that
isn't an option:

- shoot in RAW. That way you do not lose any more detail to jpeg
compression or noise reduction (depending on the camera), and also you
will improve the dynamic range - this scene clearly needs all the
dynamic range it can get.

- watch your post-proc very carefully. *Selective* noise reduction
can help (ie *don't* apply NR to foliage areas!), and also watch any
gamma/brightness/contrast adjustments - working in 16-bit, at least
initially, may also help.


Just trying to help... In a couple of years time, assuming you get
good at this imaging stuff, come back and re-visit this image... At
the moment I think you may be a little emotionally attached. (O:*

(* I'm allowed to be unkind if I put a smiley there - John said.)

On Dec 1, 6:55 pm, wrote:
- watch your post-proc very carefully. *Selective* noise reduction
can help (ie *don't* apply NR to foliage areas!), and also watch any
gamma/brightness/contrast adjustments - working in 16-bit, at least
initially, may also help.

And just to show I'm not *all* mouth... here's an example of an image
with a similarly wide (probably wider) contrast range, shot on a
similar (but, imo, better) prosumer
:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg

(Note -it's a *large* panoramic image - 1.4Mb jpg...)

It was shot in RAW, and I (crudely!) used selective noise reduction.
Note the foliage detail in the dark areas compared to John's. Yes,
it's somewhat *noisy* detail, but it's .. *there*.

I am very happy to post a full-resolution crop if anyone wants one.

On Dec 1, 7:29 am, John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm
equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to
Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

Site seems to be down from here.

Not the site, but that particular server, so I've replaced the image:
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Not coming back to comment on the lost foliage detail in your shot,
John?
Can you not match my example, taken on a similar camera (not a DSLR)?

(O;

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:43:29 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
FZ8, JPEG Fine, ISO 100, 1/640 @ f/4, AP auto exp, 114 mm (35 mm
equiv), hand-held; Noise Reduction, Contrast and Sharpening set to
Low; compressed to Quality 8 with Photoshop for hosting full res:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

Site seems to be down from here.

Not the site, but that particular server, so I've replaced the image:
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg

Thanks for reposting, John.

All the detail in the foliage at the back is lost - possibly due to the
noise reduction. Nice photo, though.

Thank you.

What this actually shows is the limitation of 8-bit JPEG on the very
wide luminance range reducing luminance resolution in shadows, limited
depth of field from the wide aperture I used to focus on just the
fountain, additional JPEG compression for hosting, and the effect of
direct sun on the lens (flare).

The image might have been a little better technically if I had used RAW
instead of JPEG Fine, but that would be due to the greater luminosity
resolution of RAW as compared to 8-bit JPEG and reduced loss of detail
from JPEG compression, not noise reduction processing (which was turned
down to Low). JPEG Fine did quite well nonetheless.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)