Printable View
That's because RAW is a data, not an image file. One has to convert it to a standard image format, and do some basic post-processing (colour correction, white balance adjustment, sharpening, set the gamma and contrast) and convert it into an image file before it should be viewed on any website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicks Pics
Nick. The reviews on this sort of camera with very long zoom ranges sometimes mention that the image stability may not be up to the long end.
Don't underestimate the capabilities of the in camera jpg software. I've just been playing with a Canon SX 50 HS. It produces pretty good images of the "usual" subjects but point it at a bird for instance and the results are mixed. Resolution at the long end isn't too good either. I had no real problems with it's IS though. Plenty with it's errant exposure behaviour. Surprising when metering is done on the sensor - I assume.
Noise on that one is generally evident at all ISO's. I'd assume that is fairly typical.using this range of sensor sizes. There are a few now that have increased the size of the sensor and also reduced the pixel count. The catch with this is that the zoom range comes down. Usually to 300mm FF. 1000mm FF lens with a sensor as big as the ones used would be massive and is unlikely to ever happen. Not even with an add on converter which can be fairly good but heavy so fitting one might break the mechanisms in the lens. These cameras are better going on sample shots. Even from raw. Only looked at the Stylus 1 - not that I am biased.
I would look at processing and shooting large fine jpg's 1st and get some idea of what the camera can do. That way you will get some idea what it's limitations are and how good the initial exposures are and how the camera behaves. It's a fact that if the jpg is lousy and has significant exposure problem working from raw is not all that likely to help. Raw can augment what is a fairly decent shot - not a miracle cure.
When you process from raw make shure you are using the correct camera profile. I assume Adobe do provide one. Not doing so can cause all sorts of problems.
If you post the raw file and the camera jpg here I for one will see what can be done with it. Others probably will as well. Just add the links to them to this thread. Sometimes lots of things can be sorted out quickly this way.
http://filebin.net/
I should be able to find time tomorrow PM UK time.
John
-
Just for the sake of mentioning- I wasn't really making a proposition about a technique I might potentially do, but that is what I do do, I find it works best, and using slow SS is sometimes basically necessary to get the shot exposed properly, as raising ISO can be a catastrophe and it is not all that affective in gathering more light. I always shoot at the lowest aperture in such situations as this, 6.5 with this camera. A shot I posted recently https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...hread42975.htm was shot at 1/60 sec. not at 1200 mm equiv. but somewhere between 900 and 1000 I think. Just the technique I've liked best- so far.Quote:
Nick at 1200mm equivilent, unless you are shooting on a tripod, 1/100th is going to be challanging, both compositionally (framing) and technically (a blur-free shot). Your small sensor means you are going to get pretty decent DoF; I would go for as high a shutter speed as you can and shoot wide open.
Dave, Thanks for the post, I might look into Neat Image, I'm now in that cautioned- against position. I have a DSLR body and 55 mm lens, but I've not used it much yet because it is fairly useless to me for an out-door camera since upgrading that 1200 mm lens is not so easy and I haven't done it yet.Quote:
Hi Nick,
In my experience, something like Neat Image is better at preserving detail and reducing noise than the (even recently improved) algrithms in LR/ACR.
Got to be worth a free trial - see how you get on - my thread linked above shows how easy it can be to use.
Disclosure: I am simply a paying (happy) customer of their product.
I think I started using Neat Image when I was a bridge camera shooter too, but still use it on my DX cameras when iso gets stretched and I have to crop in PP just to see the subject.
That said, Manfred has a point; one of the reasons I sprung for a DSLR was to improve IQ, the bridge camera was fairly naff beyond 800 iso even with NR, especially in low light, your shots look awfully 'familiar'!
The sad fact is that good light on the subject, your proximity to it and photographic skill - are all paramount to getting good images, from any camera.
Upgrading the camera alone won't help, especially if you do what I did and then attempt to shoot subjects that are even further away and/or less well lit - because; surprise, surprise, the result is images that look just as bad.
The practical bottom line; don't expect to achieve the impossible (with ANY camera).
Unfortunately, like many before you (myself included), these shots are just that. - although I appreciate they are 100% crops for illustrative purposes, not finished photographs.
The "great" wildlife shots we see here at CiC are from those that have learnt this lesson and addressed it; Joe, Dan, et al.
Personally, it is something I'm still struggling to deal with, so my shots are still 'so-so'.
Thanks for articulating that for me. I appreciate your technical explanations.Quote:
That's because RAW is a data, not an image file. One has to convert it to a standard image format, and do some basic post-processing (colour correction, white balance adjustment, sharpening, set the gamma and contrast) and convert it into a viewable file before it should be viewed on any websit.
I guess this I must be getting the results that would be expected with this camera. I would think I'm using the correct profile, I don't know much about that though. Thanks for your suggestions. I'm pretty familiar with my camera at this point, I have 7000 photos from it now, but I'm always learning more.Quote:
Nick. The reviews on this sort of camera with very long zoom ranges sometimes mention that the image stability may not be up to the long end.
Don't underestimate the capabilities of the in camera jpg software. I've just been playing with a Canon SX 50 HS. It produces pretty good images of the "usual" subjects but point it at a bird for instance and the results are mixed. Resolution at the long end isn't too good either. I had no real problems with it's IS though. Plenty with it's errant exposure behaviour. Surprising when metering is done on the sensor - I assume.
Noise on that one is generally evident at all ISO's. I'd assume that is fairly typical.using this range of sensor sizes. There are a few now that have increased the size of the sensor and also reduced the pixel count. The catch with this is that the zoom range comes down. Usually to 300mm FF. 1000mm FF lens with a sensor as big as the ones used would be massive and is unlikely to ever happen. Not even with an add on converter which can be fairly good but heavy so fitting one might break the mechanisms in the lens. These cameras are better going on sample shots. Even from raw. Only looked at the Stylus 1 - not that I am biased.
I would look at processing and shooting large fine jpg's 1st and get some idea of what the camera can do. That way you will get some idea what it's limitations are and how good the initial exposures are and how the camera behaves. It's a fact that if the jpg is lousy and has significant exposure problem working from raw is not all that likely to help. Raw can augment what is a fairly decent shot - not a miracle cure.
When you process from raw make shure you are using the correct camera profile. I assume Adobe do provide one. Not doing so can cause all sorts of problems.
If you post the raw file and the camera jpg here I for one will see what can be done with it. Others probably will as well. Just add the links to them to this thread. Sometimes lots of things can be sorted out quickly this way.
I would follow my suggestion and upload raw to filebin or some other similar service before you decide the camera isn't up to it. You will probably find that some very capable people will see what they can do with it. You might then find that the camera isn't up to it or maybe not.
Actually I did that with a high iso setting on a D7000 as the noise was nothing like the sort I am used to. The fix turned out to be simple.
John
-