High ISO E-10 Image

[Bill_Turner]

A B&W version of this image was posted in Big Ga's E-XX thread.
Here's the color version which was shot at ISO 160.
Objectionable noise?



--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

 

[darobin1]

Needless to say, yet another example of how fantastic
the E10/E20 can be!

--
Daniel A. Robinson

 

[Bill_Turner]

nothing here
--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

 

[KuroNeko]

no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text no text

 

[Bill_Turner]

whether or not there was noise but if the noise was objectionable.

FWIW, there is digital noise in every digital image just as there is "grain" in every film image. The question is what's acceptable and what's not.

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

 

[nboyer]

Lovely lady, nice capture but to me the noise or .jpg artefacs are objectionable. Also, the color looks off on my Monaco OPTIX calibrated monitor. -Norm

A B&W version of this image was posted in Big Ga's E-XX thread.
Here's the color version which was shot at ISO 160.
Objectionable noise?



--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it
off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most
likely, a master...

 

[KuroNeko]

whether or not there was noise but if the noise was objectionable.
FWIW, there is digital noise in every digital image just as there
is "grain" in every film image. The question is what's acceptable
and what's not.

Well, I'm not seeing any noise there, just some jpeg compression artifacts, so I think the noise is not objectionable at all!! Moreover, I like a little fine grain noise on my prints so I really don't care if there'd be some noise on pictures out of the camera

 

[dixeyk]

The color is lovely (I have always thought Olympus cameras have quite good color), but I have to agree I find the artifacting distracting, might it be from whatever application created the JPEG?

Kevin

 

[Tack]

Bill, just curious, did you use fill flash in the making of this image? If so, this may be the reason why I don't see any objectionable noise, if any. An image taken with just ambient light with the E-10/20 cameras at higher than 80 ISO would probably yield more problems.

I agree with Norm about the color. Looks a bit dusky to me. I"m also viewing on a Monaco Optix calibrated/profiled monitor.
--
C-2100, E-20, TCON 14B, TCON 300, WCON-08, MCON-35

 

[Tack]

Norm, would you mind pointing out to my untrained eyes where in Bill's picture the jpeg artificats exist? I've read about these problems, but am not always savy about spotting them, probably because I haven't had anyone point them out to me.

From my understanding, jpeg artifacts occur where contours of shapes meet... at the border of shapes and lines. I think I've spotted some just above her left cheek where it meets the wall; on her right forehead, where it meets her bangs, and just above the right eyebrow. Am I correct?

Also, where do you see noise in the picture?
Sorry to be a pest, your help would be greatly appreciated.
jeff

--
C-2100, E-20, TCON 14B, TCON 300, WCON-08, MCON-35

 

[KuroNeko]

Look at the nose of the lady, you would be able to recognize maze pattern artifacts, if not take the image and magnify it at 200-300% on a photo editor, they get obvious when magnified.

Cheers.

 

[Tack]

KuroNeko, Thanks very much for pointing that out to me. Seems like the jpeg artifacts are all over the woman's face. It's so obvious when you enlarge the image but it was hard for me to see at the posted size when viewed on my smallish 17" monitor. Made a world of difference in my understanding what jpeg artifacts look like.

Stupid question, but from where to jpeg artifacts come from? And when do they show up?

Thanks very much,
jeff

Sorry Bill, I don't mean to hijack the thread.

--
C-2100, E-20, TCON 14B, TCON 300, WCON-08, MCON-35

 

[Jim Harvey]

The patterns on the facial area appear to be more oversharpening than jpeg artifacts. On the blouse there are some artifacts (jaggies) but they are so minute that I can't imagine "normal" people being bothered by them or even noticing them in the first place.

 

[KuroNeko]

Stupid question, but from where to jpeg artifacts come from? And
when do they show up?

Jpeg is an image format that allows customizable compression level for the data which represents the pixels of the image. That it is, you can set the compression level of the image when you save it on a photo editor, or via the image quality menu of the digicams. Notice that the image has 1000x800 pixels, and at 24bits per pixel (8bits for each primary color) that would be almost 2,5 megabytes of data, but the image Bill posted weights around 0.2 megabytes. Moreover, the compression algorithm on jpegs is not lossless, which means that it will compress the data but when uncompressing it won't recover the exact initial data of the image prior compressing, and that's why jpegs exhibits artifacts, which are more obvious if you set a high value for compression, or if you magnify the images for enlarged prints for example.

I don't know which photo editor you use, in PaintShop Pro for example there's an option when saving a jpg which shows you the image rendered with the selected level of compression prior saving it, so you can adjust the amount on real time depending on how much space you want to save vs. image quality of the to-be-compressed image.



Hope it helped.

Cheers.

 

[KuroNeko]

I would bet those on the nose are jpg related, the typical ones which arise around sharp edges. Also if you magnify the image you can also appreciate the blockiness look of moderate jpg-compressed images.

Cheers.

 

[Bill_Turner]

I need to re-evaluate my post processing a bit.

I do have PSP X and the image below was converted using the JPEG Optimizer. Very nice.
This version was converted from .orf with RSP, including cropping.
Other than converting to .jpg, no adjustments were made.



EXIF is embedded. W/fill flash and a Stofen Omnibounce.
Sorry about the size!

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

 

[Bill_Turner]

Retouched.
Softened, some healing brush, masks and brushes.
Better?



--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

 

[BDavis]

The first photo seemed oversharpened and "Jpegged" a bit too low. Not that I don't do that all the time myself!!!
The original ( the second) shown looked like it ought to out of the camera.

Your version ( the third) looks great. Give us some specs on your sharpening and the Jpeg compression.

 

[Bill_Turner]

The first photo seemed oversharpened and "Jpegged" a bit too low.
Not that I don't do that all the time myself!!!
The original ( the second) shown looked like it ought to out of the
camera.
Your version ( the third) looks great. Give us some specs on your
sharpening and the Jpeg compression.

The second was .jpg'd with PSP X. Nice stuff! Just a bit too big for posting.

For the "final" version, I did use the PSP X jpg engine after I did the following:

I use a "softening" action that works quite nicely. It leaves a "Soft Focus" layer that's adjustable in both opacity and is usable with a layer mask. I created a layer mask and painted back the sharpness in Stephanie's eyey and teeth. Did a touch of whitening on the teeth. I also added some subtle highlites in her eyes.
Adjusted the opacity of the "soft focus" layer to my taste.
I resized it using ACDSee.
BTW, I printed the .psd file using Qimage and it looks beter than film.

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

 

[KuroNeko]

For the "final" version, I did use the PSP X jpg engine after I did
the following:
I use a "softening" action that works quite nicely. It leaves a
"Soft Focus" layer that's adjustable in both opacity and is usable
with a layer mask. I created a layer mask and painted back the
sharpness in Stephanie's eyey and teeth. Did a touch of whitening
on the teeth. I also added some subtle highlites in her eyes.
Adjusted the opacity of the "soft focus" layer to my taste.

Coming back to the original question, I really like the feel of the little background noise, not objectionable at all, on the print must look great! It seems only luminance, did you use a chroma filter or it just looks like that out of the camera?

What I can't help from noticing on your second picture is the hair of the lady, it looks like a bit washed out, maybe it's because of the soft focus layer, you can try to isolate the hair and apply the layer only to the face and the background and see how you like it. Maybe doing so would distract the viewers from the lady face, and that'd be a bad thing because I think that what makes the shot is the wonderful expression on the face of the lady. You could try, compare both, and see which one you prefer.

I resized it using ACDSee.
BTW, I printed the .psd file using Qimage and it looks beter than
film.

Image is a great tool I must start using right now (I don't because I'm not used yet to the interface). How big did you print?

Cheers.