S3 soft? I don't think so!

[Lee Jay]

S3, ISO 80, contrast -2, sharpness -2, saturation -1, green -1, no processing.

Full frame reduced with bicubic sharper:



100% crop, untouched straight from the camera:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[bluenoser23]

Boy, that's a great, sharp shot. Clean as a whistle!

I really enjoy reading your posts as you are certainly a very knowledgeable individual in this field and always have something valueable to add to a discussion.

In that vein, could I impose upon you and ask whether you think the S3 would produce consistently better shots (indoor & outdoor) - within a 3x optical distance - than my A95?

I'm very pleased with the picture quality of my A95 but am really looking for a good reason besides the zoom and movie mode to either add to or replace my A95.

Thank you for any insight you may provide.

Regards,
James
--
Bluenoser
A95

 

[Lee Jay]

Boy, that's a great, sharp shot. Clean as a whistle!

I really enjoy reading your posts as you are certainly a very
knowledgeable individual in this field and always have something
valueable to add to a discussion.

Thanks.

In that vein, could I impose upon you and ask whether you think the
S3 would produce consistently better shots (indoor & outdoor) -
within a 3x optical distance - than my A95?

I doubt that much would be seen in any final image or print.

I'm very pleased with the picture quality of my A95 but am really
looking for a good reason besides the zoom and movie mode to either
add to or replace my A95.

Okay, one of the main causes of soft shots is motion blur. The S3 has decent high ISO performance (probably no better than the A95, however), a faster lens over most of the range than the A95, and very effective IS. Combined, that could mean a higher percentage of sharp shots.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[john thompson121186]

Please tell me where you are making the contrast and sharpness adjustments. I cant find any in camera optional settings on my new S3

Thanks

 

[Lee Jay]

Please tell me where you are making the contrast and sharpness
adjustments. I cant find any in camera optional settings on my new
S3

Please see page 80 of your manual, last item in the table.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[indusbreed]

Excellant shots. Once again its the person behind the camera which makes all the difference.

 

[Hoddy4]

Is that indoors without flash? What were the lighting conditions?

 

[Lee Jay]

Is that indoors without flash?

Yes.

What were the lighting conditions?

He's standing next to a window, the sun is up but it's cloudy. The exposure data is ISO 80, f3.5, 1/40th.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[whvick]

Handheld?
whvick

 

[Lee Jay]

Handheld?

Yes.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Fragrant Fire]

Handheld?
whvick

No, the child was on a tripod

--
mindstorm.smugmug.com ($5 discount code: EcanyZcBRKSCI)

 

[keithk42]

I'm curious about the settings you used.

Are those your generic settings for the S3, or did you pick them specifically for the shot that you took?

The pictures really look nice!

Keith

 

[mesires]

High Lee Jay,

One of the reasons I registered with dpreview was to thank you and Simon for a good job on previewing and reviewing S3.

It was really a great help for me to decide which camera (my first digital in addition to my Canon SLR) to choose. Your in-depth estimations, prior to review here, was most helpful for me.

Regarding your post: what is the reason for your to set Green to -1?
I can understand sharpness, contrast and saturation.

Thanks for your answer.

--
Daniel

 

[Frank43]

S3, ISO 80, contrast -2, sharpness -2, saturation -1, green -1, no
processing.

Full frame reduced with bicubic sharper:



100% crop, untouched straight from the camera:

I thought that setting contrast -2 and sharpness -2 was to facilitate post processing, but you seem to think that even without post processing the camera is better off with these settings - right?

I understand that reducing the size with Bicubic sharper does some sharpening. Did you do the size reduction just for monitor viewing? Would you have done it before printing?

Looking at the chils's skin and the white of the eye, I would have thought that a slight noise reduction would have been better - what do you think? Would you have done it before or after the size reduction? I wonder if the sharpening of the size reduction has emphasised what I see as granular.

saturation -1 and green -1: is that specific to portraits? What would you use these settings for landscape?

Thanks,

Frank

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm curious about the settings you used.

Are those your generic settings for the S3, or did you pick them
specifically for the shot that you took?

Generic. I may adjust them more in the future.

The pictures really look nice!

Thanks.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

Regarding your post: what is the reason for your to set Green to -1?
I can understand sharpness, contrast and saturation.

I did some color testing versus my SLRs. Shooting grasses and bushes, the greens seemed way over the top. So I turned it down a bit.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Olga Johnson]

Hi Frank!

Looking at the chils's skin and the white of the eye, I would have
thought that a slight noise reduction would have been better - what
do you think?

I don't see any noise on the skin or eye? What is it that you see as "noise"?

Olga

 

[Lee Jay]

I thought that setting contrast -2 and sharpness -2 was to
facilitate post processing, but you seem to think that even without
post processing the camera is better off with these settings -
right?

Not necessarily. This was very contrasy lighting and that is the point of my post. In flat lighting, contrast, saturation and sharpness all need much more agressive settings if you don't post process.

I understand that reducing the size with Bicubic sharper does some
sharpening. Did you do the size reduction just for monitor viewing?
Would you have done it before printing?

I did do it for monitor viewing here but I would have also done it before printing if I needed to reduce the file size for the size print I was making at the native resolution of the printer I was using.

Looking at the chils's skin and the white of the eye, I would have
thought that a slight noise reduction would have been better - what
do you think?

This level of noise is nowhere near visible in a print of any size.

Would you have done it before or after the size
reduction?

Always do noise reduction as the first step in the workflow.

I wonder if the sharpening of the size reduction has
emphasised what I see as granular.

Could be but the 100% crop was untouched.

saturation -1 and green -1: is that specific to portraits? What
would you use these settings for landscape?

Depends on the lighting and desired effect. If I were shooting out-of-camera I might go for these in good conditions. In overcast, I might go for contrast +1, saturation +1, sharpness +1 or something like that.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Thomas H Wardell]

Lee...(and others)

Your contributions to this site are great, thanks! I'm patiently (trying to be anyway) waiting for my S3 to come myself and eagerly read all you've had to say about it, as well as Simon. I was wondering if you know of any good books or articles online that can be read to learn about processing photos (both camera settings and in apps like Photoshop). I'm looking to one day of course get a dSLR, I checked out the Olympus E-500 and the Canon XT the other day,very nice

Also, do you have any expeirence getting Panorama's developed? I have quiet a few I've taken over the last 6 years, but the sizes are so odd after putting the photos together with Autopano that the sizes available to print the photos in on the development sites are larger than the dimensions of the photos (something will get cut off, stretched or a white border).

Thanks!
-Tom

 

[Frank43]

Hello Olga,

I don't see any noise on the skin or eye? What is it that you see
as "noise"?

May be it depends on the monitor and its calibration. I use a 1600x1200 LCD.

With an 'Actual pixel' view, on the skin, I see small luminance grain about 1 mm wide. A baby's skin would be smoother, I believe (I don't usually look at babies from so close though). In the white of the eye, I see very small blue spots. This might be natural, it is the same color as the iris.

More technically, using Noiseware Porfessional I get a measure of the noise. It gives 18% high frequency noise. This is surprisingly high; usually I get less at ISO 80. Applying the Portait noise reduction profile gives a better picture.

Frank