G1 - Iso 800 case

R

ruben

Guest
Ok, I went to flickr to look after an iso 1600 image by a G1, didn't find it at the first group, so I started to look at their pool for people pictures, until I found one I suspected was done at high iso. Indeed iso 800, no raw acording to the data (yet you may better read and correct me.)

However the picture looked not good enough, as if it wasn't helped with a bit of photoshop. Here it is the link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hpj7173/3621349105/in/pool-926431@N24/

So I copied it and pasted to my computer in order to do minimal photoshop and this is what I got.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30860481@N05/3706049758/sizes/o/

I think it is more than decent for ISO 800. Very promising.

Btw the original was submitted at 1600 x 1068, but I cannot submit mine at the same size since i do not have a flickr pro account. But I can view both at the bigger size in my screen at photoshop, and the resolution is quite impressing .

(Within a week my copykat will be deleted, so if you happen to read this post afterwards, you may try to photoshop it yourself.)

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything in this album was taken on a Lumix G1, ISO 1600, with kit lens (14-45mm). All JPGS, with JPG setting at "Normal". Minimal post-processing in Picasa for color balance and contrast. No additional noise reduction of any kind.

/T
 
Ruben, I had a look at both images but I am not too convinced. The "original" (I have to admit it is quite sharp) is already quite downsized and shows quite some color noise, That is usually easier to handle than luminance noise. I do not know how did you process the image, but your sample shows already at this small size rather strong "blocky" (lack of better word) shadows and dark areas and loss of sharpness/detail too. I guess that already a medium sized print would suffer. But there are indeed dedicated programs to clean up the images.

Please do not get me wrong - I seem to be over sensitive to digital artifacts in General.

Still - this is better than my Minolta 7D would do which has half the pixel count on twice large sensor ... hmmm.
 
Hi Matus,

There is no problem. I must say a few clarifying things. First I am color blind, meaning that at some tricky situation my color estimation would go wrong. Then there is the computer screen I am using, a good one of the old type, but not calibrated with the Adobe stuff.

In my screen, and under my criteria, my manipulated image looks better to my taste, against the former and original, which looks to me rather flat. I do accept that when fighting the original flatness I may have lost some detail.

What I can say for sure is that the original image and my manipulated one, look quite different once enlarged to the original size it was posted to flickr - having to shrink mine has stolen a bit of its look. Nevertheless, I repeat, to my overall taste I would stand by the manipulated one.

But certainly I would not slaughter anyone disagreeing.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom