Jump to content
liverpix

Ban from upload

Recommended Posts

I think the image looked at 100% is generally very grainy.

There are a few threads with the RX100, about noise and graininess, specially in low light conditions at higher iso and wide open aperture. 

This could be the case for this image. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has very bad compression artefacts. It's not over-compressed so I'm guessing the reason is uncontrolled noise.

I downsize my high-ISO images to the minimum (3250 long side) but I don't think it would have saved this one. 

Beside noise reduction try switching to RAW if you haven't already.

 

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the 100% image it looks pretty noisy/mushy to me. Not sure if it's noise or jpg compression artefacts. I note from the EXIF data is says it was shot at 1/80 F/3.5 ISO400. I would expect a better result at ISO400 from Sony RX100.

Is this an in camera jpg which appears to have sharpening set to Hard perhaps with too much compression?

If so, should get better/cleaner results if you shoot in RAW and process in Lightroom or similar and save as high quality jpg before submitting.

100% crop looks like this.

Screen_Shot_2018-03-28_at_09.04.59.png

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GS-Images said:

Why is this thread here too? I just posted a long detailed reply on one of your other threads on the same thing.

Geoff.

 

Probably my fault.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

 

I forgive you.  :D

 

Thank you!

Is the other thread not there anymore?

 

> Sorry, there is a problem

We could not locate the item you are trying to view.

Error code: 2F173/1 <

 

Btw I think your analysis and that of Mark of that image are pretty good.

The noise=hard setting is probably the culprit. I have tried to replicate the artifacts with my RX100 and could not get them like in this image.

QC is known to be quite strict on smearing and over-sharpening.

My guess: it's an out of camera JPG. Or a RAW which has been developed with the exact in-camera settings. (Proprietary raw developers tend to default to that.)

 

wim

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Thank you!

Is the other thread not there anymore?

 

> Sorry, there is a problem

We could not locate the item you are trying to view.

Error code: 2F173/1 <

 

Btw I think your analysis and that of Mark of that image are pretty good.

The noise=hard setting is probably the culprit. I have tried to replicate the artifacts with my RX100 and could not get them like in this image.

QC is known to be quite strict on smearing and over-sharpening.

My guess: it's an out of camera JPG. Or a RAW which has been developed with the exact in-camera settings. (Proprietary raw developers tend to default to that.)

 

wim

i posted a link to the other threat a few posts up :P

http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/9295-noise-in-my-photo/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hdh said:

i posted a link to the other threat a few posts up :P

http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/9295-noise-in-my-photo/

 

Yes, that's where I get that message:

> Sorry, there is a problem

We could not locate the item you are trying to view.

Error code: 2F173/1 <

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wiskerke said:

Yes, that's where I get that message:

> Sorry, there is a problem

We could not locate the item you are trying to view.

Error code: 2F173/1 <

 

wim

ah, I see,  both threads are merged now - excuse 4 smartassing :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D

Edited by Chuck Nacke
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies. I normally shoot in jpgs as was this photo, mainly because I tend to take a lot of photos and I never really got my head round RAW. I just had a look at my camera settings. There is a High ISO NR on my RX100; it was set on Normal - I have now changed it to High.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks for your replies. I normally shoot in jpgs as was this photo, mainly because I tend to take a lot of photos and I never really got my head round RAW. I just had a look at my camera settings. There is a High ISO NR on my RX100; it was set on Normal - I have now changed it to High.

It may not help you in jpeg.   In-camera NR can make things worse. The best way to get optimum detail is to shoot RAW.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I also have the rx100 (mk 1) and I find it there is a lot of noise when I use ISO 400 and up, especially in the dimly lit areas of the image.  For passing QC purposes, it may be best to avoid high ISO settings. 

 

However it  looks to me like there's more than noise in the image.  Seems more like jagged artifacts.  I'm not sure what step of your processing may have caused them.  Did you do much post processing on the jpg image?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 02:33, liverpix said:

Thanks for your replies. I normally shoot in jpgs as was this photo, mainly because I tend to take a lot of photos and I never really got my head round RAW. I just had a look at my camera settings. There is a High ISO NR on my RX100; it was set on Normal - I have now changed it to High.

 I'd suggest getting your head around RAW, then you'll have control. It's a bit like saying "I ride a bike as I cannot get my head around a steering wheel"  as it's fundamental these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you want to avoid these types of problems and get the best from your camera then you have to get into processing your RAW files yourself. There are countless videos and websites on the internet that you can follow, as well as the concentration of skills here on this forum. It seems intimidating at first but its not that bad and you will be astounded by the information you can pull out of the RAW files. You will need to splash the cash a bit as you will need a RAW converter - the big players are Lightroom, DxO (my choice) and Capture 1, with Luminar, Affinity and On1 playing catchup.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.