A900 and Hi Sensitivity Jpeg Output
A900 Jpegs at ISO 3200- Camera Settings Count!
|
The A900 is an excellent hi-sensitivity machine. Capitalizing on retaining more color and dynamic range throughout the entire ISO range than most of its competition, the A900 manages this excellent performance characteristic for much less cost than its best rivals. What doesn't get talked about much when it comes to higher sensitivity settings is color output and print quality when processing is debated. Sure "some" companies work more noise reduction in the chroma category into their processing as well as make a bit nicer grain pattern, but does that translate into better prints? Color wise, no, it doesn't. |
 |
Sure there are performance differences in the brand of Raw processing software that probably in the end do preserve more detail and make for finer grain patterns etc. when processing a Raw file. What about Jpegs though? How can you tune your A900 to get a bit nicer looking performance when you don't want to take up a bunch of space?
The short answer, settings count. White balance, proper exposure, and in camera sharpening/contrast/saturation settings all add up to make a noticeable difference on your Jpeg output. The trick is learning how to find the proper settings for the scene you are shooting, and having enough patience to try a few settings until you get a the desired output.
In the shot above, I used the A900 and Intelligent Preview to get dial in my white balance and exposure perfectly on the first shot (I really like this feature despite what critics say). I then took a series of shots all at the same shutter speed and aperture etc. and while I did so, I changed the image quality settings in Standard RGB color several different times before I found a series of settings that I felt looked best.
I then decided on a particular set I thought looked best, then dived into the menu and changed my Standard RGB settings to the following: Contrast +1, Saturation -1, Sharpness -1, Brightness +1, and I kept the Normal setting in the High ISO NR category on. I left NR on because overall I think Sony did a good job on removing noise above ISO 1600 in camera to be honest, but only until the Normal setting. High is a bit mushy for my taste and I also notice some color loss. The image was only resized in CS2, no other changes were made to it.
Take a look at the image by clicking on it above if you haven't already. It isn't full size but I kept it pretty large for viewing, what do you think? How does the color look? How about the range of light captured in the image? Detail? Pretty good? I think so. Would I use 3200 for low ambient lighting circumstances and expect to make decent 13x19 prints? You bet I would, even with a X-Fine Jpeg.
To be fair, I normally do not shoot that high of ISO, but I wanted to do a bit of an article on this apparent forum debate phenom in a bit different way. I think the debates are typically one side of the image triangle. Its not all about detail retention/grain for image quality, that is only one parameter of three I believe to be equally important. The trinity of parameters I believe to be important for print quality are: Overall dynamic range, color retention and gradation, and detail
retention and sharpness.
So what if the A900 performs just a bit under the competition in one of the 3 important parameters! It excels in two of the other three overall and in my mind offers the best overall image quality for the dollar of any current model DSLR (all parameters considered in the 21+mp category).
My hopes are that at some point the image quality debates for higher sensitivity shooting eventually become more well rounded and include all of the important factors and parameters, not just one. Beauty does not begin and end with detail retention and noise grain in large prints. There is simply more to it than that, so lets be fair.
Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts. I have already started the A900 review, but wanted to touch base with our readers on some findings with the A900 so far. I am interested to hear your thoughts on this subject.
-C. Garrard
I get your point although I
I get your point although I always laugh about the holy grail discussion called 'high ISO low noise'. I rarely shoot any higher than ISO200 anyway. You follow me, right?
Oh I certainly do
"To be fair, I normally do not shoot that high of ISO"
I shoot 100-200 almost exclusively, always have and probably almost always will. Just giving the A900 a little more fair shake in some regards than it has been given, is all.
C
Well reasoned article...
Hi Carl
Nicely put and well done for demonstrating how people can work with what they have got and tweak the settings to get the very best quality possible. High ISO is not needed for everybody, but there are certain people like music photographers and photojournalists who do need good high ISO performance. I think the main things to consider is nailing the exposure and finding the optimum camera settings.
You may try this creative
You may try this creative style setting to make lower noise for a900:
Standard,Saturation -1,Sharpness +1,Brightness -2,Zone -1
High ISO NR: High
DR+
The pictures below showing I used this setting on a700 v4, Helios 44M-4 58/1.8 M42 lens
ISO3200
[url]http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o415/henrywhs/DSC03236org.jpg[/url]
ISO6400
[url]http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o415/henrywhs/DSC03237org.jpg[/url]
Henry
A relevant comparison?
I'm not sure if this is a very relevant comparison since it doesn't look very realistic to me.
For one, it's been downsized from a 24 MP image into less than 2 MP. This very act of downsizing will help reduce any noise in an image since you're averaging over pixels. Seeing as you've averaged away over 90% of the pixels I would be very surprised if there was any visible noise.
Secondly, it's a very bright scene. That's not very typical of high ISO photos now, is it?
Nevertheless, I agree that people tend to pixel peep a lot and most comparisons are pretty much moot. I get fantastic high ISO noise reduction with my Sony A200 by shooting in RAW, and then developing it in RawTherapee (don't even mention the atrocity known as ACR...). This is also applicable to the A900 RAWs that I've had the opportunity to play around with.
Which comparison?
The one in the comments section or the image I have for the article?
Carl
I meant the article
My fault, I should have been clearer. I meant the image in the original article and not the one in the comments.
The purpose of the article
is to keep in mind there are a trinity of important factors in image quality, not just one. I can post the original sized photo, but the color or tonality aren't any different than the size available.
The scene was shot at 1/30th of a second at ISO 3200 at f8, thats not a lot of light to work with, it was indoors via incandescent light with a correct exposure, what isn't realistic about that?
If you are going to shoot any slower, chances are you probably won't get a sharp image anyways by either hand shake or moving subjects, which defeats the purpose of shooting high ISO in the first place.
Sure it is downsized (for ease of viewing) and I can post the original 18mb file if you'd like but pixel peeping on detail isn't the point of the article and makes that comparison irrelevant imo.
Carl
I have to agree with you
I have to agree with you Carl. There really is too much pixel peeping. How about just taking pics and making the adjustments in the camera that satisfy what you are looking for, and what you see. Too much emphasis is on Raw developing. Jeez, you would think that all these pics were going in a gallery. Way to serious on some of the comments.
Joe
Nice demonstration
Just discovered this article. A good picture is often better than a long explanation! Good demo. ;)
jpeg is a big waste
There is no reason to shoot jpeg unless all your going to do is post to the web. Then you might as well use a point and shoot.
What a waste of money!
I will "insult" you the British way:
I disagree!