lights

[Joe_Smithberger]

Are you using the camera with the AA filter installed? You may find that much less sharpening is required without it. Generally, I have found that you need to be selective with your sharpening anytime you have a specular source in the shot. We history brush out the sharpening around stuff like that after we sharpen the image in photoshop. It is difinitely worth the time.

FWIW this is a tough subject for the 560. Low light levels and warm sources tend to produce a lot of noise. Add this to light sources in the shot and you have about the worst scenario possible for image quality.

I run into this type of stuff in factory interiors too. Lately, I have been carrying a Fuji S1 along with the 660 and use it in these situations. Resolution is not as good, but lower noise and better blue channel sensitivity make up for it. Believe it or not, I have found that an ASA200 shot at 1/8 or slower on the 660 will look worse than the same thing shot on the Fuji at ASA400.
http://www.smithbergerphoto.com

[RobBenton]

Joe
Do you do all your sharpening in photoshop?
I took the AA filter off after my first test image. I don't own an S1 but all the test images I've seen are loaded with noise. I think the 560 images are pretty clean, at least at 80. I wonder if 1 stop over exposure then a levels adjustment would help?
Thanks, Rob

[Joe_Smithberger]

At 80 ASA and normal shutter speeds the Kodak images are far superior to the Fuji. What I'm talking about is 200 asa AND slow shutters. Kodak liturature says that shutter speeds slower than 1/2 sec are not recommended. From my own experience, 1/8 is about as low as I like to go. Between the gain in the imager signal processing and noise from the camera electronics, there is much more noise and artifacting at slow shutter speeds and higher ISO's.

The part about the S1 was kind of an aside. The point was that, even though it's noise is more pronounced normally, there are some circumstances where it is preferable to that produced by the 660. The point was that the tools need to match the situation. BTW I don't sharpen those files in camera either.

Yes, I do all sharpening in Photoshop. Sometimes using batch processing, but many times I'll want to inspect each image for problems after the USM is applied. I also use Quantum Mechanic on every image and sharpening needs to be done after QM.

[RobBenton]

Joe
Appreciate your reply. Thanks for all the info. 1/8 thats it..., hmm. I hear a lot about Quantum Mechanic and downloaded the light version. Didn't impress me. Is the heavy version worth the heavy expense?
Rob

[LesSchofer]

I have shot 4.5 years with the 560's predecessor, the DCS1, a.k.a "noise machine." I got the QM Pro form Dennis Walker as a beta and have used it ever since. It sharpens "L" channel lab at the same time it blurs artifacts in color channels. When I have to do a longer exposure that starts to "pit" the black areas, I check the box labelled "despeckle luminance." That's a great feature, and also works real well for the Canon D30 images that are shot at ISO 800 or 1600.

[Joe_Smithberger]

Rob,

I consider QM an essential part of our workflow. If there is a better way to remove color artifiacts from a single shot camera, I haven't found it. As far as the different versions, I have used the same, old, version since 1997. I don't know much about the newer options.