1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

M10 image question/issue

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by WithOpenedEyes, May 22, 2015.

  1. I'm enclosing an image taken last weekend that was a typical situation with bright sunshine and high contrast. The cropped section...about 200%...finds an effect that I can't quite find the right words for...halo effect maybe. I'm wondering what causes this and how to get rid of it. Shot with my M10, using a Panny 45-150, and having the IS priority set for IBIS. IS mode in camera is set to Automatic and camera was mounted on a monopod. Basic specs...1/1000th @ f9.0 and ISO 1600. My guess is IS related, but really haven't had much time to experiment with other settings for IS...especially turning priority over to the lens IS. Anyone recognize this issue? Thanks in advance. P5170500_v1.wo-crop. P5170500_v1.crop.
     
  2. Growltiger

    Growltiger Mu-43 Top Veteran

    648
    Mar 26, 2014
    UK
    I think that is an artifact caused by over sharpening.

    The setting on the E-M1 is called Noise filter, and is best changed to Low on this menu:
    - E Exp/ISO
    -- Noise Filter: change from Standard to Low

    I leave mine set on Low. You can always sharpen in post processing.
     
  3. Growltiger

    Growltiger Mu-43 Top Veteran

    648
    Mar 26, 2014
    UK
    Some of it could also be too much JPG compression. Are you on LN? I use L-SF always.

    -- Record mode set: 1: Change from LF to L-SF
    then:
    - Record mode: Still Picture: change from LN to LSF or LSF+RAW (set Custom G setting above first to allow L-SF)
     
  4. Forgot to mention that image was shot in RAW. RAW>PhotoNinja>tiff>PaintShop>jpeg
     
  5. PeeBee

    PeeBee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Sep 17, 2012
    UK
    I've seen a similar effect on my G5 files when using the P45-200 with OIS, so that would suggest its not IBIS.
     
  6. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Eric
    I agree that this looks like the result of oversharpening. However, if you were using a monopod I think many would suggest that you turn image stabilization off.
     
  7. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    It looks like lens flare from an overexposed highlight, probably made more visible through post processing. This isn't an issue exclusive to digital photography; it happens with film cameras as well.
     
  8. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    My money would be on lens flare exacerbated by the f9 aperture which may (or not) be a poor aperture for you particular lens to deal with flare from highlights. Try f5.6 and see if the issue remains. The photo is overexposed in general, which it need not be considering the shadow latitude in the RAWs from your camera.
    I do not think it is about stabilisation at all.
    (It could also be the processing)
    Are you sure you don't have the Jpeg from RAW+Jpeg to compare with this frame?
     
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    My guess:

    blown highlights + CA
    ISO 1600 in sunlight limiting DR and adding noise
    f9.0 is into diffraction territory
    And then overcompensating for the above poor choices with excessive processing.
     
  10. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    622
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    It's excessive Sharpening and excessive use of alterations like Clarity. Both produce "halos". The second magnified image also displays artifacts from the JPEG compression which are the JPEG compression's method of maintaining some impression of sharpness while throwing away a lot of the image data.
     
  11. The issue is viewable during processing of the RAW file...before any adjustment is made..and more apparent after cleaning up the noise. Yes, I probably went a bit overboard with post. ISO 1600 was necessary to keep good working shutter speed during jumping...I was trying to freeze the action. Conditions varied somewhat with the sun popping in and out, and rather than lose shots to low shutter speed, I just left it at 1600. I had found this in other shots from the weekend...done with other f stops...so I don't think that's the issue. And I didn't think diffraction was much of a problem till f11 or smaller. I've wondered about the combination of IS and monopod.. you still lack stabilization in 2 directions. As a side note, it's not lens related, as I was trying out an Olympus OM 50mm f3.5 macro this afternoon and the effect was still there in well exposed, but less contrasty areas than the horse and rider shot. During the long weekend I'll have to look for a shooting situation that will allow me to try stuff and check it on the monitor quickly. Like I said before, thanks for the comments.
     
  12. Was able to try a few things, with the sun being nice and bright this morning. Can't point at one thing though. It appears to be related to high contrast...the more extreme, the worse the edge effects look. Higher ISO makes it worse. Different IS settings..turning off, trying lens IS, IS with sequential shooting or not... didn't do squat. And yes, being a bit aggressive with post. Gotta learn when to say enough's enough.
     
  13. PeeBee

    PeeBee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Sep 17, 2012
    UK
    Yep, I've seen it whilst zooming on a RAW image through the EVF, no additional processing at all. It seems to be some kind of aberration in areas of high contrast.
     
  14. Growltiger

    Growltiger Mu-43 Top Veteran

    648
    Mar 26, 2014
    UK
    The large pale area is certainly flare, so it is caused by the lens. Try wider apertures, or better still another lens.

    The edge effect could be several things, and sharpening is likely to be factor. (There is processing when viewing the raw image in the EVF - it is processed to make it viewable.)
     
  15. The effect does appear to be worse with the Panny 45-150 than the other lenses I have. Took a bit of looking though. Thing is that this is probably the most contrasty shooting that I've run into since buying this camera in November. This was also the first time out with this lens. I've been pleased with the less challenging shots, so I really don't want to have get rid of it. I'll just have to be careful about using it in similar situations.
     
  16. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    If it's in high contrast areas it could be corrected C/A fringing. You still end up with fringing, just a less obnoxious neutral fringe rather than a coloured one..
     
  17. While I had some time this AM, I went back and reprocessed this file. Went a little more gently and used no sharpening. I watched what was going on more carefully and it seems like any sharpening at all brought out the effect. Somewhat different noise removal and exposure settings made a tiny difference. But a few tiny differences add up. File is better, but not what it should be. P5170500_v1.cropA. P5170500_v1.cropB.
     
  18. Figured out what was going on late today, while processing some files. It was all about sharpening. Sharpening was turned on during RAW processing...down to a low level, but enough to push some files right over the edge...literally. Won't make that mistake anymore.
     
  19. Update on this. I discovered another source of the issue and it was quite simple once found. I checked the jpeg saving options, just to make sure the compression was optimum...and it was. Then I noticed another box that mentioned "encoding", with options for progressive, standard, and lossless. I had been using standard encoding, but switched it to lossless, saved another jpeg, and found less of the "halo" type artifact. So it pays to dig into the jpeg settings in your software.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Tell us the resulting file sizes of the same picture comparing standard to lossless.