m4/3 and blue sky's aren't compatible?

<p>I've noticed that the sky in my E-P2 images is pretty nasty looking and am really hoping there is a fix for the problem. It looks chunky, to be honest. The sky isn't posterizing, there is just lots of areas that have almost a blocky appearance. Not large blocks, little ones that almost look like noise. It is significantly worse in areas of relatively sharp transition from dark blue to lighter.</p>

<p>Not the best example but: You can view the larger sizes to see what I'm talking about...</p>

<p>Is there a way to get rid of the "chunky" look of the sky?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>-Patrick</p>

<p>Stop pixel peeping and the sky will look quite nice. The flickr link only shows a reduced (3200 x 2400, less than what your camera is capable of) and compressed image. Hard to judge the real thing but check the possibilities of the camera first.</p>

<p>Since the EXIF data has been removed there's no way to know how the picture was shot, or how it wound up looking like it did. Also, since sky don't naturally look like that, I suspect a processing issue.</p>

<p>I'm noticing noise all over. What ISO did you shoot at?</p>

<p>Maybe the sensor is seeing the bright white beach and underexposing the sky. M4/3 cameras are not known for their dynamic range. I can't a problem with the sample you posted. Try desaturating sky and see what happens.</p>

<p>It isn't the processing, there is nothing done to that photo outside of the raw processing. To get those colours I just reduced saturation and upped the white balance temperature. Besides, all my photos have the same "chunky" look, some worse than that one, but I generally delete them.</p>

<p>I always shoot manual, so it isn't about exposure being off in the meter. I find that compared to where I'm from (Eastern Canada) properly exposed images generally have a brighter sky because there simply isn't as much sun hitting the ground. Here in Egypt/Israel, the sun is so damn bright that to avoid blowing out ground details, the sky is exposed quite dark and this "chunky" look is much more apparent.</p>

<p>ISO is 200 btw. This camera has been dropped, kicked once, and generally abused beyond normal expectations, so I don't know if that has any effect.</p>

<p>Well, if the sky clears up, I can try for a few shots with my E-PM1. Seems to my memory that it's images are noisier than the D7000 at any ISO. That said, it never really bothers me.</p>

<p>Oh, and I am seeing as much in the sand as I do your sky. It's just easier to spot in the transitions of the sky.</p>

<p>Different shot<br>

 <br>

<a href=" title="P1257235 by Patrick E Porter, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6766019075_af99bde675.jpg" width="417" height="336" alt="P1257235"></a></p>

<p>I've got all noise reduction in the camera turned off, shooting raw, developing with Olympus Master 2. The square image above is "straight out of the camera". Shot in Muted colour mode, sharpness/contrast and such all at zero.</p>

<p>All right, I think I see what is going on here "plausible justification". I know because I do it myself all the time - Patrick wants a new camera! </p>

<p>I don't have this problem with my Panasonic M4/3, so I don't think you should make such generalised comments as the thread title.</p>

<p>Sanford, I do have G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), so that is a distinct possibility LOL.</p>

<p>JC, it wasn't a generalized comment, it was a question. Thus the question mark :)</p>

Blur and/or Gaussian Blur after selecting the sky, or if you are using Lightroom RAW conversion, noise reduction. This just looks like sensor noise to me. I like the color balance better after AutoWB with GIMP.<div></div>

<p>Looks to be something a UV filter would take care of.</p>

Why would a UV filter have any effect on sensor noise, Dan? (If it is sensor noise.)

 

Zooming in 800%, I see some chunkiness in my AutoWB edit, especially at the transition to dark blue, but I believe that was because I edited JPEG.

<p>this may just be an issue of using a 8-bit color space?<br>

JPG's are saved in an 8-bit color space that is pretty lousy for areas with smooth transition.<br>

Its really noticable in black and white photos since it effectively uses only one 8-bit channel instead of 3.<br>

Many cameras shoot in this color space as well. Without the apparent grainyness, you will end up with large blocks of solid color that noticably transition from one to the next.</p>

<p>Darin, I did no editing to my versions of the image. Came straight out of the Olympus Master 2. Otherwise, if I do edit I either save as 16 bit tiff and edit in Capture NX2. I do this with my Olympus only. For my Canon I just use Aperture.</p>

<p>I'll try blurring the sky a bit in NX2. Kinda sucky that it doesn't come out of the camera with a nice smooth sky though.</p>

<p>Why should it come out of the camera silky smooth ... its digital not analog.<br>

Even film will suffer if you grain-peep close enough.<br>

One may add a question mark but it still looks like a statement.</p>

What kind of question is that? I'm the consumer, that's why.

<p>Well, obviously, this discussion is over my head.</p>

<p>Consumers are notorious for wanting silly unrealistic things and foolishly think they have some right to get them ... buyer beware is probably matched by consumer beware by makers of these fine products.</p>

<p>You seem to be heavily on the side of the manufacturer. Either way, It isn't a right that I refer to, but an expectation. If I spend a certain amount of money on a supposed quality product, I have a reasonable performance expectation. When my LX-3 PS produces cleaner looking sky's than what I'm seeing from my E-P2, I should certainly voice my concerns. In this case, it was to see if there was a resolution to the problem, not to say, 'Hey, look at this glaring fault, don't buy Olympus products'.</p>

<p>Manufacturers need to pay attention to my expectations and those of the other consumers. We keep them in business, simple as that. My expectation is neither silly nor unrealistic.</p>

<p>In the future, try not to turn a simple conversation about a camera's capabilities into a forum for your overinflated disgust for the consumer.</p>

<p>The only ting I see in your second shot is JPEG compression artifacts Try taking one raw photo and when you convert it to jpeg use very little compression for one photo and then for the second use a lot of compression. Compare them. </p>

<p>JPEG compression works by taking a block of pixels and then averaging them all together into one color. Low compression many small blocks. High compression you have fewer larger blocks. JPE compression is typically more noticeable in areas of uniform color. </p>

<p>The subject of this thread came to mind as I found the photos I was taking of seagulls taking bread out of my wife's fingers taken from inside the car, driver's seat. Really not quite what the OP is talking about but as I used the curves tool to correct the problem I thought of people who do not practice their editing as much as their camerawork. Do not treat the two tools as complimentary.<br>

As the first answer to the OP suggested I think, pixel peepers do make a rod to beat their backs, the pain from which most of us are spared. <br>

If we the consumers didn't encourage the makers in thier apparently endless pursuit and production of more and more, the world would be a better place if like with film, digital cameras were expected to last years instead of months. If consumers concentrated on creative use rather than 'what's next'</p>

<p>Photographic color is an illusion created in the brain. Fed by micro neuron signals originating in the retinal rods and cones. I look at a paint chip and say " Blue, nah, too violet for me." My wife might say as positively, " Needs more red." Then we get into the sensor array and the processing and the settings on the camera. Not to begin to mention what might pop up with the imaging software and the screen ( my MAC has a different 'feel' than the NEC on the PC). So if someone sees a problem, we can identify why sure you see a problem, let's zero in and we may try, not to disparage the perception or glorify it necessarily.( A streak on high ISO is a confrimed streak, because it is replicated by many or lots...so maybe that is all PP is asking, do others notice this perception, and how many do). <em></em><br /> <em></em><br>

<em>But rarely do solve or even remedy perception on line even by a vote of the majority.</em> Nor dismiss it as a Perception!<br /> 'Chunky, too blocked up, muddy, soupy, hazy, not enough DR, even uncreamly bokeh' or soft in the corners or indifferently sclerotic ..., you make up a list..well,the answer is that we have no scientific way to proceed. Unless we choose to. We can shoot the same image with two different sensors on similar cameras. And this will lead us mentally, since a choice is proferred thus mandated in our photo universe, to "prefer" one over the other, see what I am getting at?<br /> I might look at the diffraction of white components in atmosphere as a blue sky and say " Hey man, that is a super Kodachrome-like sky. And a later generation would say, phah, that looks like pallid UK Technicolor. Dissatisfaction is a common and not undignified far the opposite discussion theme.<br /> Leads to endless friendly -hah- chats over either" I love the 'great JPEG colors straight out of the Oly." Or, " Too grainy, looks like sticky home made borscht." With Apologies to Boris of the Borscht Belt. Aloha gs</p>