Thought I'd add a link to this thread about "Smart sharpening":

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/smart_sharp.shtml
(a variation for Photoshop Elements: http://www.retouchpro.com/tutorials/index.php?m=show&id=69)

Fantastic!!!

I also found a variation of my previous technique that produces "punchy" sharp images (works well on tigers ):
* Copy background layer twice
* Top layer - USM 300%/0.7, layer mode = Soft Light, Opacity somewhere around 20-30%
* Middle layer - USM 150%/3, layer mode = Darken, Opacity somewhere around 40%

The soft light has the effect of increasing saturation and contrast. Now I must go and learn the layer modes properly

Similar effect: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/high-pass-sharpening.shtml

Have fun!
Matt

John,

I always enjoy a challenge Thanks for your suggestion - just trying out the methods made me sit up and think.

Also, I took a good long look at Russell Brown's site. He has some superb tricks for PS. Even the sharpening one "Advanced Sharpening" is brilliant. Watch the video, but it works like this:
1. Copy the layer
2. USM quite hard (a little more than you would normally)
3. Copy the USM'd layer
4. Make one USM layer mode "Lighten"
5. Make the other USM layer mode "Darken"
6. Now adjust the opacity of each of the two USM layers to get the effect you want.

It's fantastic for skin and hair - you can regulate how much the sharpening makes hightlights and how much it makes shadows. Then you can combine the approach with a layer mask to paint in the sharpening over specific areas. Cool

(There's also a really neat trick for making B&W using two Hue and Saturation layers - go and watch it )

I have also been looking at FixerLab's Focus Fixer - it did a pretty neat job of a genuinely out of focus image I had. However, it can be used as a 'general' sharpener too.

I have also read, and often found in practise, that two USM stages can work well - a larger radius, lower percentage, then a small radius higher percentage.

Wow! Just sooooo many tools available and so little time to play

Keep smiling
Matt

John,

That's an interesting thought... I tried the three methods with a shot I took yesterday of my new born nephew. I sharpened the image quite strongly (100%/2.1/0), and cut the same selection out of each method to view. The selection was an area of baby face with the soft fine facial fair, gently lit from the side. Consequently there's quite a bit of contrast already in the hair.

My results showed that Lab was the most natural. The other two methods sharpened the noise too (ISO400, *istD). The Lab method effectively sharpened the contrast in the hairs, making them more visible.

Then I tried a shot of some Lego - nice hard angles and even colours. In that case I would say that straight RGB sharpening looked best, followed by High Pass, then Lab.

I would say, then, that the subject dictates which sharpening method to use . Personally, I tend to make a duplicate layer and RGB USM. That way I can change the opacity of the sharpening layer, or even create a layer mask to selectively paint in sharpening (great for portraits where you just sharpen the eye, nose, mouth details). This wasn't my idea, but one from Russell Brown - www.russellbrown.com (Look for Painting with Sharpen - works in Photoshop Elements too )

I'd be interested to hear others' views too

Matt

Shawn,

Thanks for the PS action. However, I feel that it is not quite automated enough. I generally use the healing brush tool in PS-CS which does a great job (I seem to have 3 hot pixels at ISO 1600).

I did find a fully automated tool, though. The author is pretty reputable, also producing the PTAssembler tool for stitching panoramas together using Panorama Tools. Here's the reference for the thread:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/ftopic448.html

Happy zapping
Thanks!
Matt

Nice one Shawn

Yes, Photoshop rules
(Especially the new Photoshop CS - it's blown me away along with the whole Creative Suite!)

Could you post the link, or email it?

Thanks,
Matt

Shawn,

Sounds like the Pentax guys gave you a hard time.
However, all in all, it's not really Pentax that's at fault (just the fact they didn't recognise the problem). Any manufacturer of digital camera will have the same problems - and the response from each company will certainly vary

Hot/bad pixels are a fact of life - the sensor is a grown crystal of silicon onto which the electronics are etched (like any semiconductor). It is similar with memory cards and flash memory technology - they [a]all[/b] have dud memory cells, it's just that the software maps them out without you knowing about them

If you were to purchase a digital back for medium format or large format, there will be a ton of hot pixels. They need to use cooling to keep the physical temperature down, and therefore reduce the problems of electronic noise Just as well we don't need to resort to that in compact digitals!

As I mentioned in previous posts, there are several post-shoot solutions to hot pixel removal. Maybe Pentax need to address the issue in the camera firmware a little better - like optionally detecting the hot pixels and mapping them out before JPG encoding.

Personally, I have found Pentax's response to issues and suggestions regarding the *ist-D very positive indeed. As their user base is more intimate, it seems you have more chance of getting heard

Matt

Malcolm,

I'll try and add some insight into the behaviour you describe... CCDs in digicams are not what you might expect. Each 'site' in the CCD measures only light level, so a filter is placed over the CCD. Typically the filter is configured as a 2x2 square with RGBG - Red, Green, Blue, Green. Two sites measure green (because the human eye is most sensitive to green), while two other sites measure red and blue. There are variations on the theme (Nikon generally use CYMK style separations, while the Sigma SD9 uses the Foveon chip that has red, green, and blue as layers in silicon so that each site does all three colours.)

When the data is processed, they fill in the missing colours using complex algorithms (ie the Red site had no green or blue - these colour components are interpolated, etc). This is why moire is sometimes a big problem.

I guess what you are seeing is a frisky site that is excessively noisy and outputting a larger signal for the light. Hence, when the surrounding sites represent 50%, say the red site is reporting 90% - and produces a red-ish pixel. (Similar things happen when the site affected is blue or green.)

There's nice explanation with graphics on DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_01.htm

Hope that clears things (Including the "blooming" pixels )
Matt

Malcolm,

Glad that Park have come up trumps. They've always seemed a perfectly reasonable company to deal with

Sorry I misunderstood your troubles - yes digital is a fast moving technology, and I doubt anything will become a "classic" in the ways the old LXs and the like did (even my Z1 is still a dream to use). What I can say about digital is that it's great for improving composition skills. I have taken over 4500 images on a Canon S30 in 18 months, and already the *istD has done nearly 600 frames. Of some of the good *istD shots I have, I took maybe 10 duds. There's nothing like that for just trying things out (wonder if this lighting will work... nope... try again). I feel I have learned more in my digital times than all the years I took film - mainly because I couldn't accurately remember the situations and learn from them. Even after the S30 I approached 35mm film in a different way, with different "eyes" you could say.
Lurach, I didn't mean "first generation", I meant first production run. Pentax have some really nice digital cameras now (like the Optio 550 etc). In any production run you learn the little slip ups, improve, and the subsequent batches should yield fewer duds. The *istD behaves impeccably, and from what I've read on the 'net has a larger and clearer view finder than any other DSLR. That can't be bad
Also, Lurach, the 500 and 360 do not share the same feature set with the *istD. Only the 360 does P-TTL flash and high speed wireless flash. However, the 500 has a higher power and can do multiple flash - if that's your thing (the 360 is a newer flash).

Well, hope you all manage to resolve your issues and get some really great images
Matt

Malcolm,

Just to allay your fears (a little at least), sensor problems run across the board, irrespective of make. The CCDs are cutting-edge technology and sometimes they do go wrong It's not Pentax, per se. You could just as easily have had the same experience with any of the high end DSLRs.

The image sensor is made by Sony (same as in the Nikon D100). Working in the electronics industry I know that chips sometimes just go AWOL on their own - even after they've been built, tested, and dispatched. Additionally, I know that first production runs can be "interesting" to say the least. It's one the risks of buying absolutely brand new kit.

That said, I would telephone Park Cameras if I were you and arrange a replacement. I bought mine from there, and all has been well so far (except for dust on the sensor which produced unsightly blobs - easily blown off in the "clean sensor" mode).

You might be right about Pentax UK, though there's no harm ringing them

Matt

Malcolm,

Looking at your JPG again, it's peculiar. Have you tried overlaying the TIFF on top of the JPG to confirm they are exactly the same pixels? I would also say to try turning the camera 180 degrees and taking another shot - I wonder if it's because those pixels are in deep shadow?

Also, what happens if you manually set the same exposure but put the lens cap on? Same pixels or nothing?

There's something not right, but it doesn't seem clear-cut

Matt