Image Quality

[crum]

Hope this is in the correct section. Just wondering if I should be expecting to see better image quality straight from the camera than this. Image hasn't been edited at all and was taken with a 7D and canon 10-22mm lens. I know the white balance setting is incorrect


Shot in AV mode
ISO200
f/3.5
1/200sec
10mm

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5350946211_3ca81e9e53_b.jpg

[triptych]

What do you mean by image quality? Can you be a bit more specific?

You might get better quality lowering the ISO to 100....

Someone might be able to give you a better answer.

[Big Pix]

....... need your processing info..... shooting at 3.5 has not done you any good deeds..... your highlights are a little over exposed. Is it a jpeg or RAW image.......

Using a RAW converter as in Photoshop, that works on Jpeg and Raw files, your image can be improved a lot........ some unsharp mask would also help a lot but this should only be applied when you have finished any other processing.......

All digital images do need some or a lot of processing to get the best results for your needs.......

[crum]

I'm proabably referring more to sharpness as I feel a lot of my images seem to be a little soft straight from the camera. f/3.5 was proabably a little low now I think about it. The focus point would have been directly on the climber. Should I expect anything sharper than that without any processing? The image is shot as a jpeg.

The main reason I've asked the question is I know a nice sharp image is far easier to perform PP on and was wondering whether this is the best I'll get with out any processing

[Big Pix]

maybe the best @ 3.5, allowing for camera movement, lack of DOF, over exposure, and no processing......

is your camera set to sRGB or Adobe RGB 1998.......

you need to have your camera set up to get better results......

[crum]

Camera is currently set to sRGB. Which should I be using?

[Art Vandelay]

The image isn't too bad, it just needs a little more 'punch'. via contrast & saturation
If your shooting jpeg this is done via the picture styles in camera, or in DPP afterwards. If the standard styles aren't enough you can tweak them further. It's worth mucking around with these if you stick with jpegs.

What 'style' is it on ?

This was done in lightroom, but only a tone curve adjustment, a small slide of saturation, and a small slide of sharpness. Pretty well what 'landscape' mode will do in camera or DPP.
(also cropped off the tree and other climbers leg, it seemed distracting, and didn't add anything to the whole image)

From my laptop, wont be spot on, will need some more tweaking, but you get the idea. - Will also come up better on the origianl image.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b229/Barry_Mundi/5350946211_3ca81e9e53_b-2.jpg

[Big Pix]

Camera is currently set to sRGB. Which should I be using?

both work......

for a larger colour space for better results Adobe RGB 1998

[GeoffG]

When shooting in the raw format the in camera colour space is irrelevant. You set the colour space in your raw converter.

I'd also add that digital capture is inherently soft and all images need differing degrees of sharpening depending on subject and output medium.

Your out of camera image looks OK to me.

[LJG]

You also need to look into your menu for the settings. I am assuming you use the standard picture style settings the camera came with (i.e. standard, portrait, landscape, neutral etc.) I use the custom settings functions in my 50D (which is also available on your 7D) so they come out of the camera sharper and with better colour rendition. Just drill down into the menu and use the sliders to increase sharpness, contrast etc. Also play with your W/B, things light switching to cloudy will give a more warmer shot than say daylight.

[stephendean]

Some great info here. I am going to try some adjustments on my camera based on what I have just read.
Thanks

[arthurking83]

..... You set the colour space in your raw converter.

......

And to add further to this:

Even with that knowledge, aRGB is wasted if you aren't printing in a super high quality format. If you just take your images to local 10min photo kiosk at the closest shopping centre(I refuse to call them "Malls"), sRGB is perfectly fine.
Wider gamut colour spaces, even in processing are generally wasted, unless you use them effectively. Changing your camera's settings to aRGB may instill a sense of false security and even confusion, as it has done to many new to photography... more specifically digital photography.
The web works on the basis of sRGB in images, and even though aRGB is now more accepted in the web browser world, it's still not 100% accepted by some browsers(I think IE7??). It's just so much easier to stick to the sRGB standard, and then convert specific images to aRGB when(if) the need arises.

if the bulk of your images are for web display, or quick print, changing to a wider gamut colour space is not really going to help.
if you require a higher quality file for printing at a high quality photo printing service, they may ask you to provide a tiff file in the adobeRGB colour space.

in your original post(OP) you ask this question:

.... Just wondering if I should be expecting to see better image quality straight from the camera than this....

it begs the question, relative to what(or who). Quality in images comes from both higher quality gear, and experience(knowledge/understanding/etc).
having a bigger camera doesn't instantly mean you get 'better quality'. it does help to achieve a goal of better quality, but you need to understand how this is achieved in the first place. For that, you need to ask yourself in what way you want this better quality to exist!(ie. exposure/composition/subject matter/etc).

I know(and read) that you wanted better sharpness, but from which part of the image did you want to see "better sharpness"? the climber's shoes? The climber's rear.. umm.. pockets? :D .. detail in the rock face? :confused013
DSLR's are not really harder to work/operate than P&S cameras, but there is one caveat, and that is Depth Of Field(or Focus). Due to the larger sensor format, you need to fully understrand how it works. With P&S cameras(their smaller sensors) Depth of Field(DOF) was never a problem unless you wanted less(shallower). Their format inherently produces deeper focus.

The NTP section NTP resources (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Indexes:New_To_Photography_Book) explains a lot about what your camera is doing, and why it's important to understand how it really works.