Day 2 High demands

I have never successfully used the High res mode in the Pen F. When I have tried it, the timing was poor and my preparation non existent.

Turns out I have set the C2 mode on the camera to High Def with all the trimmings, probably out of disappointment with previous results, then promptly forgot about it.

Not a replacement for a higher res camera due to the short time it needs to create the file, the mode does have some benefits and in many ways makes me work much the same way I did with slow speed film on a “full frame” camera. Because the sensor’s native resolution is 20mp, it seems the demands put on lens is lower, the sensor apparently runs a little less noisily and moire is also less of an issue (all based on my pretty flawed memory of past review glancings).

I am going to use the 50mp JPEG version, because using the RAW requires another step that I am not going to bother with, but the JPEG’s out of the Pen have impressed enough, to make them a real option.

 The first base image. There was the slightest breeze this morning, so some sets were ruined and a couple of times I just had to walk away.

The first base image. There was the slightest breeze this morning, so some sets were ruined and a couple of times I just had to walk away.

 The perfectly respectable and realistically more than enough cropped resolution from a RAW file with basic processing (upload pre-set)

The perfectly respectable and realistically more than enough cropped resolution from a RAW file with basic processing (upload pre-set)

 The High Res version. This is a JPEG, so the colour is a little more aggressive, but no added processing was used. The mode limits aperture selection and the electronic shutter also limits ISO choice, but (I assume) all in camera JPEG fixes are applied, although my Pen predates the 12-100 and I have not done the update.

The High Res version. This is a JPEG, so the colour is a little more aggressive, but no added processing was used. The mode limits aperture selection and the electronic shutter also limits ISO choice, but (I assume) all in camera JPEG fixes are applied, although my Pen predates the 12-100 and I have not done the update.

 Here is the RAW file with a little brush work for extra detail and added saturation to mimic the JPEG settings. Apart from slight colour variance, is there any real benefit to the the higher res when printing is the end product?

Here is the RAW file with a little brush work for extra detail and added saturation to mimic the JPEG settings. Apart from slight colour variance, is there any real benefit to the the higher res when printing is the end product?

 Base image 2. I though this one shifted during exposure, but it looks like it was fine, although I missed focus a bit (my usual process is to use magnified MF, but on C1 or non high res, tripod mode, I did not have that on and it shifted so I used touch focus instead.

Base image 2. I though this one shifted during exposure, but it looks like it was fine, although I missed focus a bit (my usual process is to use magnified MF, but on C1 or non high res, tripod mode, I did not have that on and it shifted so I used touch focus instead.

Write here…

 The crop from the RAW base file. The visual impression of sharpness if high.

The crop from the RAW base file. The visual impression of sharpness if high.

 And the HR JPEG. This one prompts the viewer to “look inside”, if that is possible (depending on visual media and access). Even though the image above is sharp enough, there is a feeling of more (colour, contrast, detail, brilliance, clarity?) in this file.

And the HR JPEG. This one prompts the viewer to “look inside”, if that is possible (depending on visual media and access). Even though the image above is sharp enough, there is a feeling of more (colour, contrast, detail, brilliance, clarity?) in this file.

And even closer in on the best focus point of the HR image (385x596 pixels)

 A closer crop of the focus point of the low (!?) res image (378x489 pixels). The smooth rendering of the RAW file makes up some of the ground between the two.

A closer crop of the focus point of the low (!?) res image (378x489 pixels). The smooth rendering of the RAW file makes up some of the ground between the two.

Interesting. The initial impression of a real gain in quality, looks to be diminished when comparing the JPEG to RAW files.

 Final one. This is a subject close to my heart as I have often found Birches a “soft” looking tree in previous images.

Final one. This is a subject close to my heart as I have often found Birches a “soft” looking tree in previous images.

 The RAW crop. Natural looking, detailed and sharp. This image had nothing done to it except basic import settings.

The RAW crop. Natural looking, detailed and sharp. This image had nothing done to it except basic import settings.

 A little brush work applied to above for added “pop” (+10-15 clarity, contrast and sharpening). This is really only necessary at this scale. The bigger “print” size would be treated differently as these minor localised changes would be mostly invisible.

A little brush work applied to above for added “pop” (+10-15 clarity, contrast and sharpening). This is really only necessary at this scale. The bigger “print” size would be treated differently as these minor localised changes would be mostly invisible.

 The HR image suffers from some JPEG harshness, but holds more contrast and detail, although it did require some exposure and highlight recovery work. The HR images looked lighter on the screen and exposed lighter as well.   Bit torn here. There is nothing wrong with either, so I suppose it comes down to need. Scientific levels of information retention or a more artistic and pleasing experience.

The HR image suffers from some JPEG harshness, but holds more contrast and detail, although it did require some exposure and highlight recovery work. The HR images looked lighter on the screen and exposed lighter as well.

Bit torn here. There is nothing wrong with either, so I suppose it comes down to need. Scientific levels of information retention or a more artistic and pleasing experience.

Will I use it?

Probably not. I am more than happy with the electronic shutter-20mp-RAW-new lens combo for my high end landscapes and the tripod used looks to be enough. My style will be mono or colour semi-abstracts and urban landscape, not so much super high res traditional landscapes that require such close examination. Gentle manipulation of the RAW files is not the same look as the added resolution, but the JPEG files are not as smooth as the RAW ones, which I prefer.

I could use the RAW option, but the though of an added step, massive files and processing time is not appealing.

Non HR modes also allow me to realistically use more useful things like HDR/Bracketing and stitching.