Another D750 experiment

Last night after returning down the drive (after putting the rubbish
out at the gate for collection the following morning) I was inspired
by the crisp clear lighting and the way everything glistened after the
raain to take a number of experimental shots.

It was pitch dark but the house was illuminated by a number of both
point sources and diffuse sources. A good opportunity for trial of low
light shooting and wide dynamic range.

So out comes the D750 with the ISO set to 5000. All the following
shots were hand held. They have all been processed in Lightroom.
Highlights have been severely turned down. Shadows have been turned
up. In most cases exposure hasn't been touched. All shots have been
considerably sharpened with fairly heavy application of the mask.

No noise reduction has been applied.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501561.jpg the
original shot.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...501562%2B1.jpg as
per the original but with 1 stop over exposure.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...501563%2B1.jpg again
with 1 stop over exposure.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501564-1.jpg with 1
stop _under_ exposure. A slight increase of exposure in LR was
required.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501565-1.jpg also
with 1 stop under exposure. Again, a slight increase of exposure in LR
was required.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501566-2.jpg with 2
stops under exposure. A significant increase of exposure in LR was
required.

Exposures ranged from 1/3 sec to 1/25 sec and I was impressed by the
apparent lack of camera shake.

There were two theories in vogue for dealing with the lighting. The
first was 'over-expose in order to bring out the shadow detail'. The
second was 'under-expose to help tone down the intensity of the
lights'. In my opinion the 1-stop under exposed images have come out
best.

One thing that impressed me is that short of pixel peeping (or peering
closely at the image), there is virtually no evidence of noise.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-08 21:58:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Last night after returning down the drive (after putting the rubbish
out at the gate for collection the following morning) I was inspired
by the crisp clear lighting and the way everything glistened after the
raain to take a number of experimental shots.

It was pitch dark but the house was illuminated by a number of both
point sources and diffuse sources. A good opportunity for trial of low
light shooting and wide dynamic range.

So out comes the D750 with the ISO set to 5000. All the following
shots were hand held. They have all been processed in Lightroom.
Highlights have been severely turned down.

In some the highlights still look too bright, to the point of the
clipping threshold and in some cases blown.

Shadows have been turned up.

You might try an upward tweak of clarity before opening up the shadows.
You might find that you dont need as much sharpening.

In most cases exposure hasn't been touched. All shots have been
considerably sharpened with fairly heavy application of the mask.

Here I would look at sharpening at 100%-110% with a 1.3-1.5 radius.
Then mask appropriately.

No noise reduction has been applied.

On a scene like this if you have sharpened, even with the mask at
90%-95% you should consider applying some NR.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501561.jpg the
original shot.

That appears to be pretty well balanced. Stars are decernable from
slight grainy noise. Highlights could be tweaked down a tad.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...501562%2B1.jpg as
per the original but with 1 stop over exposure.

Highlights are almost clipped. Some slight grainy noise in the sky.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...501563%2B1.jpg again
with 1 stop over exposure.

Highlights are blown. It looks like you metered on a different spot to
the previous shot. Some noise in the sky, could be mistaken for grain,
and should be fixable.
The foreground greenery is nicely exposed. Black point seems about right.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501564-1.jpg with 1
stop _under_ exposure. A slight increase of exposure in LR was
required.

Some noise easily visible in the sky, LR NR should work to clean that up.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501565-1.jpg also
with 1 stop under exposure. Again, a slight increase of exposure in LR
was required.

Still a fair amount of easily visible noise in the sky, Luminosity NR
in LR should be able to deal with that. The interior highlights seem to
be clipped.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501566-2.jpg with 2
stops under exposure. A significant increase of exposure in LR was
required.

There is some noise in this shot (that is without pixel peeping) and
the Black point seems to be slightly off.

Exposures ranged from 1/3 sec to 1/25 sec and I was impressed by the
apparent lack of camera shake.

There were two theories in vogue for dealing with the lighting. The
first was 'over-expose in order to bring out the shadow detail'. The
second was 'under-expose to help tone down the intensity of the
lights'. In my opinion the 1-stop under exposed images have come out
best.

One thing that impressed me is that short of pixel peeping (or peering
closely at the image), there is virtually no evidence of noise.

To me, even without pixel peeping there was noise present.
I could be wrong, but I also have the feeling that you didn't set, or
adjust black or white points.

Otherwise it looks like a pretty good experiment.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:08:50 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-08 21:58:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Last night after returning down the drive (after putting the rubbish
out at the gate for collection the following morning) I was inspired
by the crisp clear lighting and the way everything glistened after the
raain to take a number of experimental shots.

It was pitch dark but the house was illuminated by a number of both
point sources and diffuse sources. A good opportunity for trial of low
light shooting and wide dynamic range.

So out comes the D750 with the ISO set to 5000. All the following
shots were hand held. They have all been processed in Lightroom.
Highlights have been severely turned down.

In some the highlights still look too bright, to the point of the
clipping threshold and in some cases blown.

You would expect that, looking directly at a light bulb at ISO 5000.

Shadows have been turned up.

You might try an upward tweak of clarity before opening up the shadows.
You might find that you dont need as much sharpening.

In most cases exposure hasn't been touched. All shots have been
considerably sharpened with fairly heavy application of the mask.

Here I would look at sharpening at 100%-110% with a 1.3-1.5 radius.
Then mask appropriately.

No noise reduction has been applied.

On a scene like this if you have sharpened, even with the mask at
90%-95% you should consider applying some NR.

The lack of noise reduction was deliberate. I wanted to see just how
noisy the camera would be.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501561.jpg the
original shot.

That appears to be pretty well balanced. Stars are decernable from
slight grainy noise. Highlights could be tweaked down a tad.

They are already at -74

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...501562%2B1.jpg as
per the original but with 1 stop over exposure.

Highlights are almost clipped. Some slight grainy noise in the sky.

You are peering! But, yes.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...501563%2B1.jpg again
with 1 stop over exposure.

Highlights are blown. It looks like you metered on a different spot to
the previous shot.

There was no chnge to the metering and I did my best to keep the
camera aimed to take the same shot every time.

Some noise in the sky, could be mistaken for grain,
and should be fixable.
The foreground greenery is nicely exposed. Black point seems about right.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501564-1.jpg with 1
stop _under_ exposure. A slight increase of exposure in LR was
required.

Some noise easily visible in the sky, LR NR should work to clean that up.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501565-1.jpg also
with 1 stop under exposure. Again, a slight increase of exposure in LR
was required.

Still a fair amount of easily visible noise in the sky, Luminosity NR
in LR should be able to deal with that. The interior highlights seem to
be clipped.

I must admit I didn't check the sky for noise. Most of mmyy attention
was directed to the garage door. I'm not quite sure whyy I picked
that.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501566-2.jpg with 2
stops under exposure. A significant increase of exposure in LR was
required.

There is some noise in this shot (that is without pixel peeping) and
the Black point seems to be slightly off.

Exposures ranged from 1/3 sec to 1/25 sec and I was impressed by the
apparent lack of camera shake.

There were two theories in vogue for dealing with the lighting. The
first was 'over-expose in order to bring out the shadow detail'. The
second was 'under-expose to help tone down the intensity of the
lights'. In my opinion the 1-stop under exposed images have come out
best.

One thing that impressed me is that short of pixel peeping (or peering
closely at the image), there is virtually no evidence of noise.

To me, even without pixel peeping there was noise present.
I could be wrong, but I also have the feeling that you didn't set, or
adjust black or white points.

Quite right. I completely missed the noise in the sky. I didn't worry
about the the black or white points. I was most interessted in seeing
what thhe camera did.

Otherwise it looks like a pretty good experiment.

I thought the dynamic range of the scene made considerable demands on
the camera. That was really the point of the test.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:08:50 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Shadows have been turned up.

You might try an upward tweak of clarity before opening up the shadows.
You might find that you dont need as much sharpening.

I forgot to both mention and respond to this point. I nearly always
use a large dollop of clarity, a lesser but still large pinch of
vibrance and no more than 10 of saturation before I apply sharpening.

I also use alt-mask to try and sharpen only thos major parts of the
image's structure which I feel will do the image the most good when
sharpened.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Judging by the lone "star" in the sky, the WB was set at or near incandescent?
I liked the original shot.

The white balance was set by the camera at 2950K.

Thank you. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The more I use this
camera, the more I am impressed with it's own judgement.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/9/2015 1:01 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Judging by the lone "star" in the sky, the WB was set at or near incandescent?
I liked the original shot.

The white balance was set by the camera at 2950K.

Thank you. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The more I use this
camera, the more I am impressed with it's own judgement.


Please stop posting images taken wiht the D750. I had not really planned
to purchase one. VBG


--
PeterN

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:48:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/9/2015 1:01 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Judging by the lone "star" in the sky, the WB was set at or near incandescent?
I liked the original shot.

The white balance was set by the camera at 2950K.

Thank you. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The more I use this
camera, the more I am impressed with it's own judgement.


Please stop posting images taken wiht the D750. I had not really planned
to purchase one. VBG

How about https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/LR---2.jpg
taken with a Sony F707 in 2004?

Yep: I know it's oversharpened, but that was before I knew not to try
and do all the sharpening in the Develop section of LR.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-09 22:41:04 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:48:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/9/2015 1:01 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Judging by the lone "star" in the sky, the WB was set at or near incandescent?
I liked the original shot.

The white balance was set by the camera at 2950K.

Thank you. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The more I use this
camera, the more I am impressed with it's own judgement.


Please stop posting images taken wiht the D750. I had not really planned
to purchase one. VBG

How about https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/LR---2.jpg
taken with a Sony F707 in 2004?

Yep: I know it's oversharpened, but that was before I knew not to try
and do all the sharpening in the Develop section of LR.

That looks more like a heavy hand with NR rather than oversharpening.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:07:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-09 22:41:04 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:48:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/9/2015 1:01 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Judging by the lone "star" in the sky, the WB was set at or near incandescent?
I liked the original shot.

The white balance was set by the camera at 2950K.

Thank you. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The more I use this
camera, the more I am impressed with it's own judgement.


Please stop posting images taken wiht the D750. I had not really planned
to purchase one. VBG

How about https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/LR---2.jpg
taken with a Sony F707 in 2004?

Yep: I know it's oversharpened, but that was before I knew not to try
and do all the sharpening in the Develop section of LR.

That looks more like a heavy hand with NR rather than oversharpening.

37 on luminance and 35 on color.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-10 01:23:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:07:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-07-09 22:41:04 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:48:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
On 7/9/2015 1:01 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Judging by the lone "star" in the sky, the WB was set at or near incandescent?
I liked the original shot.

The white balance was set by the camera at 2950K.

Thank you. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The more I use this
camera, the more I am impressed with it's own judgement.

Please stop posting images taken wiht the D750. I had not really planned
to purchase one. VBG

How about https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/LR---2.jpg
taken with a Sony F707 in 2004?

Yep: I know it's oversharpened, but that was before I knew not to try
and do all the sharpening in the Develop section of LR.

That looks more like a heavy hand with NR rather than oversharpening.

37 on luminance and 35 on color.

Was that an original unmolested RAW, or was that a JPEG capture with
in-camera NR and sharpening prior to import into LR?


--
Regards,

Savageduck