If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 2013-05-23 10:28:14 -0700, PeterN said:
Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF Thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 24/05/2013 5:28 a.m., PeterN wrote:
Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF What mottled sky? Do you mean the dust spots - exacerbated by shooting at f16? Or perhaps the noise, exacerbated by shooting at ISO 1600 with ADL set to "normal" (the raw image will be under-exposed by the camera slightly to preserve highlights, then raised in PP - automatically when using Nikon raw converter software, so effective ISO with the tone curve applied will be higher than ISO 1600 - especially in shadows). Why use F16 when F8 would have been okay? Why use 1/4,000 second when 1/1,000 would have been fine. (F8 and 1/1,000, then ISO could have been 200). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 5/23/2013 4:47 PM, Me wrote:
On 24/05/2013 5:28 a.m., PeterN wrote: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF What mottled sky? Do you mean the dust spots - exacerbated by shooting at f16? Or perhaps the noise, exacerbated by shooting at ISO 1600 with ADL set to "normal" (the raw image will be under-exposed by the camera slightly to preserve highlights, then raised in PP - automatically when using Nikon raw converter software, so effective ISO with the tone curve applied will be higher than ISO 1600 - especially in shadows). Why use F16 when F8 would have been okay? Why use 1/4,000 second when 1/1,000 would have been fine. (F8 and 1/1,000, then ISO could have been 200). After reading your post I looked, and there is no dust on the sensor. f8 wold have cut down the depth of field needed for shots like this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/feeding%20junior.jpg I exposure ocmpensaton was =.7. I don't think the camera would have made a further adjustment in RAW. I did the RAW conversion using ACR. Anyway her is a version where I desaturated slightly. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20catcher.jpg -- PeterN |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 2013-05-23 12:02:03 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2013-05-23 10:28:14 -0700, PeterN said: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF Thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. OK! Here is what I have to report. First I suspect the problem lies with the unnecessary use of ISO 1600 and 1/4000 shutter speed. The sky noise is excessive and could have easily been avoided by dialing down to ISO 400 or 200, A shutter speed of 1/500 @ f/8 would have been more than adequate to capture a gliding Oystercatcher. On to the PP work, I attacked this several ways and in doing so I believe I found the source of the mottled sky: The first time around, after processing the NEF in ACR, I opened in CS6, applied NIK Dfine 2.0 NR standard profile, only to find there was still considerable noise in the sky. So, I went to Dfine again and this time selectively applied their "Sky NR" using a brush. The immediate result was the appearance of the same off color mottling as in your original posting. So I moved to method #2. Here I went at things a bit differently. I repeated the NEF/RAW process in ACR, but this time I opened it as a "Smart Object". I made my crop, that meant the crop could be made without imparting and crop artifacts. Then I applied the Dfine NR standard profile. I didn't bother with the "Sky NR". Now I made some brightness/contrast adjustments, and just for the hell of it, I duplicated the layer and against normal workflow practice ran the NIK Dfine standard NR profile again. Merged the layers to get this result with no mottled sky. So I suspect the mottling was due to excessive NR in the sky and possibly exacerbated by the aggressive crop. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...0_3326E-2w.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 2013-05-23 13:47:43 -0700, Me said:
On 24/05/2013 5:28 a.m., PeterN wrote: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF What mottled sky? The mottled sky, was the obvious discoloration in Peter's original post of the image in the thread "My afternoon". https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20catcher%20with%20fish%20flying.jpg Do you mean the dust spots - exacerbated by shooting at f16? Or perhaps the noise, exacerbated by shooting at ISO 1600 with ADL set to "normal" (the raw image will be under-exposed by the camera slightly to preserve highlights, then raised in PP - automatically when using Nikon raw converter software, so effective ISO with the tone curve applied will be higher than ISO 1600 - especially in shadows). Why use F16 when F8 would have been okay? Why use 1/4,000 second when 1/1,000 would have been fine. (F8 and 1/1,000, then ISO could have been 200). I tend to agree with you regarding all you have stated about Peter's exposure choices. However, he feels strongly, and is insistent about using high ISO under all circumstances. His is the head behind the camera, and as much as the two of us disagree with him, those were his choices, and the noisy results tell the story. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:28:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF Interesting, the sky is mottlled at tthe pixel level. What are we seeing? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 5/23/2013 6:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-23 12:02:03 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2013-05-23 10:28:14 -0700, PeterN said: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF Thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. OK! Here is what I have to report. First I suspect the problem lies with the unnecessary use of ISO 1600 and 1/4000 shutter speed. The sky noise is excessive and could have easily been avoided by dialing down to ISO 400 or 200, A shutter speed of 1/500 @ f/8 would have been more than adequate to capture a gliding Oystercatcher. On to the PP work, I attacked this several ways and in doing so I believe I found the source of the mottled sky: The first time around, after processing the NEF in ACR, I opened in CS6, applied NIK Dfine 2.0 NR standard profile, only to find there was still considerable noise in the sky. So, I went to Dfine again and this time selectively applied their "Sky NR" using a brush. The immediate result was the appearance of the same off color mottling as in your original posting. So I moved to method #2. Here I went at things a bit differently. I repeated the NEF/RAW process in ACR, but this time I opened it as a "Smart Object". I made my crop, that meant the crop could be made without imparting and crop artifacts. Then I applied the Dfine NR standard profile. I didn't bother with the "Sky NR". Now I made some brightness/contrast adjustments, and just for the hell of it, I duplicated the layer and against normal workflow practice ran the NIK Dfine standard NR profile again. Merged the layers to get this result with no mottled sky. So I suspect the mottling was due to excessive NR in the sky and possibly exacerbated by the aggressive crop. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...0_3326E-2w.jpg Strange, I did the crop in ACR. Di I see a tad of sharpening? There is a halo around it's head. -- PeterN |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 24/05/2013 10:13 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-23 13:47:43 -0700, Me said: On 24/05/2013 5:28 a.m., PeterN wrote: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF What mottled sky? The mottled sky, was the obvious discoloration in Peter's original post of the image in the thread "My afternoon". https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20catcher%20with%20fish%20flying.jpg Yep - that's the same noise exacerbated by being chopped into larger blocks by heavy jpeg compression. Do you mean the dust spots - exacerbated by shooting at f16? Or perhaps the noise, exacerbated by shooting at ISO 1600 with ADL set to "normal" (the raw image will be under-exposed by the camera slightly to preserve highlights, then raised in PP - automatically when using Nikon raw converter software, so effective ISO with the tone curve applied will be higher than ISO 1600 - especially in shadows). Why use F16 when F8 would have been okay? Why use 1/4,000 second when 1/1,000 would have been fine. (F8 and 1/1,000, then ISO could have been 200). I tend to agree with you regarding all you have stated about Peter's exposure choices. However, he feels strongly, and is insistent about using high ISO under all circumstances. His is the head behind the camera, and as much as the two of us disagree with him, those were his choices, and the noisy results tell the story. Too bad, as it isn't working. Usable dynamic range (as S/N ratio) reduces not just as ISO is increased, but as the image is cropped (assuming a standard viewing size). So the effect of such heavy cropping is inevitable - it looks like it was shot at ISO 25,600 - not ISO 1600. Of course to reduce cropping massively when you're already using 400mm lens isn't inexpensive or without other problems. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 5/23/2013 6:13 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-23 13:47:43 -0700, Me said: On 24/05/2013 5:28 a.m., PeterN wrote: Here is a link to one of the RAW files in the series with th motteled sky. All are free fo comment. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326.NEF What mottled sky? The mottled sky, was the obvious discoloration in Peter's original post of the image in the thread "My afternoon". https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20catcher%20with%20fish%20flying.jpg Do you mean the dust spots - exacerbated by shooting at f16? Or perhaps the noise, exacerbated by shooting at ISO 1600 with ADL set to "normal" (the raw image will be under-exposed by the camera slightly to preserve highlights, then raised in PP - automatically when using Nikon raw converter software, so effective ISO with the tone curve applied will be higher than ISO 1600 - especially in shadows). Why use F16 when F8 would have been okay? Why use 1/4,000 second when 1/1,000 would have been fine. (F8 and 1/1,000, then ISO could have been 200). I tend to agree with you regarding all you have stated about Peter's exposure choices. However, he feels strongly, and is insistent about using high ISO under all circumstances. His is the head behind the camera, and as much as the two of us disagree with him, those were his choices, and the noisy results tell the story. All life is a compromise. You are right that a slower shutter speed cold have been used for a gliding bird. However, I was at a breeding colony, where a higher shutter speed might well be needed to capture any action that could break out. And I wanted the increased DOF. It so happened that a gull tried to attack the chick, but I missed the shot. I will be installing DXo to use for he conversion, and se if that makes any difference. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ping Eric Stevens, 'duck | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 6 | November 8th 12 10:24 PM |
Duck: did you snag Endeavour? | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 35 | September 24th 12 09:40 PM |
[SI] On The Road - 'duck Comments | Savageduck[_3_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | August 23rd 12 07:47 PM |
[SI] On The Road - 'duck Comments | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | August 23rd 12 07:47 PM |
ping duck | Peter[_7_] | Digital Photography | 2 | June 25th 10 06:45 PM |