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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 2013-05-24 19:28:01 -0700, PeterN said:
On 5/23/2013 11:55 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:50:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-05-23 20:02:59 -0700, Tony Cooper said: On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:12:52 -0700, Savageduck wrote: 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. I tend to bristle when someone says I shot something at the wrong ISO or speed. ...and what if you were wrong? All this is, is constructive criticism. Something we might not enjoy hearing, but made in good faith in the hope that the recipient might just consider what has been said. We do this with the SI, and sometimes we like to defend our work if a particular comment hits too close to home, but I always consider there might be a lesson I need to pay heed to. Often, the shot is one of those grab shots where there was no opportunity to adjust the settings. The camera had been set for something else, and something new popped into the picture I turned and fired. That is something which happens to all of us from time to time. Sometimes I might screw up more than a single shot and I only have myself to blame. If I am lucky I might have the "Oh crap!" realization while I am still shooting rather than discovering it as I upload to my computer. Dunno if this is the case with Peter's shot, though. He pretty much explained his reasons for making the exposure settings he used on the shoot which included the image under discussion. All I have pointed out was with the lens he used, the light conditions and his subject matter, was that he might have achieved better results by using more appropriate settings. Aside from his abstract creations, Peter's recent shooting and results have been, in my opinion greatly effected by his overuse of extremely high ISO settings, even when conditions and circumstances do not call for them. For more than a year now many of his shots have been excessively noisy when they shouldn't be, and it isn't artistic grain, it is noise. Many times it has been exacerbated by some Post adjustment, or "different" sharpening technique he is working on. I have made my position on this clear in my SI comments and in discussion regarding individual shots he has shared here from time to time. Personally, I think Peter is one of those guys who likes to push the envelope when it comes to his camera equipment, and post processing. However, to my eye there are too many times lately when he pushes things right out of the safety zone of that envelope. What did surprise me was Peter's SmugMug pages. I backtracked and looked at some other shots, and several are far better than anything he's ever submitted to the SI. I suspect he's holding out on us. I believe Peter's work in the past was much better that the stuff we have been shown in recent months. He is going through his high ISO period. Gee, you'd think that Peter shoots for his own amusement and not ours. It's all about him. Wait until Wolfgang hears about it. Please don't tell him. I am begging you. Anything but that! Beware the Wolfgang vortex! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
On 5/24/2013 5:58 PM, Me wrote:
SNIP The "original size" seems to be 2065 x 1739 - so is this cropped or scaled? The OP's shot also had Nikon's ADL turned on, which under-exposes to save highlights, then applies a tone curve (in some raw converters) to lift shadows and results in more noise. Then comparing 24mp to 36mp at 1:1 pixel view is also not a very reasonable way to gauge high iso performance. THANKS, i WILLHAVETO EXPERIMENT WITH adl TURNED OFF. -- PeterN |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Me wrote:
The "original size" seems to be 2065 x 1739 - so is this cropped or scaled? Cropped, of course. The OP's shot also had Nikon's ADL turned on, which under-exposes to save highlights, then applies a tone curve (in some raw converters) to lift shadows and results in more noise. Do you want another one underexposed by a stop and pushed? Oh, wait, that's nearly the same as shooting at a higher ISO (ok, the latter is less likely to have banding). Then comparing 24mp to 36mp at 1:1 pixel view is also not a very reasonable way to gauge high iso performance. Scale up my example or scale down the OP. And it's 22, not 24 MPix. Still, I'm suprised how easily the sky can become mottled with the D800. -Wolfgang |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-24 06:44:54 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg said: Le Snip Here's a series of (fairly strong cropped) photos of the sky & a crane with different ISO settings, as 'straight out of AfterShot Pro, no denoising', 'with a (personal) default setting of sharpening', and 'said sharpening + an ISO matching (personal) default setting of denoising': http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/29597388_7KjVfB Feel free to look at the (O)riginal size, download and zoom in, ... An interesting exercise which punctuates my argument. The lighting condition for your test shots is good, as was the light for Peter's shot, and certainly does not warrant using high ISO. I found that I'd rather have some noise due to higher ISO than loss of sharpness due to camera or subject movement. The former one can correct much easier ... But yes, in that light ISO 100-200 would have worked. Good that many cameras have an auto-ISO settings for when the time is too short. (I understand that it was an exercise). And thus f/32. You have provided a good argument that his image might have had a lot less noise if he had used ISO 100 or ISO 200. I more wonder how comes that a camera as reputedly good as the D800 can produce such mottled, blotchy sky at ISO 1600 (or effectively 3200). -Wolfgang |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Savageduck wrote: You have provided a good argument that his image might have had a lot less noise if he had used ISO 100 or ISO 200. That hasn't been demonstrated yet... I more wonder how comes that a camera as reputedly good as the D800 can produce such mottled, blotchy sky at ISO 1600 (or effectively 3200). Shot noise has nothing to do with the camera, as such. Any half decent camera will capture it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Savageduck wrote: You have provided a good argument that his image might have had a lot less noise if he had used ISO 100 or ISO 200. That hasn't been demonstrated yet... What part of 'might' didn't you get? And did the fact that the D800 is regarded as a rather noise free camera --- routinely doing *much* better --- pass you by? I more wonder how comes that a camera as reputedly good as the D800 can produce such mottled, blotchy sky at ISO 1600 (or effectively 3200). Shot noise has nothing to do with the camera, as such. Any half decent camera will capture it. s/Shot/Photon/ However, there is also amplifier noise, A/D-converter noise, dark current noise, ... which has *a lot* to do with the camera. You really have to try *hard* for such mottled skies. -Wolfgang |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Savageduck wrote: You have provided a good argument that his image might have had a lot less noise if he had used ISO 100 or ISO 200. That hasn't been demonstrated yet... What part of 'might' didn't you get? And did the fact that the D800 is regarded as a rather noise free camera --- routinely doing *much* better --- pass you by? It's an insignificant difference. Sorry that you don't realize that, but I'm not at all surprised... I more wonder how comes that a camera as reputedly good as the D800 can produce such mottled, blotchy sky at ISO 1600 (or effectively 3200). Shot noise has nothing to do with the camera, as such. Any half decent camera will capture it. s/Shot/Photon/ It is properly called either Shot Noise or Photon Noise. In fact it can also be correctly called Poisson Noise. For that matter it can also be called Impulse Noise. Did you have a point, or just need the education? However, there is also amplifier noise, A/D-converter noise, dark current noise, ... which has *a lot* to do with the camera. And has nothing at all to do with this discussion. You really have to try *hard* for such mottled skies. Yeah, right! Shoot a bright blue sky... and crop out a very small section. Boy is that hard! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
PeterN wrote:
On 5/23/2013 11:02 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:12:52 -0700, Savageduck wrote: 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. I tend to bristle when someone says I shot something at the wrong ISO or speed. Often, the shot is one of those grab shots where there was no opportunity to adjust the settings. The camera had been set for something else, and something new popped into the picture I turned and fired. Dunno if this is the case with Peter's shot, though. What did surprise me was Peter's SmugMug pages. I backtracked and looked at some other shots, and several are far better than anything he's ever submitted to the SI. I suspect he's holding out on us. Thank you for the comment. someof the Smugmug images have been in the SI I think. But, I try to fit a mandate. Or possibly my o\photography is getting worse. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better. The best way of finding out where the edges of the envelope are is by repeatedly stepping over them. I'm sure many of us have had a high ISO period, an oversharpening period, a wide aperture period. I'm currently recovering from my wide angle period :-) -- Chris Malcolm |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Savageduck wrote: You have provided a good argument that his image might have had a lot less noise if he had used ISO 100 or ISO 200. That hasn't been demonstrated yet... It has. ISO 100 shows a *lot* *lot* *lot* less mottled sky. What part of 'might' didn't you get? And did the fact that the D800 is regarded as a rather noise free camera --- routinely doing *much* better --- pass you by? It's an insignificant difference. Sorry that you don't realize that, but I'm not at all surprised... Does that mean you own a D800 and need to downplay the problems or does that mean you don't own a D800 and need to downplay the fact you have a lesser camera? I more wonder how comes that a camera as reputedly good as the D800 can produce such mottled, blotchy sky at ISO 1600 (or effectively 3200). Shot noise has nothing to do with the camera, as such. Any half decent camera will capture it. s/Shot/Photon/ It is properly called either Shot Noise or Photon Noise. In fact it can also be correctly called Poisson Noise. For that matter it can also be called Impulse Noise. Did you have a point, or just need the education? Shot noise: Electrons. Photon noise: Photons. Poisson noise: a distribution. However, it's Photon noise (sometimes called Photon Shot Noise), the electrons are counted, and even though it's *a* Poisson noise, it's not the only one, thermal noise is also a Poisson noise. However, there is also amplifier noise, A/D-converter noise, dark current noise, ... which has *a lot* to do with the camera. And has nothing at all to do with this discussion. Noise sources for an image has nothing to do with a discussion about noise in the image? Are you even more drugged than usual? You really have to try *hard* for such mottled skies. Yeah, right! Shoot a bright blue sky... and crop out a very small section. Boy is that hard! Did so already. http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/29597388_7KjVfB Look at the original sizes. (or do you need me to create a 150x150 pixel crop for you?) See how the sky is not mottled in 8x8 blocks and see how the sky is easily de-noised. Oh, yes, sorry, you're legally blind. Get someone else to look at the photos. -Wolfgang |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
ping duck
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Savageduck wrote: You have provided a good argument that his image might have had a lot less noise if he had used ISO 100 or ISO 200. That hasn't been demonstrated yet... It has. ISO 100 shows a *lot* *lot* *lot* less mottled sky. He didn't shoot any of the shots at ISO 100, so we don't know that to be true in this set of circumstances. Yes you can set up a different set of circumstances that will give that effect, but that is just that: different. What part of 'might' didn't you get? And did the fact that the D800 is regarded as a rather noise free camera --- routinely doing *much* better --- pass you by? It's an insignificant difference. Sorry that you don't realize that, but I'm not at all surprised... Does that mean you own a D800 and need to downplay the problems or does that mean you don't own a D800 and need to downplay the fact you have a lesser camera? I own several cameras. What I've described is in particular true because of the extremely high dynamic range of the D800. I more wonder how comes that a camera as reputedly good as the D800 can produce such mottled, blotchy sky at ISO 1600 (or effectively 3200). Shot noise has nothing to do with the camera, as such. Any half decent camera will capture it. s/Shot/Photon/ It is properly called either Shot Noise or Photon Noise. In fact it can also be correctly called Poisson Noise. For that matter it can also be called Impulse Noise. Did you have a point, or just need the education? Shot noise: Electrons. Shot noise: Poisson distribution Photon noise: Photons. Photon noise: shot noise in the arrival time of photons. Poisson noise: a distribution. Poisson distribution: the characteristic of Photon Noise. Looks like you needed more education than I provided the first time. Or perhaps it's just too much for you... However, it's Photon noise (sometimes called Photon Shot Noise), the electrons are counted, and even though it's *a* Poisson noise, it's not the only one, thermal noise is also a Poisson noise. Photons, and thus Photon Noise, is not directly electrons. Thermal noise in a photo detector has a Gaussian Distribution. However, there is also amplifier noise, A/D-converter noise, dark current noise, ... which has *a lot* to do with the camera. And has nothing at all to do with this discussion. Noise sources for an image has nothing to do with a discussion about noise in the image? Are you even more drugged than usual? The noise we are talking about is Photon Noise. You really have to try *hard* for such mottled skies. Yeah, right! Shoot a bright blue sky... and crop out a very small section. Boy is that hard! Did so already. http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/29597388_7KjVfB Look at the original sizes. (or do you need me to create a 150x150 pixel crop for you?) See how the sky is not mottled in 8x8 blocks and see how the sky is easily de-noised. We never were talking about JPEG artifacts, so why are you? Oh, yes, sorry, you're legally blind. Get someone else to look at the photos. Read the discussion you are blundering into. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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 |