Nikon D750 - Experiments at ISO 12800

On 2016-02-03 22:30:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:00:31 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 01:02:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

What were your actual Auto ISO settings?
Obviously your Maximum Sensitivety was ISO 12800, but what was your
Minimum Shutter speed, and what was your thinking behind that choice?
It looks like it might have been 1/10 sec.

Actually it was 'Auto'.

There is more to Auto ISO that just turning it on in the Shooting Menu.
Unless the D750 is different to other Nikon DSLRs you usually have two
parameters to set, Maximum Sensitivety and Minimum Shutter Speed.
How did you determine that the Shutter Speed was 'Auto'?


Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

That seems reasonably to be a well balanced exposure.
How did you meter the manual exposure, and why did you select those
particular manual A & S settings?

Right now, I haven't the least idea.

That sounds like a questionable method for conducting an experiment.


Also, I would have thought that by shooting Auto ISO with Manual you
would have the camera working to balance the exposure by Auto adjusting
the ISO.

So would I.

You did, and the Auto ISO worked, only adjusting the ISO as you had set
the shutter speed manually, giving you an appropriate ISO 5600.
However, now we know that your metering and logic for selection of the
manual A & S settings was at best vague. So vague in fact that you
don't recall your reasoning for making those settings.


This one is a friend watching the television broadcast of Serena
Williams being demolished by Angelique Kerber in the Australian open.
f/4 at 1/400 sec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501958.jpg

Same question for this image as the last regarding choice of Manual A &
S exposure settings and metering?

It was an opportunity shot: I hadn't intended to take one but for a
few seconds he dropped his hand down from his face. I just used the
settings which were already in the camera.

So, we have a repeat of manual A & S settings of dubious origins, and
you lucked out. This time with the Auto ISO pushing it to the Max with
ISO 12800 together with the random manual settings.
Definitely not a valid experiment.

Here one can see the Auto ISO making the sensitivety adjustment to deal
with the manual A & S settings. That said it did a good job and kept
the noise down. Nice.


Finally we are in the bowels of a 19th century gold-ore stamper in the
town of Thames. f/8 at 1/10 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501973.jpg

Here you switched from Manual to Aperture Priority and your Auto ISO
Minimum Shutter Speed setting came into play, and while allowing you to
capture the scene, the shutter speed was too low and combined with the
Maximum Sensitivety, you now have areas where highlights are blown.

Blown highlights were inevitable.

Not necessarily.

I was in a dark corner, looking out
through a forest of timbers to the light outside.

Here I would have set a higher Minimum Shutter speed in the Auto ISO
parameters, perhaps 1/100-1/80sec vs 1/10.
Then you could have shot several Aperture Priority shots with different
settings, or even a bracket set with a variety of EV values. I believe
that would have given you a far better exposed image.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 04/02/2016 11:17, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:29:38 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/2/2016 8:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg


For my taste the sky is too bright and the shadows to deep. You can fix
this during exposure either by using a graduated ND filter, or by
jiggling your hand over the top of the image for about 75% of the
exposure. (That will reduce your exposure of the sky by about 1.5 stops.)

This was not an attempt at producing an acceptable picture. It was
test to see what the camera did under the circumstances. That's the
problem with 'auto': you don't quite know what the camera is going to
do.


Which is why I don't particularly like program/scene modes and auto ISO
(though all have their uses).
Can also apply to metering with Nikon's various implementations of
matrix metering which I've used since I bought a Nikon FA back in the
'80s. It's improved over time, and I do tend to use it by default, but
it will catch me out occasionally - but I blame myself not the camera.
Not sure if the D750 has "quick ISO" mode. In my case (D800E) I find
that good - the rear thumbwheel programmed for ISO select (ie without
need to press any other button, front thumbwheel is aperture - I shoot
mainly in aperture priority. Less suitable for action shooting I guess,
in which case auto ISO with shutter priority may be appropriate.
I'd rather use this than auto ISO, perhaps I'm a bit of a luddite, but
it works for me.
Looking through my holiday snaps - this year we had some interesting
weather, stormy and windy - something I notice as we holiday on our
small yacht. This young woman either didn't read her tide charts - or
decided that as it was bucketing down, she was going to get wet anyway -
so may as well take the low tide route at high tide on a coastal track.
I could have rescued her in the dinghy, but took a photo instead.
550mm @ f8, 1/80th second hand-held. It's not absolutely pin-sharp, but
the performance of IS on the budget-price Tamron 150-600 continues to
impress me. In that case matrix metering underexposed the subject which
needed boosting in post (overdone in in that sample too I think - I only
adjusted on an uncalibrated screen so it's probably not right).
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o.../127741715.jpg

In another example, atmospheric shimmy even on a cool clear morning at
500mm (this is a crop - not resized). The small airliner (Dash 8 on
ascent after takeoff from Nelson airport)
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o.../127741742.jpg

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:02:47 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 22:30:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:00:31 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 01:02:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

What were your actual Auto ISO settings?
Obviously your Maximum Sensitivety was ISO 12800, but what was your
Minimum Shutter speed, and what was your thinking behind that choice?
It looks like it might have been 1/10 sec.

Actually it was 'Auto'.

There is more to Auto ISO that just turning it on in the Shooting Menu.
Unless the D750 is different to other Nikon DSLRs you usually have two
parameters to set, Maximum Sensitivety and Minimum Shutter Speed.
How did you determine that the Shutter Speed was 'Auto'?

I read it from the menu window.


Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

That seems reasonably to be a well balanced exposure.
How did you meter the manual exposure, and why did you select those
particular manual A & S settings?

Right now, I haven't the least idea.

That sounds like a questionable method for conducting an experiment.

There was nothing formal: just a table of random numbers and we will
see what we have got afterwards. Rather like interviewing people in
the street: you don't try interviewing them in order of opinion. In
this case, I was mainly interested in noise at high ISO and wasn't
much concerned about anything else.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501956.jpg


Also, I would have thought that by shooting Auto ISO with Manual you
would have the camera working to balance the exposure by Auto adjusting
the ISO.

So would I.

You did, and the Auto ISO worked, only adjusting the ISO as you had set
the shutter speed manually, giving you an appropriate ISO 5600.
However, now we know that your metering and logic for selection of the
manual A & S settings was at best vague. So vague in fact that you
don't recall your reasoning for making those settings.

So? See above.


This one is a friend watching the television broadcast of Serena
Williams being demolished by Angelique Kerber in the Australian open.
f/4 at 1/400 sec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501958.jpg

Same question for this image as the last regarding choice of Manual A &
S exposure settings and metering?

It was an opportunity shot: I hadn't intended to take one but for a
few seconds he dropped his hand down from his face. I just used the
settings which were already in the camera.

So, we have a repeat of manual A & S settings of dubious origins, and
you lucked out. This time with the Auto ISO pushing it to the Max with
ISO 12800 together with the random manual settings.
Definitely not a valid experiment.

Of course it is. Now I know what it does under those particular
circumstances.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501958.jpg

Here one can see the Auto ISO making the sensitivety adjustment to deal
with the manual A & S settings. That said it did a good job and kept
the noise down. Nice.


Finally we are in the bowels of a 19th century gold-ore stamper in the
town of Thames. f/8 at 1/10 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501973.jpg

Here you switched from Manual to Aperture Priority and your Auto ISO
Minimum Shutter Speed setting came into play, and while allowing you to
capture the scene, the shutter speed was too low and combined with the
Maximum Sensitivety, you now have areas where highlights are blown.

Blown highlights were inevitable.

Not necessarily.

I was in a dark corner, looking out
through a forest of timbers to the light outside.

Here I would have set a higher Minimum Shutter speed in the Auto ISO
parameters, perhaps 1/100-1/80sec vs 1/10.

Why would you use 1/100-1/80 sec? You can only know that this might
make sense if you already know how the camera behaves.

Then you could have shot several Aperture Priority shots with different
settings, or even a bracket set with a variety of EV values. I believe
that would have given you a far better exposed image.

I do intend to use bracket shots but they are scheduled for the
future. Right now, I have a much better idea than I did about how the
camera behaves at high ISO.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501973.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2016-02-04 01:13:21 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:02:47 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 22:30:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:00:31 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 01:02:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

What were your actual Auto ISO settings?
Obviously your Maximum Sensitivety was ISO 12800, but what was your
Minimum Shutter speed, and what was your thinking behind that choice?
It looks like it might have been 1/10 sec.

Actually it was 'Auto'.

There is more to Auto ISO that just turning it on in the Shooting Menu.
Unless the D750 is different to other Nikon DSLRs you usually have two
parameters to set, Maximum Sensitivety and Minimum Shutter Speed.
How did you determine that the Shutter Speed was 'Auto'?

I read it from the menu window.

OK! So that I can understand I have checked with the D750 User Manual,
and I can see that Nikon is using a different aproach to Auto ISO whith
the D750, and there is indeed and *Auto* setting for the Minimum
Shutter speed, and if that is selected the minimum shutter speed is
based on the focal length of the lens.

That does not preclude you from making your own selection. I would
suggest considering something other than *Auto* for the Auto ISO
Minimum Shutter Speed setting.



Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

That seems reasonably to be a well balanced exposure.
How did you meter the manual exposure, and why did you select those
particular manual A & S settings?

Right now, I haven't the least idea.

That sounds like a questionable method for conducting an experiment.

There was nothing formal: just a table of random numbers and we will
see what we have got afterwards. Rather like interviewing people in
the street: you don't try interviewing them in order of opinion. In
this case, I was mainly interested in noise at high ISO and wasn't
much concerned about anything else.

From the NR point of view it performed quite well. Did you have the
High ISO NR turned on in-camera?

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501956.jpg

There is something about that rendition which makes me think of over
cooked NR. I am thinking particularly of the smoothing and loss of
detail in the shadows.



Also, I would have thought that by shooting Auto ISO with Manual you
would have the camera working to balance the exposure by Auto adjusting
the ISO.

So would I.

You did, and the Auto ISO worked, only adjusting the ISO as you had set
the shutter speed manually, giving you an appropriate ISO 5600.
However, now we know that your metering and logic for selection of the
manual A & S settings was at best vague. So vague in fact that you
don't recall your reasoning for making those settings.

So? See above.

So you did guess at manual A = f/4 and manual S = 1/400sec.


This one is a friend watching the television broadcast of Serena
Williams being demolished by Angelique Kerber in the Australian open.
f/4 at 1/400 sec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501958.jpg

Same question for this image as the last regarding choice of Manual A &
S exposure settings and metering?

It was an opportunity shot: I hadn't intended to take one but for a
few seconds he dropped his hand down from his face. I just used the
settings which were already in the camera.

So, we have a repeat of manual A & S settings of dubious origins, and
you lucked out. This time with the Auto ISO pushing it to the Max with
ISO 12800 together with the random manual settings.
Definitely not a valid experiment.

Of course it is. Now I know what it does under those particular
circumstances.

....er, OK.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501958.jpg

With a few tweaks in the HSL panel, and a different aproach to NR got me he
https://db.tt/E2yAxYSf

Here one can see the Auto ISO making the sensitivety adjustment to deal
with the manual A & S settings. That said it did a good job and kept
the noise down. Nice.


Finally we are in the bowels of a 19th century gold-ore stamper in the
town of Thames. f/8 at 1/10 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501973.jpg

Here you switched from Manual to Aperture Priority and your Auto ISO
Minimum Shutter Speed setting came into play, and while allowing you to
capture the scene, the shutter speed was too low and combined with the
Maximum Sensitivety, you now have areas where highlights are blown.

Blown highlights were inevitable.

Not necessarily.

I was in a dark corner, looking out
through a forest of timbers to the light outside.

Here I would have set a higher Minimum Shutter speed in the Auto ISO
parameters, perhaps 1/100-1/80sec vs 1/10.

Why would you use 1/100-1/80 sec? You can only know that this might
make sense if you already know how the camera behaves.

A peek at the histogram should have given you a clue that 1/10sec from
the *Auto Min Speed* selection wasn't going to work at ISO 12800.

Then you could have shot several Aperture Priority shots with different
settings, or even a bracket set with a variety of EV values. I believe
that would have given you a far better exposed image.

I do intend to use bracket shots but they are scheduled for the
future. Right now, I have a much better idea than I did about how the
camera behaves at high ISO.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501973.jpg

Yup! There is only so much you can do to fix highlights that badly blown.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:24:23 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-04 01:13:21 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:02:47 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 22:30:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:00:31 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-03 01:02:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

What were your actual Auto ISO settings?
Obviously your Maximum Sensitivety was ISO 12800, but what was your
Minimum Shutter speed, and what was your thinking behind that choice?
It looks like it might have been 1/10 sec.

Actually it was 'Auto'.

There is more to Auto ISO that just turning it on in the Shooting Menu.
Unless the D750 is different to other Nikon DSLRs you usually have two
parameters to set, Maximum Sensitivety and Minimum Shutter Speed.
How did you determine that the Shutter Speed was 'Auto'?

I read it from the menu window.

OK! So that I can understand I have checked with the D750 User Manual,
and I can see that Nikon is using a different aproach to Auto ISO whith
the D750, and there is indeed and *Auto* setting for the Minimum
Shutter speed, and if that is selected the minimum shutter speed is
based on the focal length of the lens.

That does not preclude you from making your own selection. I would
suggest considering something other than *Auto* for the Auto ISO
Minimum Shutter Speed setting.



Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

That seems reasonably to be a well balanced exposure.
How did you meter the manual exposure, and why did you select those
particular manual A & S settings?

Right now, I haven't the least idea.

That sounds like a questionable method for conducting an experiment.

There was nothing formal: just a table of random numbers and we will
see what we have got afterwards. Rather like interviewing people in
the street: you don't try interviewing them in order of opinion. In
this case, I was mainly interested in noise at high ISO and wasn't
much concerned about anything else.

From the NR point of view it performed quite well. Did you have the
High ISO NR turned on in-camera?

No.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501956.jpg

There is something about that rendition which makes me think of over
cooked NR. I am thinking particularly of the smoothing and loss of
detail in the shadows.

Yes. It looks waxy, doesn't it.



Also, I would have thought that by shooting Auto ISO with Manual you
would have the camera working to balance the exposure by Auto adjusting
the ISO.

So would I.

You did, and the Auto ISO worked, only adjusting the ISO as you had set
the shutter speed manually, giving you an appropriate ISO 5600.
However, now we know that your metering and logic for selection of the
manual A & S settings was at best vague. So vague in fact that you
don't recall your reasoning for making those settings.

So? See above.

So you did guess at manual A = f/4 and manual S = 1/400sec.


This one is a friend watching the television broadcast of Serena
Williams being demolished by Angelique Kerber in the Australian open.
f/4 at 1/400 sec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501958.jpg

Same question for this image as the last regarding choice of Manual A &
S exposure settings and metering?

It was an opportunity shot: I hadn't intended to take one but for a
few seconds he dropped his hand down from his face. I just used the
settings which were already in the camera.

So, we have a repeat of manual A & S settings of dubious origins, and
you lucked out. This time with the Auto ISO pushing it to the Max with
ISO 12800 together with the random manual settings.
Definitely not a valid experiment.

Of course it is. Now I know what it does under those particular
circumstances.

...er, OK.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501958.jpg

With a few tweaks in the HSL panel, and a different aproach to NR got me he
https://db.tt/E2yAxYSf

Here one can see the Auto ISO making the sensitivety adjustment to deal
with the manual A & S settings. That said it did a good job and kept
the noise down. Nice.


Finally we are in the bowels of a 19th century gold-ore stamper in the
town of Thames. f/8 at 1/10 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501973.jpg

Here you switched from Manual to Aperture Priority and your Auto ISO
Minimum Shutter Speed setting came into play, and while allowing you to
capture the scene, the shutter speed was too low and combined with the
Maximum Sensitivety, you now have areas where highlights are blown.

Blown highlights were inevitable.

Not necessarily.

I was in a dark corner, looking out
through a forest of timbers to the light outside.

Here I would have set a higher Minimum Shutter speed in the Auto ISO
parameters, perhaps 1/100-1/80sec vs 1/10.

Why would you use 1/100-1/80 sec? You can only know that this might
make sense if you already know how the camera behaves.

A peek at the histogram should have given you a clue that 1/10sec from
the *Auto Min Speed* selection wasn't going to work at ISO 12800.

Then you could have shot several Aperture Priority shots with different
settings, or even a bracket set with a variety of EV values. I believe
that would have given you a far better exposed image.

I do intend to use bracket shots but they are scheduled for the
future. Right now, I have a much better idea than I did about how the
camera behaves at high ISO.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501973.jpg

Yup! There is only so much you can do to fix highlights that badly blown.

I was more interested in what happened in the shadows. Don't forget
dynamic range diminishes as ISO increases.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/3/2016 5:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:29:38 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/2/2016 8:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg


For my taste the sky is too bright and the shadows to deep. You can fix
this during exposure either by using a graduated ND filter, or by
jiggling your hand over the top of the image for about 75% of the
exposure. (That will reduce your exposure of the sky by about 1.5 stops.)

This was not an attempt at producing an acceptable picture. It was
test to see what the camera did under the circumstances. That's the
problem with 'auto': you don't quite know what the camera is going to
do.

OK1 OK! OK!



This one is a friend watching the television broadcast of Serena
Williams being demolished by Angelique Kerber in the Australian open.
f/4 at 1/400 sec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501958.jpg


If your friend is the subject, I would have eliminated the bright light,
as my eye keeps being drawn to that, rather than your friend. Also, too
much of the image seems OOF.

It is. But what can you expect at f/4 at that range?

Finally we are in the bowels of a 19th century gold-ore stamper in the
town of Thames. f/8 at 1/10 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501973.jpg

Same comments as the Duck.


--
PeterN

On 2/3/2016 7:00 PM, Me wrote:
On 04/02/2016 11:17, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:29:38 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/2/2016 8:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
I was actually playing around with Auto ISO which I haven't used much
in the past and found I had taken a number of shots at ISO 12800. The
following are unadjusted JPGs of the original raw files. There is no
rhyme or reason to the aperture and speed settings.

Here is the sun setting behind the hills encircling the town of
Whitianga, Mercury Bay where Captain Cook stopped to make a number of
observations of the planet Mercury. f/4 at 1/400 sec.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg


For my taste the sky is too bright and the shadows to deep. You can fix
this during exposure either by using a graduated ND filter, or by
jiggling your hand over the top of the image for about 75% of the
exposure. (That will reduce your exposure of the sky by about 1.5
stops.)

This was not an attempt at producing an acceptable picture. It was
test to see what the camera did under the circumstances. That's the
problem with 'auto': you don't quite know what the camera is going to
do.


Which is why I don't particularly like program/scene modes and auto ISO
(though all have their uses).
Can also apply to metering with Nikon's various implementations of
matrix metering which I've used since I bought a Nikon FA back in the
'80s. It's improved over time, and I do tend to use it by default, but
it will catch me out occasionally - but I blame myself not the camera.
Not sure if the D750 has "quick ISO" mode. In my case (D800E) I find
that good - the rear thumbwheel programmed for ISO select (ie without
need to press any other button, front thumbwheel is aperture - I shoot
mainly in aperture priority. Less suitable for action shooting I guess,
in which case auto ISO with shutter priority may be appropriate.
I'd rather use this than auto ISO, perhaps I'm a bit of a luddite, but
it works for me.
Looking through my holiday snaps - this year we had some interesting
weather, stormy and windy - something I notice as we holiday on our
small yacht. This young woman either didn't read her tide charts - or
decided that as it was bucketing down, she was going to get wet anyway -
so may as well take the low tide route at high tide on a coastal track.
I could have rescued her in the dinghy, but took a photo instead.
550mm @ f8, 1/80th second hand-held. It's not absolutely pin-sharp, but
the performance of IS on the budget-price Tamron 150-600 continues to
impress me. In that case matrix metering underexposed the subject which
needed boosting in post (overdone in in that sample too I think - I only
adjusted on an uncalibrated screen so it's probably not right).
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o.../127741715.jpg

I don't know what you mean by "not right." But then, I tend to think of
the color as an interpretation of a nice portrayal of an attractive
young lady, enjoying a dip in the water. If I have to pick a nit, I
would have placed her more on the right side of the picture, and cropped
about half of the top. The bottom contains a nice reflection that i
would not want to lose.

The Tamron is a neat lens. I was testing both the Tamron and the Sigma.
Both were on the soft side. Since I already have the 80-400 VRII, I did
not see a reason to get either. I know the Duck will shiver at this, but
I like my 80-400 with the new 1.4 teleconverter, which gives me 589mm at
f8. My D800 will center focus, so i am OK.

Here is a test image I took with the Sigma. the image was very soft and
useless, but I liked her position. I did a composite with some graffiti
I took on another day. Here is the result.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Tough%20Lady.jpg



In another example, atmospheric shimmy even on a cool clear morning at
500mm (this is a crop - not resized). The small airliner (Dash 8 on
ascent after takeoff from Nelson airport)
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o.../127741742.jpg

I think the image works well. There is a nice soft feel to it. I like
the stacking of the mountains, and the plane adds just the right touch.
It reminds me very much of Asian art,


--
PeterN

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:06:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

--- snip ---

From the NR point of view it performed quite well. Did you have the
High ISO NR turned on in-camera?

No.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501956.jpg

There is something about that rendition which makes me think of over
cooked NR. I am thinking particularly of the smoothing and loss of
detail in the shadows.

Yes. It looks waxy, doesn't it.

I've never really had to concern myself with noise in the D750
previously so this is bit of an experiment. I've worked on this one a
little more, trying to get rid of the overcooked NR look and so far, I
have ended up he

Previous example
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501956-2.jpg

Second try
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

I'm still not entirely happy. I don't seem to be able to strike a
balance between still visible noise and a slightly waxy appearance.
This latest one still has noise.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/6/2016 5:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:06:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

--- snip ---

From the NR point of view it performed quite well. Did you have the
High ISO NR turned on in-camera?

No.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501956.jpg

There is something about that rendition which makes me think of over
cooked NR. I am thinking particularly of the smoothing and loss of
detail in the shadows.

Yes. It looks waxy, doesn't it.

I've never really had to concern myself with noise in the D750
previously so this is bit of an experiment. I've worked on this one a
little more, trying to get rid of the overcooked NR look and so far, I
have ended up he

Previous example
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501956-2.jpg

Second try
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

I'm still not entirely happy. I don't seem to be able to strike a
balance between still visible noise and a slightly waxy appearance.
This latest one still has noise.


Just out of curiosity, have you tried using DXO. It has pretty good NR
and shadow lighting in its develop module.


--
PeterN

On 2016-02-06 22:23:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:06:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

--- snip ---

From the NR point of view it performed quite well. Did you have the
High ISO NR turned on in-camera?

No.

Anyway, here it is after 30 secs in Lightroom
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2--7501956.jpg

There is something about that rendition which makes me think of over
cooked NR. I am thinking particularly of the smoothing and loss of
detail in the shadows.

Yes. It looks waxy, doesn't it.

I've never really had to concern myself with noise in the D750
previously so this is bit of an experiment. I've worked on this one a
little more, trying to get rid of the overcooked NR look and so far, I
have ended up he

Previous example
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7501956-2.jpg

Second try
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7501956.jpg

I'm still not entirely happy. I don't seem to be able to strike a
balance between still visible noise and a slightly waxy appearance.
This latest one still has noise.

I agree. The image still has an over-cooked NR look to it.

Did you have High ISO, or Low speed NR turned on in the menu?

I checked the full EXIF including the XMP and found the following:
Sharpness - 102
Luminance Smoothing - 100
Color Noise Reduction - 20

Sharpen Radius - +1.0
Sharpen Detail - 100
Sharpen Edge Masking - 33

Luminance Noise Reduction Detail - 67
Color Noise Reduction Detail - 46
Luminance Noise Reduction Contrast - 82
Color Noise Reduction Smoothness - 48

Given those numbers, my question is, was there any color noise to be
corrected in the RAW file?

Just how bad was the noise in the RAW file?

Using the LR *Detail Panel* what were your actual settings?

....and finally would you care to share the NEF (either out in the open
here or via email) so I could see if a different approach might help.


--
Regards,

Savageduck