ping duck

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by PeterN, May 23, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, May 23, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, May 23, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    Me Guest

    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).
     
    Me, May 23, 2013
    #3
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest


    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 junior.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 catcher.jpg>
     
    PeterN, May 23, 2013
    #4
  5. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    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/FileChute/DSC3770_3326E-2w.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, May 23, 2013
    #5
  6. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    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 catcher with fish flying.jpg>

    Do
    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.
     
    Savageduck, May 23, 2013
    #6
  7. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, May 23, 2013
    #7
  8. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Strange, I did the crop in ACR. Di I see a tad of sharpening? There is a
    halo around it's head.
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2013
    #8
  9. PeterN

    Me Guest

    Yep - that's the same noise exacerbated by being chopped into larger
    blocks by heavy jpeg compression.
    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.
     
    Me, May 24, 2013
    #9
  10. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    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, May 24, 2013
    #10
  11. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    ....but then what did you do?

    Opening as a "Smart Object" has a bunch of advantages.
    By opening directly from ACR after making your crop as you did, you are
    editing a pixel based file, probably a 16-bit TIFF. Going with a "Smart
    Object" means you are working on the RAW data file and not a pixel
    based file. This allows you to engage in a whole buch of adjustments
    without damage.
    Here are a couple of Julieanne Kost's videos, all well worth viewing:

    <
    http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-compl...n-edit-in-photoshop-and-open-as-smart-object-
    A slight halo, but less offensive than the noise & mottling.
    Thanks for letting me play.
     
    Savageduck, May 24, 2013
    #11
  12. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Just my opinion, I believe you were probably pushing that 80-400mm at
    f/16 and you would have had better results with adequate DoF at f/12 or
    f/8 and a shutter speed at 1/1000 or 1/500 would more than have handled
    the fluttering birdies. 1/4000 is pushing things when half that speed
    would have been more than enough. You can freeze hummingbird wings at
    1/2000.
     
    Savageduck, May 24, 2013
    #12
  13. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    I ran the jpeg through DXO without any further adjustments
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster catcher with fish flying_DxO.jpg>


    Here is the original run through dxo
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3770_3326_DxO.dng>
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2013
    #13
  14. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    New lens, almost new camera, I will try your suggestion.
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2013
    #14
  15. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    I still have a lot to learn.

    Thanks for your input.
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2013
    #15
  16. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, May 24, 2013
    #16
  17. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    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.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 24, 2013
    #17
  18. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    ....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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
    Savageduck, May 24, 2013
    #18
  19. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    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.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 24, 2013
    #19
  20. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    What? Is this 1982 all over again? Be wrong once, and people never
    let it go.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 24, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.