A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ping duck



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 23rd 13, 06:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default 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  
Old May 23rd 13, 08:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old May 23rd 13, 09:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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  
Old May 23rd 13, 10:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default 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  
Old May 23rd 13, 11:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old May 23rd 13, 11:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old May 23rd 13, 11:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 24th 13, 12:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default 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  
Old May 24th 13, 12:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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  
Old May 24th 13, 12:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ping Eric Stevens, 'duck Alan Browne Digital Photography 6 November 8th 12 11:24 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.