[zerodaze]

Depth of field is greater in A? Or is that just better resolution?

[Priyantha Bleeker]

Is it possible to post the fullsize 16MP photo's also ?
The non NR processed ánd the NR processed one ? To see the differences ?

[JohnBee]

Depth of field is greater in A? Or is that just better resolution?

I think that's the effect of better resolution

Is it possible to post the fullsize 16MP photo's also ?
The non NR processed ánd the NR processed one ? To see the differences ?

I would be happy to post crops and full size links.
However, the originals would be intended for the actual tutorials

[pspentax]

I think you are right about the DOF effect(due to NR).

Also, which areas did you have in mind for crops?

It´s up to you, maybe one from the botlle label and other from a dark area and before and after NR.

Cherrs,
Pedro

[JohnBee]

It´s up to you, maybe one from the botlle label and other from a dark area and before and after NR.

Cherrs,
Pedro

I have no problems posting crops, but ... I will hold on before and after shots as these are part of the tutorial that will come out of this.
Wouldn't want to spoil the fun now would you

PS. I have a bit of work to do throughout the morning and afterward, I'll prepare and post some crops.

[falconeye]

I have printed hundreds of max ISO images from my K20D and plan to do make use of the K-5 in this same way.

That wasn't my point.
My point was that you shift ISO down to 1/10th if you discuss things with 1600 wide images. So, your ISO51200 tutorial becomes a ISO6400 tutorial in fact. Go for it if you like but you should know about.

[Digitalis]

I really question the merit of playing ISO games at web resolutions.

I agree with Falk here. It sets up false expectations. And no APS-C camera irrespective of it's technologies is ever going to be able to compete against a 24X36mm sensor when it comes to S/N and Dof rendition.

The other day I was doing some wildlife photography with My Nikon D3s and 400mm f/2.8 AF-S ED VR with a SB-900 when some idiot with a D700 barged in with some 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 slow as hell zoom lens and asked me why I have to use such an ostentatious lens with flash when I could just crank up the ISO.

sometimes I despair for the art of photography.

[falconeye]

sometimes I despair for the art of photography.

No, you don't. I everybody would have such a fine lens, we would be short in supply of glass, I fear

[Digitalis]

No, you don't.

well not really, but sometimes I am utterly astounded that some people don't seem to grasp what makes a good photograph,sure ISO doesn't have much to do with it - there have been some incredibly good images taken with some pretty average emulsions in the past and those images are still regarded with reverence.

When I was giving a large format demonstration in one of my classes, I had my 8X10 camera set up. And some of my students who hadn't seen an 8X10 before were very confused that such an archaic monstrosity could have produced the prints I had showed them as a part of the demonstration. Some of them swore they were digital images, I suppose I should take that as a credit to my skill in platinum printing.

(And on the subject of fine glass I have a Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 on the way)

[pinholecam]

I have no problems posting crops, but ... I will hold on before and after shots as these are part of the tutorial that will come out of this.
Wouldn't want to spoil the fun now would you

PS. I have a bit of work to do throughout the morning and afterward, I'll prepare and post some crops.

Tutorial?
Looking forward to this.

Great pp work on sample B.
I had guess shallower DOF and then I peeked at the EXIF


Many thanks on posting all the NR samples so far on this thread and others. It gave me a new perspective on what is possible with good NR software and how much more can be pushed from the K5 high ISO images.

[JohnBee]

That wasn't my point.
My point was that you shift ISO down to 1/10th if you discuss things with 1600 wide images. So, your ISO51200 tutorial becomes a ISO6400 tutorial in fact. Go for it if you like but you should know about.

I agree with Falk here. It sets up false expectations. And no APS-C camera irrespective of it's technologies is ever going to be able to compete against a 24X36mm sensor when it comes to S/N and Dof rendition.

The other day I was doing some wildlife photography with My Nikon D3s and 400mm f/2.8 AF-S ED VR with a SB-900 when some idiot with a D700 barged in with some 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 slow as hell zoom lens and asked me why I have to use such an ostentatious lens with flash when I could just crank up the ISO.

sometimes I despair for the art of photography.

Guys keep it together, this is not a FF vs APS-C debate!

If you don't understand the purpose of the thread, then pleases re-read the topic.
And if that doesn't work for you, then I would be more than happy to expand on that.

Having said that, if you can't contain yourself or have nothing to contribute toward the outline, then please start another thread to work through it with.

Thanks

[Steelski]

I agree with Falk here. It sets up false expectations. And no APS-C camera irrespective of it's technologies is ever going to be able to compete against a 24X36mm sensor when it comes to S/N and Dof rendition.

The other day I was doing some wildlife photography with My Nikon D3s and 400mm f/2.8 AF-S ED VR with a SB-900 when some idiot with a D700 barged in with some 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 slow as hell zoom lens and asked me why I have to use such an ostentatious lens with flash when I could just crank up the ISO.

sometimes I despair for the art of photography.

DOF yes, S/N No. You are joking right. What, you think APS-c dident move over the Canon 5D, the 1D MK2? It moved over them a while back. And now APS-C has caught up with 2 year old technology from the D700 and 5DMKII and 1DS MKIII. It will move ahead of them sometime next year.
Kodak had how long to increase S/N with the M9, they did not. really fast lenses to the rescue.

[garyk]

That is a very nice job. I have to hand it to you.

I get the same blotching in the blacks when I isolate the objects and wash out the noise with Photoshop. I prefer Isolating the object of interest. In my case birds, then if it has a lot of blacks in the background i paint over it. Very easily done in PS. Then i flip the object of interest and apply NR to keep the most detail. Actually for me, i stay away from NR software like noise ninga and several others i see posted here. For my work it just does not work. I prefer PS only! RAW then on to jpeg for me.
But I only crop and do wildlife shooting.

I think if you would of painted over the black it would of been more pleasing to the eye. And more realistic.

If those are at the ISO that everyone is saying I am impressed. Fine detail has been washed away but i at that ISO setting i am amazed.

Thanks for the photos.

[dgaies]

If those are at the ISO that everyone is saying I am impressed. Fine detail has been washed away but i at that ISO setting i am amazed.

They were indeed taken at 200 and 51200, once the Giants/Cowboys game was under control and I could divert my attention to playing with my new DA*55

For what it's worth, I believe there is actually more fine detail in the original 51200 file that could be brought out, likely at the expense of not removing as much noise. I think John did a great job so far balancing the removal of noise and retention of detail, although individuals might choose a different balance point depending on their preferences and what they intent to do with the image.

There's also a few settings in between 200 and 51200, and I think it's important to point out that 6400/12800 is probably the sweet spots for high-ISO shooting on the K5 if you want to do a minimal amount of NR and maintain as much detail as possible. Again, this is in the context of high ISO shooting, and no one is suggesting that there isn't a cost (in terms of noise, lost detail, colors, etc) associated with shooting in these ISO ranges.

[Rondec]

You can definitely see blurring in the high iso photo, but truthfully if you didn't have the low iso photo to compare it to, I wouldn't notice it. I definitely think that you could print pretty good sized with that and that is my rule of thumb to see if a photo is useable. With a K7 as a comparison, I probably couldn't print an iso 6400 photo more than 4 by 6 inches without showing pretty significant image degradation.

Thanks John Bee, looking forward to the tutorial.