[yeatzee]

Ok so let me know what you guys think. This is my very first attempt at using NR legitimately. It was done with two plug-ins/scripts I just got for GIMP.

Pentax K-7 - ISO 3200

Converted straight from RAW to JPEG, nothing done using UFRAW in Gimp.


edited from RAW to Jpeg using UFRAW and the nr done in Gmic and wavelight denoise. contrast adjustment, and a small tidbit of USM.


I went pretty heavy handed.... this was my very first attempt at using these programs so I can only get better right?

I still need to figure out what each slider does

FA 50mm @ F/1.4 used

[mikro]

I think it looks like you did a pretty good job considering it was shot at ISO3200

[JohnBee]

Great job!
Looks very good.
Those freeware applications never cease to amaze.

[yeatzee]

I think it looks like you did a pretty good job considering it was shot at ISO3200

thanks! The conditions were pretty tough (ISO 3200, 1/25 shutter speed, and F/1.4) and I was getting extremely frustrated because of motion blur as the sharks were pretty active. This is the one shot I got where I tracked the shark perfectly to stop the blur

Great job!
Looks very good.
Those freeware applications never cease to amaze.

Thanks, and yes i agree. No way in hell could I afford PS, so I was turned to gimp. Considering the editing I do 90% of the time (curves, USM, saturation, etc.) it works perfectly, but for more advanced stuff I thought I was under equipped.... until i finally discovered how to get new plug ins/scripts

I have been VERY pleased with both Gmic and wavelight denoise. The latter being perfect for getting rid of all that chroma noise (?) that comes with shooting RAW, and the former for general smoothing

[RAMOS79]

f10, 1/1250 sec, iso 12800, 18-55mm kit lens at 24mm, straightened, cropped, and auto color in picasa then uploaded to photobucket and resized to large size. The Kx is my first slr and i love it. And i like that there are people here pushing the limits of their equipment in camera and post processing. Cheers.

[JohnBee]

K20D, ISO6400, 1/160s, 300mm, AF 1.7X TC, f/16

[JohnBee]

K20D, ISO6400, 1/160s, 300mm, AF 1.7X TC, f/18

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 08-30-2010 at 10:48 PM.

[JohnBee]

Not quite exciting enough to post on its own, I thought it might fit the high ISO thread.

K20D, ISO3200, 1/50s, 300mm, AF 1.7X TC, f/14

[Pentaxor]

K20D, ISO6400, 1/160s, 300mm, AF 1.7X TC, f/18

this kinda resembles the concord.

[Ash]

Excellent high ISO trifecta from you John.
All good examples of high ISO applications at work.
I do notice the heavy CA on the right bird of #3...

[JohnBee]

Excellent high ISO trifecta from you John.
All good examples of high ISO applications at work.
I do notice the heavy CA on the right bird of #3...

Thanks! You are correct on the CA with that particular shot.

I think the main reason for this was due to the image being a crop and where the bird was at the very edge of the scene. I also think pushing exposure and saturation levels(2+ stops) to balance things out most likely contributed to it as well. I might buff it out one day if I can motivate myself to stop being so lazy. But the shot wasn't that pretty to begin with which will only make it that much harder to do.

On the other hand, I have to say... I've been impressed with the IQ I've been getting from that TC and old lens considering the conditions.

[piesforyou]

From a camping trip at the weekend

First time playing around with my M 28mm F2.8

The shot was straight to jpeg, but no noise reduction has been applied. It has been cropped slightly.

Handheld, k-x, ISO3200, 1/10s, f2.8, 28mm

[bayareahdv]

k-x iso 6400 San Jose Ca

[Marc Sabatella]

Were the above fairly long exposures (many seconds)? Or perhaps underexposed and then pushed in PP? Or shot RAW with no NR? Or maybe you shot JPEG and then tried to adjust color/WB a lot? I ask because I'm always curious about what variables affect the appearance of noise in different cameras. I know I get wildly different results on my K200D at the same ISO depending on factors like that. Hopefully you won't be offended if I observe that a lot of posted ISO 6400 shots from the K-x look noticeably better than the above, but I've definitely others that look quite similar. It's no reflection on the photographer - it seems to be these other factors that make the difference.

As a random point of comparison, the K200D *in general* won't do as well as the K-x, all else equal. But sometimes for whatever reason things come together and a very high ISO shot comes out noticeably better than I'd expect. Here's an example from the other night. There was basically no direct light on this fellow, which I find is usually a recipe for terrible results. Since my camera maxes out at ISO 1600, I shot there, but almost two stops underexposed and pushed in PP. So it's within half a stop of the equivalent of ISO 6400. Yet for some reason, it doesn't actually look that bad:

[IMGTALL]http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v10/p894954004-5.jpg[/IMGTALL]

[LeeRunge]

Decided to take a few late night test pictures at ISO 6400 with the K7.
The first is set to 2mp JPEG with NR off.
Second is corrected with the Topaz bundle. De-noise is worth it as far as I have seen vs LR 3's native noise reduction. It is noticeably cleaner. The other tools work well and I'll probably purchase the bundle as I'm impressed.

Shots taken ISO 6400 1/125 f 5.6