Image at ISO 25600
Jun 28, 2015 10:55:18 #
A group of bucks came by our watering trough last night at 8:40 pm. It was really quite dark, but I tried to capture some images. I started at ISO 6400, then moved to 12500, then to 25600. The resulting images are not even great. But, when you have no other choice, you can get a recordable image at high ISO's. I was using a Canon 100-400 at 100mm and F/4.5. A wider lens may have been preferable.
The two examples here are the first with no PP except to crop the image. The second one is with PP and much noise reduction in PS CC 2015 and NIK Define. You be the judge and comments are welcome.
The two examples here are the first with no PP except to crop the image. The second one is with PP and much noise reduction in PS CC 2015 and NIK Define. You be the judge and comments are welcome.
Jun 28, 2015 11:02:06 #
Jun 28, 2015 11:05:08 #
A very usable image!
I'm shocked at how good the newer cameras deal with high ISO noise!
And it just keeps getting better and better! :-D
GT
I'm shocked at how good the newer cameras deal with high ISO noise!
And it just keeps getting better and better! :-D
GT
Jun 28, 2015 11:28:18 #
You did well with the post processing. The noise reduction didn't hurt the clarity and composition at that high of an ISO. Looks like picture was taken during a cloudy day. Good job!
Jun 28, 2015 15:59:13 #
jwaderker wrote:
You did well with the post processing. The noise reduction didn't hurt the clarity and composition at that high of an ISO. Looks like picture was taken during a cloudy day. Good job!
The photo was taking at 8:45 pm. It was very dark. So dark the AF sometimes had trouble focusing.
Jun 29, 2015 13:23:13 #
ImageCreator wrote:
A group of bucks came by our watering trough last ... (show quote)
Well done. Keep it simple...w/o PP.
Jun 29, 2015 14:55:02 #
Jun 29, 2015 19:10:20 #
ducwic wrote:
Well done. Keep it simple...w/o PP.
IMO, leaving this image w/o PP will get you a muddy, noisy, lifeless image. If that's what you like, then fine. IMO, most all images will benefit from some PP.
D
Jun 29, 2015 19:36:26 #
:thumbup: :thumbup:
GT
GT
ImageCreator wrote:
IMO, leaving this image w/o PP will get you a muddy, noisy, lifeless image. If that's what you like, then fine. IMO, most all images will benefit from some PP.
D
D
Jun 29, 2015 20:12:27 #
ImageCreator wrote:
IMO, leaving this image w/o PP will get you a muddy, noisy, lifeless image. If that's what you like, then fine. IMO, most all images will benefit from some PP.
D
D
I want to see a deer photo taken at 8:40 Pm (the way it actually looks) and not an over-cooked version...IMO
Jun 29, 2015 20:33:56 #
Isn't that the first one that says without post processing is?
but I didn't see any that were "ok ver cooked"
GT
but I didn't see any that were "ok ver cooked"
GT
ducwic wrote:
I want to see a deer photo taken at 8:40 Pm (the way it actually looks) and not an over-cooked version...IMO
Jun 30, 2015 01:30:39 #
Jun 30, 2015 01:53:48 #
ducwic wrote:
I want to see a deer photo taken at 8:40 Pm (the way it actually looks) and not an over-cooked version...IMO
If you would like, I'll email you the first photo, which is untouched, except for resizing for UHH, and you can play with it. The second image in my example is my feeble attempt at taking a dull, noisy, lifeless image and making it better. You're welcome to try to improve it yourself. Just PM me and I'll send you a larger file.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.