farmerjim Loc: Rugby, England

I got my Fuji S200exr out of the cupboard and took it with me on my morning walk.
On the way back across the fields my ewes decided I'd got a ruck-sack full of sheep feed and not bread, milk and the newspaper!
Anyway, took some shots using RAW + JPG and was pleased with the results until I looked at 100% crops.
I tried using noise reduction and that made little difference so I assume it's pixellation. Am I correct? I suppose there's a limit for a small sensor.

RAW


RAW


JPG

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Can't see a problem

farmerjim Loc: Rugby, England

Thanks for the reply JR, I thought they looked "noisy". But I'm probably wrong. Actually they don't look as bad now I've posted them and downloaded, must have been the beer on Sunday. :oops:

Paparazzi Loc: Florida

What the picture looks like on the screen, is different than what it can look like when printed.

I wish someone would explain to me, why there’s so much concern about viewing any digital picture magnified to 100% of it’s intended viewing. It seems to me, that there’s too much concern about “pixel clarity”, than composure and exposure.

I’m fairly new to digital “darkroom” work, and always hated film darkroom work. I did photography for a living in the 60’s, and of course it was all film; what you took was what you got. The only things to be concerned with, were composure and exposure; if the picture was good, very little darkroom work was necessary. We couldn’t “fix” a bad shot.

With digital, you not only have to know what’s a “good shot”, but how the camera you’re using is going to electronically record that shot. You not only have to be a photographer, you have to be a technician. The need to know how to properly process the shot is as important as the composure. And to make it more difficult, the software you use to “develop” the picture has it’s own learning curve as well.

Pictures 1 and 3 are the nicest, with number 3 being of interest. I would crop out the black sheep and allow the “s” curve of the line of sheep lead to the church in the background….. It might make the picture a bit more interesting?

As far as clarity? It looks great on my laptop, but imagine a print would do it more justice!

(Nice picture!)

John

Modified sheep

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Actually the first image is quite noisy. The other two just slightly noisy. The first two may not look the same posted here as they did on your screen because you left them in the AdobeRGB color space. The third image (jpg) was in the sRGB color space. The first two are not raw image now; some how they were converted to jpg but the color space you edit your images in was in tact.

If using ACR in CS6 then just use Noise Reduction and get rid of all the noise easily.

farmerjim Loc: Rugby, England

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The 1st two shots were saved as JPGs from RAW so that I could post them here, the 3rd was the JPG shot , I was shooting RAW+JPG. As for the colour space, not sure about that, thought it would all be AdobeRGB. I'll have to check when I get back to my desk-top.
Thanks for the "modified sheep" John, it's about what I would have done but I wasn't posting pics for critique, just wanted to see if any Hogs thought there was noise.:) JPG #3 in terms of IQ doesn't hold it's own against the RAW, I'll post the RAW conversion tomorrow.
Thanks.

Rob O' Loc: Freakin' Hot Arizona

(modified sheep)

WTF??

This is why I don't post original. What a mess you made.

Paparazzi Loc: Florida

Farmerjim –

I didn’t notice any “noise” aside from the Baaah-ing of some sheep! : )

Oh, and sorry about the offhand critique and repost of your work; I just didn’t know how to describe the crop change without actually doing it. I started looking for what you were describing as noise, and found that when I
“zoomed in” my interest in what you captured with your eyes outweighed any imperfection of pixel clarity of the medium used to record what you were looking at. (if that makes sense?)

I made my share of money with this “hobby” years back; when I see talent, I hate to see it wasted on worry over things like “digital noise”, when any “digital noise” is not so terrible that it takes away from the art itself.

Look at some great, historic black and white photographs from some of the more famous photographers, and see what mattered more - the film’s grain, or the overall composition? Artwork is artwork; it’s not usually not intended to be viewed through a magnifying glass.

In my opinion? You have what it takes, so don’t fret the minute details that no-one else sees.

Cheers,

John

farmerjim Loc: Rugby, England

Thanks for the kind words.
I'm quite pleased with the results using RAW on the Fuji, I've only really got into using digital negatives in the last two years.
Here's a re post of #3 using the RAW original and not the JPG.
PS. John was dead right about the "noise" :-) "Silence of the lambs" HA! HA! you've never heard anything like 200 ewes and lambs all wanting feeding.
Cheers me dears :)