Where's the grain (Page 2): Amen. I agree completely! If the PO were shooting for an art magazine, it might not cut it, but it's sharp, has beautiful color, and if not blown up TOO...

jak86094

Linda From Maine wrote:

Yep, I agree. And that observation speaks to the question, "What is important in a photograph?" (each photographer must answer that question for themselves.) Without pixel peeping, I find this to be a very engaging image!

Amen. I agree completely! If the PO were shooting for an art magazine, it might not cut it, but it's sharp, has beautiful color, and if not blown up TOO much, won't ruin his enjoyment. It would also be interesting to see the histogram of the original image to see how far to the right it was exposed. Bright areas will have less or at least less noticeable noise if exposed far enough to the right.

jak

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

jak86094 wrote:

Amen. I agree completely! If the PO were shooting for an art magazine, it might not cut it, but it's sharp, has beautiful color, and if not blown up TOO much, won't ruin his enjoyment. It would also be interesting to see the histogram of the original image to see how far to the right it was exposed. Bright areas will have less or at least less noticeable noise if exposed far enough to the right.

jak

I have very little understanding of the histogram, here it is, with a strong spike to on the right.

roadsideron Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

Clipped highlights.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Every image (no matter the medium) has grain/noise. Its just a matter of how closely you look. Nice photo however.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

roadsideron wrote:

Clipped highlights.

What makes you say clipped? Wouldn't clipped highlights cause the indicator arrow in the upper right corner to light up?

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Can anyone explain why the 2 images do not open to the same level of magnification when they are magnified? Shouldn't they both jump to 100% magnification, and look virtually identical in that respect, PP notwithstanding?

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Grain or not, it's a great shot! Not that distracting!!!!!!

10MPlayer Loc: California

Linda From Maine wrote:

Yep, I agree. And that observation speaks to the question, "What is important in a photograph?" (each photographer must answer that question for themselves.) Without pixel peeping, I find this to be a very engaging image!

And why pixel peep? If you like it as it is why go looking at it with a virtual magnifying glass.

Low Budget Dave

I like the color and the composition. People worry too much about grain.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

There certainly is noise in the image as lovely as it is. It could be improved with some good noise reduction software - I use Nik by DxO.

jonjacobik wrote:

I was going through some photos I took in July when I stumbled across this one. This direct from the raw file without an post.
When I noticed the EXIF data: ISO 8000, 1/1000, Tamron 150-600@600. My camera is a D7500.

I must have been playing with auto-iso because I'd never go above 1000 before sunset.

I was in forested area with a open field behind the birds.

Why is this nearly perfect - I'll frame in post and why is there almost no grain at all?

robertjsmith

A newbie question. What's a double download? Thanks,
Bob

robertjsmith

Every one has an opinion, mine is the Picture is Great!
Bob

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Agree with this. Lots of noise when peeping but a nice shot none the less. I think some noise reduction would go a long way with this shot. As far as why it's not as obvious - good light and exposure goes a long way in hiding noise.

SonyA580 wrote:

If you do the double download, you'll see plenty of grain. It's still a nice shot considering it was shot a ISO 8000.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

It's when you hit the download to view the image you can click on the image again to take it to 100%.

robertjsmith wrote:

A newbie question. What's a double download? Thanks,
Bob

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

One is cropped differently than the other or one was saved from the original smaller than the other before upload.

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Can anyone explain why the 2 images do not open to the same level of magnification when they are magnified? Shouldn't they both jump to 100% magnification, and look virtually identical in that respect, PP notwithstanding?