|
InternetJunky posted:I have pictures taken at 3200 that don't have this effect at all, so my expectations are set by that. Zooming incredibly into a photo, scrutinizing it for irrelevant details
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Penpal posted:Zooming incredibly into a photo, scrutinizing it for irrelevant details I don't think it's irrelevant and would like to know how to avoid it in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:The red pixels at two points of the photo are grouped together and numerous enough that they are clearly visible on the uncropped version, even with the most aggressive noise reduction. I just created an 18 megapixel image in Photoshop and pasted your crop into it. First, it seemed like your crop was even more than a 100% crop - I'd not be surprised if it was a 150% or even more. Second, while viewing the image full screen on my roughly 10x6 inch screen, I could not discern a single magenta pixel while viewing the image from about 2 feet away. When I brought the screen within 6 inches of my eyes, I could see a single red dot on the duck's head. I have doubts that even an excellent printer would render the dot visible while viewing the photo at regular viewing distances. People have already told you why your ISO 3200 shots might have come out better - high ISO is much more forgiving in situations where you have plenty of light, and is a torturous bitch in situations where you have very little. In this case, ISO 1600 resulted in too much noise. You have several options: 1. Buy a 400mm 2.8 and pull your ISO back 2. Shoot earlier in the day 3. Buy a 5D II I still believe you're pixel peeping. Viewing an image blown up to full screen on a 24 inch monitor isn't the way you should evaluate images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:The red pixels at two points of the photo are grouped together and numerous enough that they are clearly visible on the uncropped version, even with the most aggressive noise reduction. What noise reduction are you using? I keep everything of mine in Lightroom, and its default +25 chroma noise reduction is ridiculously good. Luma noise is just much less objectionable (to me, at least) than chroma -- it looks much more like film grain. I have shots at ISO 2500+ which are noisy/grainy, but perfectly usable thanks to just that default chroma noise reduction. Granted, I have a 5DII, but it's not *that* much better than your 7D, which is probably the best crop-sensor camera out there in terms of the high-ISO performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
DxO Optic Pro 6.0's noise reduction is the stuff of legends. I used to be nearly mortally afraid of shooting at 3200 with my 40D, but as I work with DxO more and learn what it can and can't do, I'm more comfortable with working at 3200 if necessary because DxO can do a heck of a job of massaging that data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
bobfather posted:I still believe you're pixel peeping. Viewing an image blown up to full screen on a 24 inch monitor isn't the way you should evaluate images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 05:56
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but for the sake of my sanity please check this larger version of the uncropped original and tell me if you can't see what I'm talking about regarding the visible red areas on the bird's head (under the eye) and on the tail. Both areas are big enough in the original that they're not being identified as purely noise by the noise reduction algorithms. Noise Ninja has a setting for coarse noise that will pull that right out. In fact that is the only reason I even open it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 06:28
|
|
|
The water is grossly under exposed while the near pure white feather on the horny ducks are blowing your highlight. It's just a really lovely lighting situation all around. You could probably save it by framing the ducks only and leave the water in the shadow or try exposing for the water and dont give a gently caress about the ducks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but for the sake of my sanity please check this larger version of the uncropped original and tell me if you can't see what I'm talking about regarding the visible red areas on the bird's head (under the eye) and on the tail. Both areas are big enough in the original that they're not being identified as purely noise by the noise reduction algorithms. in lightroom: noise reduction: colour: slide that down a bit. And dude, I was just telling you what a pixel peeper is, you need to chilll. The reason why this is going on is because you're shooting at a high iso on a cropped sensor camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but for the sake of my sanity please check this larger version of the uncropped original and tell me if you can't see what I'm talking about regarding the visible red areas on the bird's head (under the eye) and on the tail. Both areas are big enough in the original that they're not being identified as purely noise by the noise reduction algorithms. I can see the red/magenta dots on both the cropped and uncropped versions. EXIF on the image you linked to reads ISO 280. Are you sure you were shooting at 3200? It looks like it, because of the noise factor, but I want to make sure you're not actually shooting at a lower ISO and it's still producing that noise. If you were at 3200, that's not bad at all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
Let's none of us forget to heed the directive of the thread title. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 07:32
|
|
|
ISO, bro. ISO. Take your camera out of Auto ISO and learn to judge what each exposure's setting ought to be. Learn to do test shots. It's digital, you're not "wasting" frames to learn from results. You've got this new toy, pick a still life and take a bunch of shots at different ISOs and shutter/aperture combinations, see what they look like. You should be dying to do stuff like that. When I get bored at work I'll try poo poo out on stuff in the office and learn about magnification in relation to depth of field and a million other things. Stick with it and it'll soon become more intuitive. If you're leaving it on autopilot you're not getting your hands dirty and it's like a glorified P&S in that application. pwn fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Apr 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 07:58
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but for the sake of my sanity please check this larger version of the uncropped original and tell me if you can't see what I'm talking about regarding the visible red areas on the bird's head (under the eye) and on the tail. Both areas are big enough in the original that they're not being identified as purely noise by the noise reduction algorithms. What sort of modification has the image you are showing us undergone? Is there any chance that you've opened it up in Adobe Camera Raw with the sliders set to 'auto' ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Sorry if this has already been asked but I just came across this thread the other day and haven't even come close to catching up yet and I need to know before this evening: Do you guys have opinions on the Canon 20D DSLR? I found a really good deal for one on Craigslist and the guy says I can come pick it up tonight if I'm interested. From what I've read about it so far, it looks like a decent starter camera (I'm new to this photography thing, by the way) but I'd like to hear what actual photographers had to say about the thing. I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Sorry if this has already been asked but I just came across this thread the other day and haven't even come close to catching up yet and I need to know before this evening: It's a capable camera, albeit a bit slow, and the screen size is very small. Depending on how much you're willing to spend, it may be worthwhile to hold out for a 30D, or if you can go a lot more, 40D. The 30D is the same as the 20D, but I believe it's a little bit faster, and the screen is larger (but still fairly small)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:It's a capable camera, albeit a bit slow, and the screen size is very small. Depending on how much you're willing to spend, it may be worthwhile to hold out for a 30D, or if you can go a lot more, 40D. Well this guy is selling it for $400, is that even a good deal for what I'm getting? It seemed okay to me since it was originally $1500 back in 2005. And I didn't notice the screen size until now, it is pretty small...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Well this guy is selling it for $400, is that even a good deal for what I'm getting? It seemed okay to me since it was originally $1500 back in 2005. And I didn't notice the screen size until now, it is pretty small... For 250-300 it's a good deal. The screen size isn't a big deal to me, but there is the problem that it makes all your pictures look deceptively sharp when they aren't. Also, factor in that you will likely need to buy a new battery that hasn't been used since 2005.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Well this guy is selling it for $400, is that even a good deal for what I'm getting? It seemed okay to me since it was originally $1500 back in 2005. And I didn't notice the screen size until now, it is pretty small... It's a plenty capable camera-- the speed in terms of the processor, etc, should be fairly comparable to what you could expect out of a modern camera, so I wouldn't worry about that. The main areas where it falls behind the current offerings are ISO performance (which is still pretty decent on the 20D, just not as nice as newer kit) resolution (although 8.2 is MORE than enough) and the aforementioned screen size. A bigger screen is nice but it should not be a deal breaker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Well this guy is selling it for $400, is that even a good deal for what I'm getting? It seemed okay to me since it was originally $1500 back in 2005. And I didn't notice the screen size until now, it is pretty small... I bought a 20D earlier this year as my first DSLR and have no regrets. The biggest drawbacks, as already mentioned, are screen size and ISO performance. The screen, to me, is useless for checking anything except for framing and histogram. You can zoom in all you want and you won't realize your focus was off. $400 for a body alone is too much though. I paid $225 for mine and there are some under $300 on KEH.com at the moment. For $400 I would probably hold out for an XSI or spend a few hundred more and get the much more capable 40D. Personally I think the 30D is so close to the 20D that the extra couple hundred you'd spend on one isn't worth it, but others may disagree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
I'd like to bring my camera and 50mm to a party tonight, but I only have the onboard flash. Is there anything I can do to improve the results I'll get with the flash, or should I just not bother?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I'd like to bring my camera and 50mm to a party tonight, but I only have the onboard flash. Is there anything I can do to improve the results I'll get with the flash, or should I just not bother? Set your flash to go off at -1 or less EV. Let the fast lens and high ISO do the bulk of the work. Let the flash be just a mild fill rather than trying to illuminate everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
You could also make a little diffuser out of an empty film canister if you have any.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
If the lighting's not too irregular, try using manual mode with a wide aperture and medium-high ISO and longish shutter times (get like 2 stops below ambient), and have the flash take you the rest of the way and freeze action at the same time. I tend to find it's not so much the flash as the lack of ambient that makes party-snaps ugly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
Sometimes I cut out regular printer paper to use as a bounce flash. Just tape it on at like a 45 degree angle and it seems to work pretty well. At least better than without. I find if you do this and then play around with your settings manually you can get some decent results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
HPL posted:Set your flash to go off at -1 or less EV. Let the fast lens and high ISO do the bulk of the work. Let the flash be just a mild fill rather than trying to illuminate everything. Yeah this makes the shots look much less harsh. Wooten posted:Sometimes I cut out regular printer paper to use as a bounce flash. Just tape it on at like a 45 degree angle and it seems to work pretty well. At least better than without. I find if you do this and then play around with your settings manually you can get some decent results. I tried this out too, pretty cool the difference it makes. Thanks for all the advice, I hope I get some good shots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:$400 for a body alone is too much though. I paid $225 for mine and there are some under $300 on KEH.com at the moment. For $400 I would probably hold out for an XSI or spend a few hundred more and get the much more capable 40D. Personally I think the 30D is so close to the 20D that the extra couple hundred you'd spend on one isn't worth it, but others may disagree. Oh yeah, I wouldn't have paid $400 for just the body. I guess I should've posted the stuff it came with, too. Here's the whole ad: quote:This is a Canon 20D 8mp w/ 35-80mm lens. It also comes with 2GB Sandisk Extreme III cf card, 2 batteries and charger, usb cable, tamrac bag that holds everything. Hopefully the extra stuff helps the price make more sense? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 23:42
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Oh yeah, I wouldn't have paid $400 for just the body. I guess I should've posted the stuff it came with, too. Here's the whole ad: Depends on how much you like what it comes with I suppose, but I'd be hesitant. That lens will get you started, but my quick search shows that it's pretty low end ($50 used on Amazon) and even the 18-50 IS "kit lens" would be more versatile. Batteries, CF card, and bag are useful, but could probably be obtained for about $50 total brand new (hard to say without know what the bag is) so you're really looking at $300 for the body and $100 for things that may or may not be useful to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
I had that lens for a while and I don't it's even worth paying money for. Your best starting lens is probably the tamron 17-50, if you can't pay that much then get the 18-55 IS, which is a huge improvement over the non-IS and can be had for about 100 bucks. Save some money and try to get the body by itself for around 200. DaNzA fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Apr 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 03:11
|
|
|
Can't be worse than the 28-80 though can it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 03:42
|
|
|
Can't be worse than the 28-135 that came with my 40D, can it? Oh wait that's awful and basically useless and I'm going to sell it. Also the 40D was only 700 with it, so like, a 20D should not be 400.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Can't be worse than the 28-135 that came with my 40D, can it? Whats wrong with the 28-135? Aside from the stabiliser not being very good. And yeah the 35-80 is definitely a throwaway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
dissss posted:Whats wrong with the 28-135? Aside from the stabiliser not being very good. Not very sharp, or in a very useful focal range for me... and the stabilizer DOES suck. The autofocus is very fast and quiet, though. At least it has good resale value, so it'll significantly defer the cost of my camera next month when I sell it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Sometimes I cut out regular printer paper to use as a bounce flash. Just tape it on at like a 45 degree angle and it seems to work pretty well. At least better than without. I find if you do this and then play around with your settings manually you can get some decent results. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
jackpot posted:A business card works nicely too: I tried this out with the D90 and there really is no way to wedge in a card. If other nikon cameras have the same built in flash setup that the d90 does then this won't work for nikons. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
jackpot posted:A business card works nicely too: I had no idea that I could put the lens cover on with the lens hood, this just totally blew my mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I had no idea that I could put the lens cover on with the lens hood, this just totally blew my mind. Yeah but it's kind of a PITA unless you have the nice lens caps with the pinch tabs in the middle rather than on the edge. Canon 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Yeah but it's kind of a PITA unless you have the nice lens caps with the pinch tabs in the middle rather than on the edge. Amen to that. Especially with round (non-petal) hoods like the ET-74.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
I really don't understand why camera manufacturers insist on having front facing flashes. Just add $2 hinges to the side and you could have a cheap bounce flash and another bullet point for your product.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Obscurum posted:I tried this out with the D90 and there really is no way to wedge in a card. If other nikon cameras have the same built in flash setup that the d90 does then this won't work for nikons. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Nikon's spokesman: Ashton Kutcher Canon's spokesman: Its own goddamn business card 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 04:17
|
|