This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

 Moderated by: chrisbet, Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
What is HIGH ISO?   -   Page   3
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost



Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 08:58
 
21st Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
 jk wrote:
I agree that D500 works well. To be honest I only shoot RAW for best results should I want to make a large enlargement which is infrequent these days.

I am wondering if Eric has a sub-standard D500. I dont know how to check.


I've had an offer of another D500 to try in the new year. :thumbs:

But I am also planning to pop along to WEX again and compare their demo model with mine.



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 09:19
 
22nd Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
 jk wrote:
All shot on Z7 at ISO6400, 1/60th or there abouts f4.

Those Z7 shots are remarkably clean.
I am assuming from your comments that you haven't used any noise reduction you meant neither in the camera or in computer?



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 09:24
 
23rd Post
Iain



Joined: Thu Apr 5th, 2012
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Posts: 1487
Status: 
Offline
 Eric wrote:
Robert wrote:
Just passing...

I have notice with alarm that you keep saying you save as JPEG, "it will be 'good enough'" If I may say so it WON'T be 'good enough', you are complaining about IQ, use the highest quality NEF's you can lay your hands on just for starters, and leave the noise reduction for the computer. The available choice of NR software is far greater and infinitely more controllable than what the camera has to offer. Use layers and masking, you are the expert in that department yet you seem to be missing it.

OK you are fed up with using computers but if you want the good results in my view it's the only way.

Off to the tip! :lol:

Not sure if that remark was addressed to me or Jeff?

I HAVE been shooting raw on recent images and there's no difference in the outputted image quality to computer. There is nothing wrong with saving files as JPEGs.

The whole publishing industry demands the supply of images in JPEGs format. Send a NEF file to a magazine and they will reject it.

In fact these days they frequently want png files.

The whole point about raw files is they enable YOU to make whatever corrections you think need doing ....corrections that you or the camera didn't do at the time of the exposure. My point is ...the captured images are not good enough irrespective of file format.

The risk with compressed files is the degree and repeated application of this compression by repeated resaving.

In my early years of supplying digital artwork I did repeated and exhaustive test on the effect on quality of the degree of jpeg compression and multiple circles thereof.

I fear the jpeg is not the bogeyman many would have us believe.

Of course it's not good practise to save part processed WIP images in any compressed format. But there's nothing wrong in saving finished files in jpeg. Arguably thts what the camera assumes you require...a finished jpeg.


Just my experience



o.O

:thumbs:
 




Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 09:26
 
24th Post
Iain



Joined: Thu Apr 5th, 2012
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Posts: 1487
Status: 
Offline
 One from today D500 auto ISO5600 jpeg camera set to normal noise reduction, pic cropped but nothing else done to it.1/320 F6.3@600mm on bean bag.

Attachment: DSC_2539-Edit.jpg (Downloaded 34 times)
 




Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 09:28
 
25th Post
Iain



Joined: Thu Apr 5th, 2012
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Posts: 1487
Status: 
Offline
 Is your D500 still in warranty Eric?
 




Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 14:50
 
26th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
 Iain wrote:
Is your D500 still in warranty Eric?

We must have had that thought at the same time. Yes ...bought in March.

Will speak to Nikon on Monday.

In the meantime I will take some more photos on Normal NR setting and return to WEX over weekend to get some samples off their demo model alongside mine.

Because it's a chaff in the same soett of situation but with LOW NR setting and at just 3000 iso.....

Attachment: AB87F8DB-46E3-43BF-983E-F0EE260A84E0.jpeg (Downloaded 33 times)



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 15:14
 
27th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
 I will need to take a look at how my D500 performs here in UK as it was only used in Spain. Ultra bright conditions.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 03:08
 
28th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
 Eric wrote:
Robert wrote:
Just passing...

I have notice with alarm that you keep saying you save as JPEG, "it will be 'good enough'" If I may say so it WON'T be 'good enough', you are complaining about IQ, use the highest quality NEF's you can lay your hands on just for starters, and leave the noise reduction for the computer. The available choice of NR software is far greater and infinitely more controllable than what the camera has to offer. Use layers and masking, you are the expert in that department yet you seem to be missing it.

OK you are fed up with using computers but if you want the good results in my view it's the only way.

Off to the tip! :lol:

Not sure if that remark was addressed to me or Jeff?

I HAVE been shooting raw on recent images and there's no difference in the outputted image quality to computer. There is nothing wrong with saving files as JPEGs.

The whole publishing industry demands the supply of images in JPEGs format. Send a NEF file to a magazine and they will reject it.

In fact these days they frequently want png files.

The whole point about raw files is they enable YOU to make whatever corrections you think need doing ....corrections that you or the camera didn't do at the time of the exposure. My point is ...the captured images are not good enough irrespective of file format.

The risk with compressed files is the degree and repeated application of this compression by repeated resaving.

In my early years of supplying digital artwork I did repeated and exhaustive test on the effect on quality of the degree of jpeg compression and multiple circles thereof.

I fear the jpeg is not the bogeyman many would have us believe.

Of course it's not good practise to save part processed WIP images in any compressed format. But there's nothing wrong in saving finished files in jpeg. Arguably thts what the camera assumes you require...a finished jpeg.


Just my experience



o.O

Sorry about the delayed response, yesterday was a non event.

By "save as JPEG" I meant saving in camera, not on computer, or elsewhere.

Comparing an NEF with a JPEG WILL show EXACTLY the same image. No surprise, the NEF contains a basic JPEG for viewing purposes, that is what you are viewing and comparing when you open an NEF. (Which, to me, rather negates the process of saving JPEG and NEF in camera.)

The advantage of saving as NEF is the entire data set provided by the sensor is available for processing. That means you have far more latitude in the processing, better highlight and shadow adjustment, more range to adjust noise and a greater freedom to adjust colour or any other image parameter, because the required data is in the NEF, having adjusted the image you are free to save as a TIFF, JPEG or DNG or any other image file format you wish EXCEPT NEF, only the camera can save as NEF.

If data storage space is an issue, the NEF's can be thrown away once processed, although I bet you kept negatives even after you printed them to paper, which seems to me analogous to creating JPEGs.

A JPEG image file does not contain sufficient data to make the range of adjustment available from an NEF, fact. To get the most from an exposure, especially one which contains bright background or fine detail it is better achieved from an NEF.

If I want a good image I use a tripod or monopod and save as NEF, if I just want a snapshot I use the D3300 handheld on auto and save as JPEG, good enough.

Having spent a small fortune on a good lens and camera to obtain high quality images, a zero cost methodology of using tripod and NEF's seems to me worth the effort. I carry my tripod or monopod to the tops of mountains, around large gardens, race circuits and across boggy moors. I use NEF file format to allow me to get that extra ounce (gram?) of image quality which I would otherwise throw away but can just make the difference between a good exposure and an outstanding exposure.

I feel it's worth the effort and it keeps me fit, the NEF's don't weigh anything and don't cost anything except initial disk space, which is cheap enough nowadays, especially compared with the cost of cameras and lenses, your ideas may be different, I'm just trying to help improve final IQ?



____________________
Robert.
 




Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 05:41
 
29th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
 Robert wrote:
Eric wrote:
Robert wrote:
Just passing...

I have notice with alarm that you keep saying you save as JPEG, "it will be 'good enough'" If I may say so it WON'T be 'good enough', you are complaining about IQ, use the highest quality NEF's you can lay your hands on just for starters, and leave the noise reduction for the computer. The available choice of NR software is far greater and infinitely more controllable than what the camera has to offer. Use layers and masking, you are the expert in that department yet you seem to be missing it.

OK you are fed up with using computers but if you want the good results in my view it's the only way.

Off to the tip! :lol:

Not sure if that remark was addressed to me or Jeff?

I HAVE been shooting raw on recent images and there's no difference in the outputted image quality to computer. There is nothing wrong with saving files as JPEGs.

The whole publishing industry demands the supply of images in JPEGs format. Send a NEF file to a magazine and they will reject it.

In fact these days they frequently want png files.

The whole point about raw files is they enable YOU to make whatever corrections you think need doing ....corrections that you or the camera didn't do at the time of the exposure. My point is ...the captured images are not good enough irrespective of file format.

The risk with compressed files is the degree and repeated application of this compression by repeated resaving.

In my early years of supplying digital artwork I did repeated and exhaustive test on the effect on quality of the degree of jpeg compression and multiple circles thereof.

I fear the jpeg is not the bogeyman many would have us believe.

Of course it's not good practise to save part processed WIP images in any compressed format. But there's nothing wrong in saving finished files in jpeg. Arguably thts what the camera assumes you require...a finished jpeg.


Just my experience



o.O

Sorry about the delayed response, yesterday was a non event.

By "save as JPEG" I meant saving in camera, not on computer, or elsewhere.

Comparing an NEF with a JPEG WILL show EXACTLY the same image. No surprise, the NEF contains a basic JPEG for viewing purposes, that is what you are viewing and comparing when you open an NEF. (Which, to me, rather negates the process of saving JPEG and NEF in camera.)

The advantage of saving as NEF is the entire data set provided by the sensor is available for processing. That means you have far more latitude in the processing, better highlight and shadow adjustment, more range to adjust noise and a greater freedom to adjust colour or any other image parameter, because the required data is in the NEF, having adjusted the image you are free to save as a TIFF, JPEG or DNG or any other image file format you wish EXCEPT NEF, only the camera can save as NEF.

If data storage space is an issue, the NEF's can be thrown away once processed, although I bet you kept negatives even after you printed them to paper, which seems to me analogous to creating JPEGs.

A JPEG image file does not contain sufficient data to make the range of adjustment available from an NEF, fact. To get the most from an exposure, especially one which contains bright background or fine detail it is better achieved from an NEF.

If I want a good image I use a tripod or monopod and save as NEF, if I just want a snapshot I use the D3300 handheld on auto and save as JPEG, good enough.

Having spent a small fortune on a good lens and camera to obtain high quality images, a zero cost methodology of using tripod and NEF's seems to me worth the effort. I carry my tripod or monopod to the tops of mountains, around large gardens, race circuits and across boggy moors. I use NEF file format to allow me to get that extra ounce (gram?) of image quality which I would otherwise throw away but can just make the difference between a good exposure and an outstanding exposure.

I feel it's worth the effort and it keeps me fit, the NEF's don't weigh anything and don't cost anything except initial disk space, which is cheap enough nowadays, especially compared with the cost of cameras and lenses, your ideas may be different, I'm just trying to help improve final IQ?

I THINK we are talking at crossed purposes...slightly.

There is no doubt using a tripod will give you sharper images especially at slower shutter speeds.

There is no doubt that saving a file in raw format will enable the computer operator to make finer adjustments.

There is no doubt using the wrong settings (when on a tripod or not) will lead to the need for a raw file in the hope the fine detail can be recovered.

Having been in this situation MANY MANY times with awkward interior lighting I am fully aware of the potential of raw processing...but also it's limits.

No disrespect to anyone but I've seen lots of images over the years on this forum that have been taken in NEF for better processing...only to see glaring exposure, composition, cropping, distraction errors that, to me, destroy the whole notion that processing a raw file was worth it. I hasten to add I myself have also posted images that fail similarly.

The point I am making is that if your intention is to produce large exhibition/sale prints as opposed to merely viewing them on screens (be that 55" plasma, 32"Eizo, MacBook or IPad) then you need to squeeze out best practise at every corner.

But if the final resting place is Flickr, Instagram, Forums or just Photos on an iPad, then I don't believe the extra contortions of processing nefs on computers have any more merit than using the jpeg out of the camera...even if that needs a few tweaks.

It's all about being 'fit for purpose” to my mind.

o.O



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 06:08
 
30th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
 Just returning to my original post for a moment....and the question of my D500s noise output.

I've today taken some interior shots with incandescent lighting (worse case scenario) at different levels of ISO and in camera noise reduction settings.

I have yet to compare another D500 ( will try the WEX demo model in next few days) but my conclusion is that by setting the camera at LOW NR since I got the camera, I have been unwittingly fallen between two stools.

With no sound assessment to back up my logic, I had assumed that using low rather than normal setting would be beneficial (bearing in mind my foolish perception that 3000-4000 iso isn't HIGH anymore) thus eeking out a little more in camera sharpness.

I understood that having NO NR setting would run the risk of HAVING to do something in the computer later but thought (we all know what thought did) I would be ok with LOW. WRONG.

Looking on desktop screen at the series of shots I can categorically say the following....

NO NR..... noise becomes evident above 800 iso
LOW NR..... noise becomes evident above 2000 iso
NORM NR..... noise becomes evident above 4000 iso
HIGH NR..... noise becomes evident above 6400 iso

Which in part explains why my 4000 bird shots at LOW setting were too noisy for my taste.

I've now set it to NORM for next outing. But will also see if the WEX demo model behaves similarly. My model may still be a bit below par.

I also took some shots at 1,600,000 iso. Now that IS noisy...even with HIGH NR setting. Will post some examples when I get a moment .....have pulled tendons in my ankle, so hobbling to office desktop computer is even more of a pain.;-)



____________________
Eric
 

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 1625     Current time is 06:12 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page    
Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography > What is HIGH ISO? Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Go to top
Go to end
Messages
Home
Recent topics
Unread posts
Last posts
Splash

Current theme is Modern editor



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0683 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 90 queries executed.