Originally Posted by
Steve Kaluski
OK Artie, as present looks great, no problem I would be very happy to have achieve this result both in terms of the difficult shooting conditions and the Post Production, Joe is absolutely on the money here. My only thinking was that say 97% is critically sharp and bang on, I just felt that on the RHS of the head (the green plumage and the red plumage just below the neck) it MAY have been the icing if everything was 'in focus' if achievable. No idea how far Joe may have needed to go, but it was just a thought. It might even be that applying some NR it has also added to the softness in those areas, but I am having to make assumptions without seeing the raw. The image is a stonking one and it was just me 'thinking out loud'.
It was more of a 'general' comment Artie. I just cannot see why folk feel the need to apply any NR at ISO below even 1000 these days, based on the current camera bodies. Nikon with say the D800E, D3s, D4s... created fantastic clean files with little contrast compared to Canon files and High ISO was not an issue, but here at ISO640 what noise would there be, so why apply it? It may be minimal and because the critical sharpness is perfect , so there is very little impact????
I guess it's just a bit of frustration on my part Artie when I see good/great images at low ISO and where folk have this desire to add NR when truly it doesn't need it. :S3: