Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)

  1. #1
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,017
    Threads
    2,604
    Thank You Posts

    Default Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Image captured in my back garden set up.
    I have used a very small amount of Denoise (Enhance), I think it is capable of producing results very similar to DxO but it is less likely to introduce artefacts in the background, I may end up using it as default as opposed to DxO even though I think the latter produces slightly better rendering of fine detail.

    OM-1 150-400TC
    Focal Length (35 mm conversion) : 713.0mm
    Exposure mode : Manual exposure
    ISO : 500
    Exposure compensation : 0.0 EV
    Shutter : 1/3200 sec
    Aperture : F4.5

    ACR/PSCC

  2. #2
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,869
    Threads
    170
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Such a pretty photo, Jon. Checks all the boxes. Details are stunning.
    Looks just a tad bright on my screen.
    NR at ISO 500? That Olympus must be really bad

  3. #3
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,017
    Threads
    2,604
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Sid "NR at ISO 500? That Olympus must be really bad " Sounds like a rather hasty conclusion. Do you see any noticeable noise in the image?

  4. #4
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,869
    Threads
    170
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Ashton View Post
    Sid "NR at ISO 500? That Olympus must be really bad " Sounds like a rather hasty conclusion. Do you see any noticeable noise in the image?
    Sorry, Jon. That statement was made completely in jest; not at all meant to be taken seriously.
    I see absolutely no noise. I was mostly wondering if denoise was even needed at such a low ISO.

  5. #5
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,017
    Threads
    2,604
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidharth Kodikal View Post
    Sorry, Jon. That statement was made completely in jest; not at all meant to be taken seriously.
    I see absolutely no noise. I was mostly wondering if denoise was even needed at such a low ISO.
    No offence taken! It is fact that micro 4:3 produce more noise than full frame and cropped frame do produce more than full frame. Micro 4:3 is half the size of full frame but it does not produce twice the noise nor does it have half the dynamic range. There are indeed disadvantages to 4:3 but for me the advantages of the system far outweigh the disadvantages.
    There was very little noise, in the image, most people on Olympus would not use NR below ISO 1600, the Adobe Denoise has a negligible effect on detail if used sparingly but if there is a little noise it is cleared up. I also minimise any potential posterization in the background when Denoise used.

  6. Thanks Sidharth Kodikal thanked for this post
  7. #6
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    7,510
    Threads
    2,037
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Jon, your nailing these images, really nice. I love the pose of the bird, raised wings a big plus. The background and perch compliment the bird. Thank you for sharing.

    P.S. I use Lightroom Denoise at the default of 50 on every image regardless of the ISO number. AI distinguishes between noise and detail.
    Joe Przybyla

    "Sometimes I do get to places just as God is ready to have somebody click the shutter"... Ansel Adams

    www.amazinglight.smugmug.com

  8. #7
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,869
    Threads
    170
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Przybyla View Post
    P.S. I use Lightroom Denoise at the default of 50 on every image regardless of the ISO number. AI distinguishes between noise and detail.
    That's interesting. Will fiddle around with this for sure.

  9. #8
    Macro and Flora Moderator Jonathan Ashton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    17,017
    Threads
    2,604
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I would suggest the blanket use of 50 is not ideal - just depends upon how much of an inconvenience it is to determine the minimum required. It is very easy to see the effect of the differing amounts, I would suggest if you need less than 50 then use less and if you need more use more but the key thing is to see the effect on your image. Different images with differing ISO and exposures will have differing noise levels so don't assume for example the noise will necessarily be similar in all ISO 3200 images or in all ISO 8000 images - it will depend on exposure and tones - more noise in the darker tones than lighter tones.
    DxO is automatic Adobe applies varying amounts of NR, I do find though that it can oversparpen a little bit - this can be cancelled/not selected in the launch dialogue.

  10. #9
    BPN Member William Dickson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    7,773
    Threads
    1,093
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Very nice Jon. Great colours and pose. The BG here is perfect. On my monitor I feel the head can be sharpened a wee bit. Apart from that, very well captured and processed.

    Will

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics