Dan Martin

I'm trying to find a better tips site that I read a few months ago, but I'm not having much luck.

I've seen some of Paul Ward's work before and I know he's posted some tips somewhere. Here's his site:
http://www.paulwardphotography.com/g...17586eb4ad8145

Edit: Google to the rescue: http://community.dcmag.co.uk/forums/thread/132671.aspx

srika

Re: noise:

these are 2 (crops) of the original untouched pictures..

srika

I hear you - what I mean is if it had a built-in flash I wouldn't feel the need to run out and by a flash like, right away. I have an older Nikon speedlight that I use occasionally with the D70 and I definitely know the difference a separate flash makes. But honestly I was surprised at how well the built-in did at the club - but in retrospect I don't think its surprising because you don't need a lot of light for that type of photo. Just enough so that things aren't blurred - too much and you have the potential to easily lose the nuances of the club lighting.

thx 4 the links.

einsatz

After seeing those originals, I can't belive there are more NR artifacts in the other pics you posted!

srika

are or aren't? :P

I picked 2 of the worst cases. Many of them did not have that much noise - but still looked better after running Noise Ninja.

moeronn

The cleaned up image does look quite a bit better, but you can't really do an A-B comparison with different zoom factors.

srika

but you can see the noise.

moeronn

More than I expected. Seems the noise reduction program did pretty well.

FWIW, stage performances were what orginally got me interested in photograpy. I worked in a theater and some of the lighting effects were pretty cool, but difficult to capture without the right equipment. One pro-ish photographer hooked me up with some 1600 film and she would shoot it at 3200. It worked great for small photos, but don't think they would have enlarged too well.

One of these days I'll make the investment in a DSLR. Probably should have before getting married

srika

alright alright.. youre pulling my leg.

http://srika.com/img/pic1_ab.jpg

http://srika.com/img/pic2_ab.jpg

srika

well damn, I think I just need to LEARN HOW TO USE my D70! duh.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm

Dan Martin

You can certainly bump the exposure a bit in the RAW conversion, but there's no guarantee that the colors will be accurate. Bumping the exposure at all at higher ISOs looks horrible IMO. Most of the noise occurs in the shadow areas, so by underexposing the image and boosting it in RAW, you are introducing the maximum amount of noise possible.

A little tweak here and there is not a big deal, but a full stop (or two!) at the highest ISO is going to be really ugly.

srika

I'm not expecting that info to be 100% applicable to me, I was just happy to read about the "new" possibilities. And that article is obviously dated.

it's funny what you think of when you are falling asleep/waking up. I just had the startling revelation last night about looking up D70 settings on google, and I came up with this great article. lol. I don't think I have any inkling about getting a new camera now, at all. I want to learn how to use this one - because apparently it does have potential!

Dan Martin

It certainly makes sense to explore the limits of your gear before changing anything.

moeronn

I was at Best Buy today during lunch and the guy working the camera section seemed to have more than half a clue. Not that it was a fantastic deal, but a guy was looking at the 30D and the BB guy said he could sell it for 1299 (200 off). Never even heard of Best Buy negotiating. This opens new doors - at least on large purchases.

soopa

Every single one of those photos passed through Photoshop and not a single one of them is even all that great.

The "color" is nothing to be envious of. 2-clicks in Photoshop and you can make the colors in your photos pop too. Here's two quick side-by-side examples that took less than a few seconds and no skill using your low-res web shots. Imagine what you could do with your RAW's and some effort...









Doesn't take much if thats the look you're going for. 90% of what's wrong with your photos can be corrected in post-processing. If you work on your framing/composition you really don't have anything at all to envy in comparison to the "dream shots" you posted.

... oh... and don't think post processing is some evil deed. Most of the "good" photographers here on AcuraZine spend ungodly amounts of time working on their photos. Shit, didn't Dan Martin say he goes through a 66-step post-sharpening process?

srika

ugh. why you gotta make my (original) shots look so bad. :P

F900

LOL at the 40+ year old dancers ..

Dan Martin

Post processing is a fact of life. If you shoot RAW, you have no choice but to post-process since the file you captured is meaningless until you put it through a converter. All of the pros do it and it's not something that's new to digital either. You can take a roll of film to 3 different labs and you'll get 3 different prints back.


Well, not for every shot, but I'll certainly go through many steps for a print. I've automated those steps with an action, so if anyone would like a copy I can email it to them. I turn off in-camera sharpening, so all of my shots need to be sharpened in some way to counteract the camera's anti-aliasing filter. Usually a simple USM 200/0.3/0 will be enough for a shot that will be displayed on a monitor.

srika

I have this preconceived notion that post-processing = bad. Apparently I need to get rid of that.

soopa

Such was my point. Agreed 100%.

Dan Martin

Definitely. I don't hide the fact that I do post processing. Photoshop is not a dirty word.

A good chef will always taste their food and season accordingly. They'd be crazy to just assume that all the ingredients they use will taste the same every time they prepare the dish. Likewise, a photographer who is preping a photo for print or screen publication will want to tweak their image so it best represents their work.

Ansel Adams is known for capturing fantastic landscapes, but arguably, he's better known for his revolutionary darkroom and printing techniques. If he were alive today, I'm sure he would love Photoshop.

waTSX

Dan, are you using PSCS2?

waTSX

I didn't see your quetsion answered, so here goes: noise is to digital photography what grain is to film photography. Shooting at higher ISO's introduces a fine grain into the image, especially in the shadow areas. The same is true for film. It's one of the tradeoffs for being able to select faster shutter speeds in low-light conditions.

Various software programs can be used to reduce the noise in your images.

srika

Ive made a few changes for tonight's session - Blank & Jones @ Vision. The most important being, changing the color saturation to "Enhanced" and also the color type to "IIIa". These were Ken Rockwell's suggestions for getting brighter, warmer, more vibrant colors from the D70. I have also been reading up on the D80, and he claims it has much more vibrant and warmer colors than the D70, he says its wholly different and more akin to the D200.

I will probably use this thread as a repository for my "Club/Event Pictures" progress and learning, instead of creating new threads for every event.

stogie1020

Thanks. Makes sense. Are certian brands of camera/sensors more prone to niose at hgher ISO? I am thinking about the new Canon Rebel Xti.

svtmike

It has most to do with the size of the sensor. DSLRs generally have two sensor sizes - full frame (the size of a 35mm film frame) or APS-C (about 2/3 the size). The full frame sensors provide better noise performance because pixel-for-pixel on the sensor they receive more light.

In the DSLR world, only Canon has full-frame sensors; Nikon (and others like Sony, Pentax, etc.) use APS-C. The Rebel Xti uses an APS-C sensor.

In practical terms, they all are capable of taking excellent pictures, and all can be used to take atrocious pictures - that depends on the photographer. Noise IMO is really only important if you predominantly take pictures in very low light with a lot of shadows - which requires the use of ISO 1000+.

I would make my evaluation based on (1) the ergonomics of the camera and (2) the lenses that are available for my own photographic needs. My personal preference is the Nikon ergonomics by far - but Canon has a much more extensive range of lenses (especially in long glass) and they are much more readily available.

waTSX

Nikon actually presently has 62 lenses in its lineup versus 61 for Canon, this out of the July/August Pop Photo magazine. Canon has since introduced a couple of new lenses. Point being, there's hardly a disparity between the two brands.

DSLR's from both brands have excellent ergonomics, it just depends on what you prefer.

Pretty much any of the current DSLR offerings, from any brand, will offer a huge improvement in higher ISO performance over any of the "prosumer" level cameras. There's really a ton of excellent choices available right now: Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus. It really comes down to the system of lenses you'll be buying into (Canon and Nikon have the edge here, in sheer breadth alone), and how the camera feels to you.
Svtmike makes some good points. Go out and handle some of them and see how they feel to you.

FWIW, the XTi would be a very good choice, IMO.

waTSX

^^That lens quote was actually out of the PC Photo, not Pop Photo.

stogie1020

Thanks guys. I have had Canon Point And Shoot in the past and have been VERY pleased with the image quality, so I am leaning toward the Xti, but I know that with the older Rebels, people complained about the quality of the "kit" lens.

Many suggested buying body only and getting a better Canon lens or a Sigma. What would be a good general lens to learn the camera and be able to span the range of macro to portraits to landscapes? I understand no lens will do everything, or there wouldn't be 60 in a brand lineup, but a good general lens size to learn photography with?

waTSX

^^Something like the EF-S 60mm Macro would be a good choice. It's a prime lens, it's fast at f2.8, it gives you 1:1 magnification, and it would be very good for portrait work on a 1.6 camera. At around $350, it's pretty well priced. It just doesn't have the versatility of a zoom, but it's been getting excellent reviews, especially for image quality. It wouldn't be that great for landscapes though. You need to go wider for that.

Or you could just get something like that plus a general walk around zoom lens also, like the EF-S 17-85, or any of the Sigma or Tamron offerings in that focal range.

stogie1020

Great, thanks.

Now, any especially good books on photography for the novice?

waTSX

There's literally tons of photography books out there, but if you're truly a novice, you'll want something that explains the basics of exposure and the like. I like "The Joy of Digital Photography" by Jeff Wignall. It not only does a pretty good job of explaining the basics, but it is done in an exuberant fashion that really makes you want to run out and start shooting. It also delves into image editing, and it explains the various types of shooting you may want to try (landscapes, portraits, etc.). It also gives you some project ideas to get started. The book also has enough in it to keep you going beyond the novice stage.

It doesn't go quite into depth about exposure theory, but it gives you the nuts and bolts. It's hardbound with lots of nice photos. But really, anyone here, say Dan or Billiam or others, could probably suggest many other books. The web is also a good resource.

srika

So I have some good news and some bad news RE: Saturday night. The good news is, the pix had much less noise in them, because I set the ISO lower. I don't even think I have to run the de-noiser on most of the pix - but I might try it anyway to see how it looks. Bad news is, a rather small percentage of the pics came out. Most of them suffer from blurriness. I mean, even the strobes couldn't save em. I still got some good ones, just not as many as last time. This leads me to believe what I read somewhere at some site - "better to have a clear, noisy picture, than a blurry picture with no noise" - at least there are ways you can correct the noisy picture.

Anyway, I will be posting some of them hopefully later on today.

On another note, anybody know about this site? My senses are telling me "too good to be true"... but I just wanted to run it by you guys. Their prices are a bit ridiculous.

Nikon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312386

Canon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312322

badboy

I am in the look out for the xti and I have searched a lot of online places.

Your best friend is resellerratings.com

Best price cameras is not a good place to buy, as per resellerratings.

Dan Martin

That can certainly be true. Noise can sometimes add "grit" and texture to a dark scene. FWIW, noise in black and white is usually less objectionable than noise in colour.

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller8754.html Looks like a reputable dealer.

srika

^^^ LOL... how do places like this even stay up??? seriously.

if im bored later at work I think I might call em and bother em LOL

srika

ooooh.. I think I wont be calling from ANY number!!..... wtf.

srika

Blank & Jones @ Vision

http://www.delobbo.com/gallery2/v/09...kjones_vision/

highlights:

full main club, taken from 4th floor


strobes


no strobes

srika

badboy

at the guy in the last pic with lab goggles.