brook not so great photo

[bribrius]

thoughts on dlight and noise? I keep running high iso/dim and am debating how high is usable still it doesn't seem consistent. Seems more obvious in bw so I did the conversion. Tell me how noticeable it is or unusable this range is or isnt. If you could. Thanks

 

[MikeFlorendo]

I probably can't answer your question since I am still learning but I'm curious as to your settings and the lighting available/time of day? I know more seasoned photographers will ask that anyway to ascertain possible solutions.

 

[deeky]

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near that. I put out shots with noise, but I want to be able to control that in post. Wish I could see the exif to know how it was shot. I might be a little distracted over all by the processing too - had to look for the stream. Not sure if that's a noise issue or not though.

 

[bribrius]

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near that. I put out shots with noise, but I want to be able to control that in post. Wish I could see the exif to know how it was shot. I might be a little distracted over all by the processing too - had to look for the stream. Not sure if that's a noise issue or not though.

f9 80mm 6000 there about iso. it was pretty dark late afternoon but mostly this creek has a lot of tight overgrowth and little sun. 1/100 shutter dlight high noise reduction normal . I don't mind noise. sometimes I use it for a certain effect. Question becomes how much before I killed it. And this all changes with the camera im using so it is a memory game. I thought this was a tad to far but I've taken photos with about the same or higher iso that had accolades so hard to tell sometimes. I used to add dlight to most of these too. stopped doing it. did this one, wanted to see how noticeable it was. I wanted a couple comments before I released the iso so as to not sway opinions preemptively.

 

[Derrel]

I can see a lot of detail smearing due to heavy noise reduction. At times, noise reduction can create an interesting effect that used to be called "the watercolor effect", but I think it looks poor in B&W, and better in color. In this scene, the noise reduction seems to have smeared the detail not enough to look dreamy, and ethereal, but too much to look proper and sharp. I see the tonal range also as an issue: everything looks mushed together in to about five tones. I do like impressionistic, pictorialist-type landscapes, but this isn't quite the best look for them. I would also mention that noise on-screen is often visible, but when printed, the noise is sublimated by ink being layed down on paper, and it's almost, a sort of dot-gain process that hides noise. I duuno... a LOT, as in a LOT of people new to photography, and new to digital, worry a whole lot about noise, and complain about the slightest hint of noise, and they even go so far as to make sure that they take lots of noise-free, but blurry smears at ISO 100 at 1/30 second, rather than make sharp but somewhat noisy images at ISO 1600 at 1/500 second.

One thing I think is worth mentioning bri: this "not so great photo" as you titled it, would have been considered very good, technically, from 1850 to 1920...and the soft, dreamy style would have fit right in with what many people though of as high-level pictorial photography for several decades. It's kind of an old-fashioned type of photo, of a quiet, classical subject.

 

[bribrius]

I can see a lot of detail smearing due to heavy noise reduction. At times, noise reduction can create an interesting effect that used to be called "the watercolor effect", but I think it looks poor in B&W, and better in color. In this scene, the noise reduction seems to have smeared the detail not enough to look dreamy, and ethereal, but too much to look proper and sharp. I see the tonal range also as an issue: everything looks mushed together in to about five tones. I do like impressionistic, pictorialist-type landscapes, but this isn't quite the best look for them. I would also mention that noise on-screen is often visible, but when printed, the noise is sublimated by ink being layed down on paper, and it's almost, a sort of dot-gain process that hides noise. I duuno... a LOT, as in a LOT of people new to photography, and new to digital, worry a whole lot about noise, and complain about the slightest hint of noise, and they even go so far as to make sure that they take lots of noise-free, but blurry smears at ISO 100 at 1/30 second, rather than make sharp but somewhat noisy images at ISO 1600 at 1/500 second.

One thing I think is worth mentioning bri: this "not so great photo" as you titled it, would have been considered very good, technically, from 1850 to 1920...and the soft, dreamy style would have fit right in with what many people though of as high-level pictorial photography for several decades. It's kind of an old-fashioned type of photo, of a quiet, classical subject.

red filtered. sounds like you are suggesting higher noise, more reduction kept color. EDIT: Thinking about what I just highlighted from your comment, that era is much of the work I look at. Might explain my tendency. I tend to live in the historical past...

 

[Derrel]

I see absolutely no reason not to go back to an earlier time and place in landscape photography. Seriously. Looking at 500px just once every three months, I am sickened by all of the excessively over-saturated, focus-stacked, noise-reduced, perfectly honed and prepped-for-the-web crap that dominates that site. There's no need for yet another 1,000 Nikon D800 landscapes, all shot THIS WEEK, and all emulating, or even directly imitating, one another.

Seriously. Look at this crap. It's allllll the same shot, but with an i instead of an o in shot. Allllll "subject matter", no talent whatsoever. Might as well just buy a postcard.

500px + Horseshoe Bend - Google Search

 

[bribrius]

I see absolutely no reason not to go back to an earlier time and place in landscape photography. Seriously. Looking at 500px just once every three months, I am sickened by all of the excessively over-saturated, focus-stacked, noise-reduced, perfectly honed and prepped-for-the-web crap that dominates that site. There's no need for yet another 1,000 Nikon D800 landscapes, all shot THIS WEEK, and all emulating, or even directly imitating, one another.

Seriously. Look at this crap. It's allllll the same shot, but with an i instead of an o in shot. Allllll "subject matter", no talent whatsoever. Might as well just buy a postcard.

500px + Horseshoe Bend - Google Search

lol.. I actually cant stand most of it either. It is what people like though.
I would start a 500px account but no one would like my simplistic circa 1900's style photos they would think I sucked!!.. lol And I sure don't fit the "artist" meme I was called a artist last month by a secretary "the artist is here" notifying who I needed to talk to about a showing and I felt like vomiting! Introduced as a artist! Just to have a few photos shown! Then they asked if i had animal photos? umm. Not really im not a wildlife type photographer!! Art everywhere it is coming out of my ears from seeing so much of it!
Unfortunately this bw simplistic also tends to be most of the style I shoot to varying degrees. so I'm odd man out here!! lol
Not to mention very few of my bw gets facebook likes. They like the newer "neat" stuff and you have to keep the facebook people saying how beautiful it is..:hail:


:lmao: