Seeking some clarification - DX vs FX

[bconolly]

Hi again everyone - back into the world of the interwebs today!

I've had a look at the default settings in Aperture for RAW fine tuning for the D7000 and Sharpening is set at .8 (scale from 0 to 1.0) so it is at the higher end. I can't remember if I've played with this or not so it may partly be to blame. In looking for samples I must say up to ISO 1600 is great and as I've capped the Auto ISO at that level for some time now finding samples was a bit difficult. I have attached one though for review. I think this seems a bit noisy but that said lighting was shocking (but not entirely unusual for when I'm able to get shots). Am I being too picky?

Brenden

[I @ M]

Brendan, after looking at the exif data I would suggest a few things.

The shutter speed, 1/50 is too slow to stop the movement in the subject.
The subject is underexposed by about 1/2 to 2/3 stop.
Having the sharpening set that high in the camera is not going to help matters as it will accentuate any noise that is occurring (mostly due to the underexposure) and I feel would be better handled by having no sharpening set in camera and applying it selectively in PP.
The focus is not spot on to help with obtaining a crisp shot.

My suggestions towards a "cure" for that particular image.

Spot meter on the subjects face. Matrix is doing a good job of the whole scene but ignoring the main point. If the background is a little over exposed it won't matter as the subject will be fine and after all that is what the image is all about.
Add 1/3 positive exposure compensation.
Your 35mm F/1.8 lens will give you great results wide open. Use it at F/1.8 as that immediately doubles your shutter speed at 1600 iso. untill you factor in any + exposure compensation.
Set the focus mode to AFC and practice locking the focus on the subjects eyes while they are moving as in the above scenario.

I feel that with your camera, that lens and some more prudent focussing, appropriate exposure and realistic shutter speeds the image would have been entirely printable at 20 inches on the longest size from a 3200 iso file.

[bconolly]

Thanks Andrew - absolutely get the shutter speed, metering and focus point issue. Most of which I've addressed in later shots (will attempt to find an example). Here's another not so great one at ISO 3200, 1/250th, f2.8, Matrix Metering. As you can see I've missed timed the shutter and hit his gob in terms of focal point rather than the eyes. This one to me does indeed seem quite noisy though, but I can sorta live with it at ISO 3200 (but would like less!). If this looked more like the ISO 1600 shot if using a D600 I'd be sold...

- - - Updated - - -

Here's another couple with spot metering etc just as a contrast. One at ISO 3200 and one at ISO 2200. 2200 looks great to me!_BC02551.jpg_BC02562.jpg

[arthurking83]

Of those last three images, has there been any processing done to them, even if this processing was not made by yourself. That is, has the raw converter attempted any form of shadow recovery .. as some tend to do by default with their contrast curve.

In some respects the two shots at ISO3200 aren't as bad as they ought to be(considering that they're ISO3200 images!!) if you look at some of the detail in the images.
My suspicions are that the top two of the recent three are basically similar images a few moments apart.
And the (first image)ISO3200 image has been recovered in the shadow areas, either by yourself, or via your raw converter(in this instance Aperture).

Either that or the second image was much brighter as an actual exposure and hence recovered back a little bit with some negative exposure compensation via the raw converter.

to get the best possible quality of image from an exposure shot at higher ISO values, the image must be exposed much more to the right(basically ETTR) .. and even over exposed, as far as you dare push the exposure.
This over exposed image will subsequently require a fair amount of exposure compensation to recover the highlights to a point as much as you can provide.
You will know how well your software can recover image detail prior to making the exposure .. so if for example you know you can recover up to 1Ev of highlight detail, then it's likely that you can shoot 1Ev over your normal exposure point and then apply -1Ev compensation on the image later on the PC.

So back to the discussion of the first image. For an image shot at ISO3200, if you look at the quality of noise in the brighter areas of the image, you should see that the noise quality in those areas is actually not too bad.
But where the image falls into a bit of a heap(in terms of noise quality) is in the shadow areas .. as already said by many .. this is how noise usually affects IQ.
So this should be the key to understanding that noisy images is generally tied to lower exposures. Coupled with recovery in those areas, it makes for an almost disastrous case of IQ .. and add to that some sharpening and well it just compounds the problem.

So the conclusion is that:
If you choose to go with a D600(and a damned fine camera it seems to be) .. you may well be wasting your money attempting to chase better quality image rendering in the form of lower noise, as in these instances the camera is not the limiting factor. If the issue was (say) ISO12800 image quality, then my guess would be that the D600 would indeed provide better ISO based noise quality than the D7000 .. simply due to the improved technology level of the hardware.
It may not be by much, but I think there will be a slight improvement.
But had you shot those images(supplied here) with the D600 in the same manner, I believe that you would have seen exactly the same results ... namely ok quality in the well exposed sections, lot so of noise in the shadowy areas that have been recovered.

And FWIW: to highlight the difference in exposure value between the two similar images of 1(ISO3200) and 2(ISO2200), you have over 3 stops of Ev difference in terms of the actual exposure. So not only was #1 a much higher ISO value, but the recovery job was more than 3Ev more difficult in the shadow areas in that image. Nearly 3Ev of shutter speed and almost one stop of ISO difference.

Lastly even tho it won't have any real impact on the outcome of these images, as already said in previous replies, your raw converter software will also impact on the noise quality of the affected images.
I'd suggest downloading a trial version of LR5 which, being the latest, probably has some very good noise reducing qualities(for a non specialist NR software).

[bconolly]

Thanks Arthur. Looking more closely at the original RAW converter options I've definitely messed with the sharpening at some point. Dropping that back to .5 from .8 and bumping the noise reduction from nothing to .2 makes a considerable improvement in the appearance of the image. I'll post one tomorrow as a comparison. Your point about the shadow recovery was interesting and took a bit of playing around to see what was going on. By default Aperture doesn't do anything in the recovery space on import. If however you use, which I have early on in the piece whilst learning the tool, the auto fix option it does mess quit extensively with shadow recovery in particular. Whilst I'd not used it on the above samples I tested turning it off and on and it certainly makes a difference (negatively) to the noise in the darker parts of the image.

Thanks again for the in depth help - very much appreciated. Now, you mentioned something about a 10,000 word dissertation to help with the missus and D600 purchase?

[arthurking83]

LOL! I'm all worded out for the next week or thereabouts .. and I'll need to let the dark matter settle for a while, whilst I conjure up some incomprehensible arguments

Of course I don't think I can have access to Aperture, so your judgement as to what it does under the hood to a raw file is much better than mine, but I'm yet to find a raw converter that doesn't have some embedded tweaks it attempts to pretty up an image .. otherwise a raw image will look very dull.
In saying that tho, I haven't tried them all .. just quite a lot(more so out of curiosity than anything else).

BUT!! while on the topic of raw converters, I remember a long while back(v2) I had a thought to try RawTherapee, and another member rejigged my dark matter into partial operation again, and I had a go at actually installing it on my PC(Mac version available too from memory).
Quite impressive results for initial rendering on a couple of raw files, that look quite good in my normal workflow(of basically Nikon specific software).
I reckon RawTherapee may have even produced a slightly more impressive rendering on one of the raw files compared to Nikon's software .. except, once again, it sets all these parameters on initial loading of the raw file trying to make it look more impressive. But as you found with high ISO noise, those results aren't always the better option.
A great 'selling point' about RawTherapee is that it's free!
Whilst it's not really a true replacement for how I prefer to work with raw files(ie. ViewNX2 and CNX2), at least RT's image rendering is good-excellent .. once the image is 'evened out' with respect to how it renders in Nikon's software.


And I think I've already mentioned it, but the D600 is definitely a camera to aspire towards(if not for the D7000 like size, I'd probably have got one too) .. and I reckon coupled with a Tamron 24-70/2.8VC .. you'll get many photos to be proud of.

[ROA44]

I think you deserve a week off after all of this, if not just to collate it all into a downloadable format for easier reading, for everyone who will probably find it a task to try to read it all at once, online to try to take it all in. But certainly one of the very informative posts that have appeared recently. well done to all involved.

But if like me you still waiting to get a reasonable monitor it doesn't make much difference. Not to worry they're getting closer.

[I @ M]

Thanks again for the in depth help - very much appreciated. Now, you mentioned something about a 10,000 word dissertation to help with the missus and D600 purchase?

I will perform a feat of magic here and save Arthur's keyboard and grey matter from further abuse as well as supplying you with well under 10,000 words that should guarantee wholehearted support from your better half towards the purchase of a D600. -------



D600 ( and luverly lens ) versus sports car and mistress.

[bconolly]

LOL! I'm all worded out for the next week or thereabouts .. and I'll need to let the dark matter settle for a while, whilst I conjure up some incomprehensible arguments

Well I certainly don't blame you! The detail back from your good self Arthur and Andrew, supported by Lance, Rick and everyone else who's posted has been nothing short of amazing. It's why I recommend this site to folks I meet, even those who aren't in Oz - best community bar none I've come across (and I'm involved in a few).

I think you deserve a week off after all of this, if not just to collate it all into a downloadable format for easier reading, for everyone who will probably find it a task to try to read it all at once, online to try to take it all in. But certainly one of the very informative posts that have appeared recently. well done to all involved.

Hear hear! at least a week (although that's selfish cause I've got plenty of homework to do before I can re-annoy you all for advice)

D600 ( and luverly lens ) versus sports car and mistress.

That argument Andrew could well be worth a try, or maybe just some nice flowers?

I'll hope to have some re-worked Aperture images up later tonight all going to plan.

Brenden

[bconolly]

So, based on some one on one editing feedback from Andrew (thanks so much!) and all the other good advice here I've reworked two of the images and I think the results are a heap better. Note that this is still using Aperture which will I'm ok with I wouldn't call myself an expert in by any means. BTW I don't mean to impune Andrew's editing capability as a reflection of mine - his were MUCH improved over the samples I'm posting here.

What does everyone else think? Are these easier on the eye noise wise?

[arthurking83]

.....

What does everyone else think? Are these easier on the eye noise wise?

Definitely!
the noisy grey area of the child's face are much better quality with your edited version .. a little but speckled, but no colour noise to observe(at these resolutions).

There is some graininess of the blurred background(#1), but not hard on the eyes. Whilst this isn't really an issue, it can be edited with the use of gaussian blur.

I think the key here, as you've shown is that experimentation .. and experience is what can make the difference.
We've all been there, and in reality still there ... I don't know anyone that knows everything about all aspects of photography.. so there's always something new to discover.

But I think the more important point to note about the last comment is that it's important not to jump to conclusions.
Always ask if unsure.

(y'know what would work really nice between now and that D600!? .... a Simga 35/1.4 )

[I @ M]

Looking much better.

It is all a learning curve, get the exposure "correct" to start with and the processing to remove any untoward noise will happen a lot easier.

[bconolly]

(y'know what would work really nice between now and that D600!? .... a Simga 35/1.4 )

Oh yeah Arthur - that's a great idea!