D2H ISO 6400 shot recovered

[simon_t__ireland_]

<p>Thank to Lex. Now usng the original NEF has made a significant improvement to the NR conversion LR3 b2. The differece is very obvious if you look at the background wall.<br /> From NEF<br /> <img src="http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/stingOM/DSC_0071.jpg" alt="" /><br /> From JPEG<br /> <img src="http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/stingOM/00W63A-232395684-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Where can I get the NEF file Lex.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Lex, you wrote about using your camera at very high ISO and added:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I usually dial in around +2/3 exposure compensation.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you take that approach instead of shooting at 2/3 stop lower ISO? Both produce the same exposure (f-stop and shutter speed), both let the same number of photons hit the photosite. </p>

<p>I'm wondering what is the difference between setting the camera at ISO 3200 +1EV vs. ISO 1600 +/-0EV? It's the same photon count with different processing. I wonder what difference it makes?</p>

<p>Back to the the main point, I too am astounded at the low light capability of today's cameras. I shoot indoors with normal room lighting and even in restaurant "mood lighting" that would never have worked with film. </p>

[simon_t__ireland_]

<p>If you don't nail the exposure exactly at high ISO, more noise would be evident. The noise level gets worst if you underexpose.<br /> http://www.layersmagazine.com/turn-down-the-noise-in-photoshop-cs3.html</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Stuart: I'll e-mail the NEF to you later.</p>

<p>Richard: There are no fractional ISO options above 1600 with the D2H. Between 200-1600 you can choose 1/3 increments for the ISO, but above 1600 it goes directly to HI-1 (3200) and HI-2 (6400).</p>

<p>The main reason is to avoid banding which can't be easily fixed with editing, short of editing in layers and using blur or smoothing on the worst areas.</p>

<p>And for this specific situation - the nighttime photos of firefighters at work - I needed the faster shutter speed. By the time there was a lull and I had time to review my shots, virtually all of the first 50-60 photos, mostly taken at ISO 1600 and 1/30th sec, were blurred and useless. I can't handhold steadily below 1/125th anymore, and even when I leaned against a lamp post for support, there was too much motion blur.</p>

<p>Another reason is expediency. Back when I was still trying freelancing (I've since stopped), the only way to have a chance was to have JPEGs ready to go, no editing. They had to be right, out of the camera. Deliberately underexposing and hoping to rescue the photos later wasn't an option.</p>

<p>BTW, I didn't use exposure compensation to get the few photos that were in focus. By then I'd mounted the manual focus 300/4.5 AI and switched to manual exposure. The very slowest practical shutter speed I could use, 1/125th at f/4.5, was still a little underexposed - which can be seen in the unedited JPEG.</p>

<p>Back in 2005 when I first got the camera I plotted some curves to figure out whether the HI-1 and HI-2 settings really offered any advantages over shooting at 1600 and simply compensating for underexposure in editing. As best I could figure the in-camera processing appeared to boost the gamma or middle of the curve. When I tried to mimic this by tweaking underexposed shots at 1600 I got more posterizing. Unfortunately, that was at least two computers ago and hard drive crashes ago and I didn't bother to save those tests to CD/DVD. I could redo them but I'm too lazy and already familiar with how to tweak the camera to suit my needs.</p>

<p>I also compensate most of the time by using a custom tone curve (described in an earlier post), which boosts the gamma and slightly compresses shadows and highlights. Works well enough for the specific situations I had in mind for shooting above 1600: emergencies when it was unavoidable; shooting JPEG only for situations when I needed to turn over files quickly (the idea was freelancing for local news outlets, which seldom panned out).</p>

<p>In actual practice, by dialing in +2/3 EV, HI-1 works out closer to 2000 and HI-2 closer to 4000. Still enough advantage over 1600 to be useful when there's no alternative.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'll break with tradition and try to attach the NEF directly to this post - again, because it might be useful to others in future who are curious about how the D2H performs in real world situations at 6400. Comparable sample files weren't available online when I got the D2H back in 2005. At the time only a few small 1:1 samples were available on dpreview (their usual "blue coin" noise tests), and any full frame photos were resized JPEGs which tends to mask noise.</p>

<p>Photo.net won't display a raw file and unless your browser offers a preview for raw files you'll probably need to download it to view the photo. I just noticed I'd set it to compressed raw that night, so the NEF will be around 4.3 MB.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Thanks for the posting the NEF file. Here is a quick one using neatimage for noise reduction. NEF was processed with Capture One 5 without noise reduction.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here it is</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is another one. This time I did a monochrome version.</p><div></div>

[simon_t__ireland_]

<p>Wow, Noise Ninja did a fantastic job. Very close to LR3 beta2. Hard to decide which is best. But the B&W conversion is excellent and best. It looks more natural for me. I am sure if you spent more time working on the photography it would come up even better. I guess Pros don't really have much time for this, but for hobbist like me, it is a fun learning process!</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The B&W is my favourite too. Over all I am quite pleased with neat image as it seems to allow alot of adjustment to control noise and sharpening. Both the color and B&W images were made from the same noise reduced file I made with neatimage. The B&W image has more grain though because I sharpend more before converting to B&W. The D2h is rather like my D1h at ISO 6400 there is just a little bit too much noise. However both those cameras were made for the press and sports photographer where often the image is needed even if the quality is quite low. The D1h will produce decent 8x10 images all the way to ISO 1000 and at ISO 1600 and 8x10 will often be ok. The quality drops quickly at ISO3200 and 6400. I did once make some 6x4 prints of my daughter playing soccer that were shot at 6400 and with careful noise reduction I can squeaze a 5x7 out of the right image. My D80 can be used at ISO 3200 for 8x10 prints with noise reduction software like neatimage.</p>

[steve_kirby1]

<p>You did a lot with it, to be sure, but it can still be improved considerably. Go to Images-adjustments-color and saturation- select yellows and knock down the yellow saturation. There was just a touch of green in it as well, so I knocked that down too. Now the colors are pretty much neutral.</p><div></div>

[simon_t__ireland_]

<p>Hi Steve,<br>

Thanks for the tips. Actually I took this at night under tungsten lighting as you can imagine. But I prefer my version, except that you had improved the green cast by removing it.</p>