Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/13/2010 10:00:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2010 9:12:06 PM EDT by Penguin_101]
Critique and comments welcome!

Remotes: Poverty wizards and a borrowed XT & 70-200 4L





These all shot with 30D and 70-200 2.8L non-remote





Grain is eviler than Obama. I need a 7D and I should have switched to RAW after dark. Oh well. Needed space.

Link Posted: 4/14/2010 6:24:24 AM EDT
You did good for an XT. RAW after dark? RAW ALL THE TIME BABY! Buy bigger card! I'll fore warn you though.....Stepping up to a 7D is like a whole new world.
Link Posted: 4/14/2010 6:40:18 AM EDT
I like the first one the best.

Good work with the remotes.

And definitely shoot RAW. I switched sometime back and like it much better.
Link Posted: 4/14/2010 7:32:00 AM EDT
I normally shoot raw, but I was covering this game for two papers. Neither want raw or need it and I wasn't going to buy new cards to shoot all raw. In the end I had 1082 pictures to dig through, most of which were trashed remote shots.
Link Posted: 4/14/2010 9:11:37 PM EDT
Here are some from the Mizzou game:

Shot with a Nikon D2Hs and 300 2.8









And remotes:



Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:55:54 PM EDT
Goods shots but i do have one comment,there is no grain with digital capture.Grain is only in film so what you are seeing is noise.Good shots and i bet you you loved that 300 2.8.

Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:20:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By analogphotographer:
Goods shots but i do have one comment,there is no grain with digital capture.Grain is only in film so what you are seeing is noise.Good shots and i bet you you loved that 300 2.8.



Old habits die hard.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 5:08:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
Originally Posted By analogphotographer:
Goods shots but i do have one comment,there is no grain with digital capture.Grain is only in film so what you are seeing is noise.Good shots and i bet you you loved that 300 2.8.



Old habits die hard.


I might be wrong, but IMO you can get "grain" separately from "noise" in a DSLR.

High ISO that is properly/over exposed will tend to look "grainy" whereas ANY ISO that is severely underexposed (then brought up in post) will look "noisy".

I consider grain to be differences in brightness between pixels, but the overall color looks consistent. I consider noise to be variations in color.

The digital "grain" looks good, IMO. I have yet to look at "noise" and think it is ever appealing.

JMO. I may be technically incorrect, but that's how I see it. Feel free to discuss if that seems off.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 5:35:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
Originally Posted By analogphotographer:
Goods shots but i do have one comment,there is no grain with digital capture.Grain is only in film so what you are seeing is noise.Good shots and i bet you you loved that 300 2.8.



Old habits die hard.


I might be wrong, but IMO you can get "grain" separately from "noise" in a DSLR.

High ISO that is properly/over exposed will tend to look "grainy" whereas ANY ISO that is severely underexposed (then brought up in post) will look "noisy".

I consider grain to be differences in brightness between pixels, but the overall color looks consistent. I consider noise to be variations in color.

The digital "grain" looks good, IMO. I have yet to look at "noise" and think it is ever appealing.

JMO. I may be technically incorrect, but that's how I see it. Feel free to discuss if that seems off.


High ISO will not necessarily look noisy or grainy....it's a deficiency in CCD design that is slowly being overcome. (S/N ratios improving)

Actual film grain is a result of the size and shape of dye clouds

Here's 1600 ISO on 7D without any noise reduction in post::



(crop of a 100% image)

That was simply impossible via digital just 2 years ago

Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:09:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2010 8:12:43 PM EDT by steenkybastage]
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
Originally Posted By analogphotographer:
Goods shots but i do have one comment,there is no grain with digital capture.Grain is only in film so what you are seeing is noise.Good shots and i bet you you loved that 300 2.8.



Old habits die hard.


I might be wrong, but IMO you can get "grain" separately from "noise" in a DSLR.

High ISO that is properly/over exposed will tend to look "grainy" whereas ANY ISO that is severely underexposed (then brought up in post) will look "noisy".

I consider grain to be differences in brightness between pixels, but the overall color looks consistent. I consider noise to be variations in color.

The digital "grain" looks good, IMO. I have yet to look at "noise" and think it is ever appealing.

JMO. I may be technically incorrect, but that's how I see it. Feel free to discuss if that seems off.


High ISO will not necessarily look noisy or grainy....it's a deficiency in CCD design that is slowly being overcome. (S/N ratios improving)

Actual film grain is a result of the size and shape of dye clouds

Here's 1600 ISO on 7D without any noise reduction in post::

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Gatordonald/DCUvRev/IMG_0354.jpg

(crop of a 100% image)

That was simply impossible via digital just 2 years ago



I hear you... but here's my perspective:

ISO 100, flash didn't fire, so severely unerexposed. This produced (what I call) noise.



ISO 100, flash did fire, no adjustment necessary... no noise or grain.



ISO 6400, flash fired, no adjustment done... this shows (what I call) grain.




All 3 images are with a 5d2, taken at the same event. I marquee selected areas and cropped (that's why they're different sizes) which makes each picture the actual pixels (100% crop). Other than adjusting the underexposed one to be properly exposed, these are exactly how the RAW files were shot.

The way I see it, the underexposed one is the only one I would associate with what I call noise. The 6400 shot looks (to me) like a nice smooth film grain.

::edit:: Sonofa... resize feature got me. You'll have to right click and view image to see the actual pixels.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 7:10:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2010 7:10:56 AM EDT by jvic]


That was simply impossible via digital just 2 years ago



How long has the Nikon D3 been out?
Top Top