Just my opinion but I'd say no to the gaussIan blur as you did it, it makes the stick look wonky. You might try the lens blur tool in ACR for that kind of effect. Lightroom is basically the same tools as ACR.
Low ISO vs. Denoise + High ISO - Watch This Before You Next Shoot!
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Just my opinion but I'd say no to the gaussIan blur as you did it, it makes the stick look wonky. You might try the lens blur tool in ACR for that kind of effect. Lightroom is basically the same tools as ACR.
macwalter
Well-known member
I have never done mathematical image stacking as the birds dont stay still. I can see how it could work. I do like an often use ACR as I like to work in PS. However I usually do NR first from LR.
It is very difficult to tell on YT. However, if you keep the image on screen a tad longer the missing details will show up. I realize that's difficult to do while keeping things rolling, but that would help a lot. Another pet peeve I have (not necessarily you Steve) is when the presenter 'jumps' back and forth between settings or images so fast that YT doesn't show anything useful. Again, it's probably their compression algorithms over which we have no control. Regardless though, one needs to say that your videos are incredibly insightful and educational, even for an advanced user.
macwalter
Well-known member
On my iPad I could see much of what Steve was presenting. In some cases I would want to see it on a larger screen to make more of a decision. One thing is clear though, beyond a certain point the noise will overwhelm the fine details and then it’s up to you to decide how much Ai recovery Is acceptable vs, loss of detail. Sometimes I like the Ai sometimes not so much. I do prefer in most cases the Ai detail recovery of DxO vs topaz on noisy shots as it is usually more even. I think topaz tends to try too hard. I tend to avoid using the sharpen tool in topaz as the Denoise option will sharpen things anyway. As will Dxo but at least here the detail slider can go negative. In both apps there is a need to isolate areas to apply more or less of the processing topaz tries to do this but it is not very easy to apply. Topaz is more aimed at convenience which is nice on easy photos.
I found Steve's video to be highly informative, especially regarding the information about DXO and Topaz using AI to create information, specifically details. I have been primarily using LR's Denoise and will occasionally use DXO PL8 when I felt the high ISO and resulting noise needed a little extra boost. I was never a fan of Topaz as it tended to give very 'plastically' results. After watching Steve's video, I thought I would try something a little different. For the posted photo (ISO 3200), I reduced sharpening in LR to 0 and then exported to DXO. In DXO I turned off every setting except noise reduction, including all of its lens sharpening settings. I selected DeepPrime XD and boosted the luminance setting to 50 and exported back to LR. I then followed all of Steve's editing recommendations found in his 'Make ISO 12800 look like 400' video. I really like the fact that I have a DXO converted photo in which I can still use LR's sharpening tools without fear of over sharpening. Here is the result.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
JSP
New member
We all agree that the default sharpening in Topaz Photo AI is far overdone. Try using Natural as the sharpening AI model, with a very low setting of 1 or 2 (or even 3 if you're a "wild and crazy guy" -- some of you older guys might remember that reference. You can set Natural as the default sharpening option in the Topaz preferences. I normally use LR Denoise,, then if needed go to Topaz sharpening as a masked layer in Photoshop.
macwalter
Well-known member
I find going into DxO that it doesn’t take any previous LR settings so I wonder if you are really getting zero sharpening from LR when going into DxO. I don’t know and if there is a way to tell. Lovely shot by the way.
Thanks! As I recall, re-setting sharpening to zero was recommended by DXO in one of their forums before exporting to DXO due to the sharpening that is applied by DXO’s specific lens modules. Regardless, exporting back to LR with sharpening off made a significant difference in the ability to have more control when applying final edits in LR.
Last edited:
macwalter
Well-known member
I know that was true in topaz. I’ll will experiment as that would be nice.
DXO is working directly on the raw file so it doesnt have any lightroom settings applied
macwalter
Well-known member
I checked and they do recommend setting sharpening to zero. I hadn’t done so assuming that it wouldn’t transfer. I tried a couple photos with medium noise and didn’t notice that much difference and I didn’t remember the exact setting I used in DXO. One thing I did notice was when sharpening back in LR you get more noise in the background so you have to isolate the subject to add sharpness. To be expected.
Rohinton Mehta
Member
I agree 100% to what you've mentioned, Steve.
I recently went on a bird photography trip, shooting from a hide. The location was such that most of the time I had to resort to extremely high ISOs (ISO 25,600). There was a man-made pond, filled with water. The surrounding area was a forest of tall trees and hence light levels were low most of the day. I was using the Nikon Z8 with a Nikon 500 mm f/5.6 lens with the FTZ adapter -- no tripod but the camera was rock solid on a support created by the hide owner. Shooting in Auto ISO in Manual exposure mode, my shutter speeds ranged (mostly) between 1/250 to 1/2000 sec. Most of the time, I could not risk lowering my shutter speeds as the birds were mostly jittery.
I am using Photoshop Beta (26.2), along with DeNoise in the Detail section of ACR (17.0.1). Here is a low res version of the 'before' / 'after' Raw file (for posting to this site) taken at ISO 25,600, 1/250 sec and f/5.6.
My two questions to Steve --though others should feel free to reply:
1) What could I have possibly done to avoid using such high ISOs?
2) No one seems to speak of decrease in the Dynamic Range at higher ISOs. At ISO 25,600 for example (with the Nikon Z8), how much DR are we losing?
To shoot with lower ISO in dim light conditions consider shooting with the widest aperture your lens allows and with the longest shutter speed which will capture the subject without blur (unless you intend to have some blur).
Photons to Photos has graphs of dynamic range vs ISO for the sensors in many cameras. A link to the the chart for the Z8 is below. You lose quite a bit of dynamic range at ISO 25600.
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
www.photonstophotos.net
Note: the link above is supposed to show the Z8 dynamic range chart. Unfortunately it doesn’t. You’ll have to select the Z8 from the list of cameras on the right side of the page.
Given the gear you have, the availability of light (or lack thereof), and the skittishness of your subject, a high ISO may be what you’ll have to live with. Given modern noise reduction and editing tools you still may be able to tease out an acceptable photo.
Last edited:
I agree with JA above - for the most part, not much you can do without getting more expensive gear. Sometimes, there's just not enough light.
About the only thing I can think of would be to get the first shot sharp at ISO 25K and then use ISO ratcheting if the bird hung around. I talk about it in this video:
There’s another important issue worth noting: as ISO increases, dynamic range decreases. This can be particularly significant when there’s a stark difference between the light in the background and on the subject.
To explore how this impacts your specific camera, select yours from the list on the right side of the graph.
To explore how this impacts your specific camera, select yours from the list on the right side of the graph.
I was thinking that this kinda messes with those of us using manual with auto ISO. You’re much more likely to get the shot but you have to go through a few hoops to be able to set your ISO off of manual and dial it down. I may have to rethink my use of auto ISO even if it is very convenient at times.
Cameron T
Well-known member
It doesn't though. If you dial down iso without compensating in shutter speed or aperture, you get a darker image which ends up being as noisy as if you'd just shot at a higher iso.
You can't get around the actual exposure value being what it is. Just dial shutter speed down or open your aperture. If you can't do either, then you have to live with it to get the shot.
Right, I understand that. But that is a good point, though. Just the shutter speed would be enough in most cases. If you don’t need to brighten the image then darker works well to hide some noise, too. And in dimmer situations it may even look better in some case.
Enjoyed the video Steve ! Thanks for making it. Most all my photography has been in dark grey these days.. high iOS unfortunately.
Last edited:
Great video Steve. I loved it.
One point I loved the most; When dealing with high ISO every tool has it’s place.
Regarding DxO, I happen to try it, and I was doing extensive testing with it.
Worrkflow: NEF into PureRaw 4 (newest version) saved as DNG, opened via Bridge in ACR.
My findings is as follows.
It is a very good NR. But, DxO claims that their lens correction is a better sharpening than ACR. I found it to be not true in general sharpening in all levels. Even their soft option.
Soft is too little, anything more looks digitally over sharpened.
If I do use DxO lens correction, The DNG is saved with instructions to turn off lens correction and zero the sharpening slider in ACR. But adding any additional sharpening in ACR looks terrible even when trying to sharpen up a PureRaw soft lens correction.
Using ACR’s NR AI to further clean up what PureRaw left over, would result in a blurry image.
In other words, Any processing done in PureRaw cannot be added later in ACR.
This was my experience.
I can post a dropbox link with all files for everyone to download and see for themselves.
One point I loved the most; When dealing with high ISO every tool has it’s place.
Regarding DxO, I happen to try it, and I was doing extensive testing with it.
Worrkflow: NEF into PureRaw 4 (newest version) saved as DNG, opened via Bridge in ACR.
My findings is as follows.
It is a very good NR. But, DxO claims that their lens correction is a better sharpening than ACR. I found it to be not true in general sharpening in all levels. Even their soft option.
Soft is too little, anything more looks digitally over sharpened.
If I do use DxO lens correction, The DNG is saved with instructions to turn off lens correction and zero the sharpening slider in ACR. But adding any additional sharpening in ACR looks terrible even when trying to sharpen up a PureRaw soft lens correction.
Using ACR’s NR AI to further clean up what PureRaw left over, would result in a blurry image.
In other words, Any processing done in PureRaw cannot be added later in ACR.
This was my experience.
I can post a dropbox link with all files for everyone to download and see for themselves.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
I would add, burst mode is usually your friend here. A 10 or 20 shot burst might catch the critter at a moment where the shutter speed, though far less than you'd like, is enough for a sharp image. So take a shot at the higher ISO and a shutter speed that is (close to, anyway) what you want and then ratchet shutter speed and ISO down and fire long bursts.
macwalter
Well-known member
I’m still trying out variations in DxO pure raw. I do think the latest version is a bit better and setting the detail slider to minis settings works better than before. I do find adding sharpening later in LR tends to add noise but I usually find a bit added towards the end of my workflow seems to do ok. I still find Denoise in LR to be not specific enough.
Very nice!
Thanks for the feedback. I'll give that a try. I was not aware that ACR and Lightroom have the same effects. I think, though, I did a bad job selecting the subject (and the stick) to be exempt from the gaussian blur.