Astroscope + DSLR = Gallery! (1 Viewer)

[DanC.Licks]

There is a big difference in how LR and Nikon's RAW editor (NX2) work. NX2 does indeed remove noise according to how the NR is set in camera. I can't see the exif data, so I can't see whether any high ISO NR has been applied to Paul's Robin. Nor do we know whether the image was cropped and by how much. So it is pretty hard to really judge the noise. It looks very nice, but is it really that much better than an E-M1 image? Don't know yet, but I will find out within the next few days...
From what I have seen, the D7100 (same Toshiba sensor as the D3300) has at best 1/2-2/3 of a stop better high ISO performance than the E-M1, noticeable, but not world shaking, not like a D800. Just got my D7100 yesterday, so I haven't had much time to test, but.... here is a crop of a crappy picture, (only bird that would pose for me this morning) taken at ISO 3200, with the high ISO NR set in camera to Standard. First, the NX2 image, no adjustments made at all, just exported at 100% quality jpg.

And the same shot imported into LR and exported as a 100% jpg, with only chroma noise removed (LR setting=25). No other adjustments.

LR ignores all in camera settings other than WB, common exif data, (exposure, focal length etc), and copyright info, so naturally an un-adjusted LR image is going to look somewhat different than a NX2 image. It is for the most part brand neutral whereas something like NX2 is totally brand specific. NX2 is very nice as a viewer for NEFs, but I much prefer working in LR. Both have their pros and cons.

 

[Tord]

OK, so here comes the Wagtail again.

First crops and exported to JPEG resized to fit the forum (1024 wide).
For reference, these are 57% crops of original.
One without applying noise reduction in LR
One with 25 luminance noise reduction

Then arbitrary portions of the picture, rendered 1:1, ditto NR settings (none and 25).

Losing a little bit of detail, but I don't think it's that bad... maybe 25 is just about right for this kind of background?

 

[JGobeil]

OK, so here comes the Wagtail again.

First crops and exported to JPEG resized to fit the forum (1024 wide).
For reference, these are 57% crops of original.
One without applying noise reduction in LR
One with 25 luminance noise reduction

Then arbitrary portions of the picture, rendered 1:1, ditto NR settings (none and 25).

Losing a little bit of detail, but I don't think it's that bad... maybe 25 is just about right for this kind of background?

Tord,

Here is a quote I saved from a thread about sharpening EM-1 photos on DPR.

"As far as noise reduction in Lightroom, I use none for most shots at iso 800 and below. There is a trace of noise in all EM1/5 files (even at base iso) but for the most part you can eliminate it by boosting the "masking" slider in the sharpening menu. In high contrast scenes I generally boost luminance noise reduction up to between 10 and 30 for higher iso's (through iso 6400). I don't shoot much above that and don't have any recommendations."

Personnaly, in LR I like to set Luminance Noise between 25-30, in bad cases up to 35. I typically set Sharpening Amount between 30-45 and then crank up Masking as needed to eliminate BG noise if needed - sometimes it is not needed, sometimes I have to go as far as 40.

I often do additional sharpening in PS using Pixel Genius Photokit Sharpener. On birds, I typically use a brush to sharpen only the bird, not the BG, in order not to add any noise and preserve the bokeh if there is any.

Most of my birding is shot at ISO 800 using Aperture Priority. Under strong light, I will go down at 400 and when the light is bad, I will go up to 1600-3200. As you know, I don't hesitate to crop a lot so I often have to treat noise and sharpness quite aggressively.

Regards
J

 

[Tord]

Thanks Jules.
I have been using EM5 and LR without applying any noise reduction. Will try your hints and see where it leads.

 

[Paul Corfield]

There is a big difference in how LR and Nikon's RAW editor (NX2) work. NX2 does indeed remove noise according to how the NR is set in camera. I can't see the exif data, so I can't see whether any high ISO NR has been applied to Paul's Robin. Nor do we know whether the image was cropped and by how much. So it is pretty hard to really judge the noise. It looks very nice, but is it really that much better than an E-M1 image? Don't know yet, but I will find out within the next few days...

I have noise reduction turned off on the D3300 and the Robin image wasn't cropped.

Paul.

 

[Tord]

Sedge Warblers

Some samples using the TS102 + TN from the Zuiko 100-200.

It was windy and sun had already been up for three good hours and was baking the still cold marsh (it was close to freezing point this morning), air distortion is visible.

Taken at approximately 17-18 meters distance, ISO 500 - 1/640 1/800 s. Hard to get focus correct with this wind, and there could be some motion blur as well.

More species will hopefully show up the coming week.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Very briefly:
Nikon is definitely applying NR to their raw files in NX2, even with NR turned off in the camera.
NX2

LR 5.3 with only chroma noise removed

and with no NR

Crop size 1926x1539 from 6000x4000 px.


I have started doing some tests of the 7100 vs the E-M1, both on the scope and with the respective 70/75-300 zoom lenses. Still too early to tell, but from what I have seen so far the E-M1+zoom is surprisingly, to me at least, the clear winner. The Nikon is slightly ahead on C-AF. On the scope there is no contest! Oly all the way, in spite if the irritation of the flickering EVF. I will put up the results on a separate thread.
I really somehow expected it to be the other way around.

 

[Tord]

We usually want sun for the nice colors, however I find smooth light great for rendering the feathering texture and preserving details in a good way.

TS102
E-M5 almost full frames, 1600 ISO (and applying Lightroom NR around 25-30)

 

[DanC.Licks]

That is right. Bright, diffuse light is best. It is easy these days to boost contrast ans saturation. It is harder to deal with shots taken in harsh light. Best is when you can just see the sun through high clouds.
The amount of NR you need also depends on the crop. You could easily get away with less on un-cropped shots, like Paul's Robin. It would help those shots to warm them up a little and boos the saturation a tad. Lower the blacks and raise the whites in LR to give them more sparkle, like in the drops of water.

 

[DanC.Licks]

I find the E-M1 files need a bit of a kick to get them going, and I assume the E-M5 is the same. Like fine grained film. Because the pixels are so small they don't have as much punch as big fat FF pixels. Here is a screanshot of my typical E-M1 settings that I use as a starting point:

 

[JGobeil]

That is right. Bright, diffuse light is best. It is easy these days to boost contrast ans saturation. It is harder to deal with shots taken in harsh light. Best is when you can just see the sun through high clouds.
The amount of NR you need also depends on the crop. You could easily get away with less on un-cropped shots, like Paul's Robin. It would help those shots to warm them up a little and boos the saturation a tad. Lower the blacks and raise the whites in LR to give them more sparkle, like in the drops of water.

Lately, I've seen posts about the difficulty of processing photos taken with a scope. Problems with contrast, noise and saturation... It may be a good idea to start a thread about this. I'll be initiating one: Post-processing photos taken with our scopes.

 

[Tord]

View attachment 495236

Dan, I think this is a bit over-done. Light was really smooth, overcast skies (yet fair) with remains of morning mist in process of dissolving.

The Curlwe is photographed at 8:15 AM, about 3 hours after sunrise and the warm tone you have applied would not be seen in such circumstances at this time of the year. Though I agree warm color are often pleasant, and the WB in the original is too cold. Probably half way in between would reflect reality. Something like the Ruff.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Jules,
agree.
Tord,
agree.

 

[Roy C]

I have not got an Astroscope these days but thought I might as well post some old images taken with one. All shots taken with the 7D + SW80ED + 1.4x tc - all cropped fairly heavily.

 

[cango]

My PP-work, at the moment, consists of 3 macros in and older photoshop.

1. open in camera raw and apply a custom import setting (some settings can be tweaked - crop mode the most used)

2. apply 1st macro: save tiff first then resize for web (1920) add auto contrast then topaz denoize (low setting)-import signature in different layer. (have to the manually position it where it fits)

3. apply second macro: high pass filter for sharpening (low setting)

4. apply third macro which is export as jpg and close file.

all in all about no more then 10 seconds or so.
Of course, with a few percentage, I might clone away a twig, or disturbing detail if the image is at all worth salvaging. those would obiously take longer to PP.

image below was PP this way (about 50% crop) My first and only kingfisher - not beautifully perched, but beggars can't be choosers, right? El Chuy, Uruguay.
iso 640
s/1250
celestron 80ed
e-m5 olympus

EDIT: Since I'm new to this high pass filter-thing, I have notice that I have to keep the radius quite low - 0,3 pixels, otherwise it looks too sharpened - perhaps because the e-m5 has the pixel density it has paired with no AA-filter. I don't know. The female chaffinch has 0,3 applied - lower it gave no effect (that I could see) - and higher I found it too much.

 

[JGobeil]

My PP-work, at the moment, consists of 3 macros in and older photoshop.

1. open in camera raw and apply a custom import setting (some settings can be tweaked - crop mode the most used)

2. apply 1st macro: save tiff first then resize for web (1920) add auto contrast then topaz denoize (low setting)-import signature in different layer. (have to the manually position it where it fits)

3. apply second macro: high pass filter for sharpening (low setting)

4. apply third macro which is export as jpg and close file.

all in all about no more then 10 seconds or so.
Of course, with a few percentage, I might clone away a twig, or disturbing detail if the image is at all worth salvaging. those would obiously take longer to PP.

image below was PP this way (about 50% crop) My first and only kingfisher - not beautifully perched, but beggars can't be choosers, right? El Chuy, Uruguay.
iso 640
s/1250
celestron 80ed
e-m5 olympus

EDIT: Since I'm new to this high pass filter-thing, I have notice that I have to keep the radius quite low - 0,3 pixels, otherwise it looks too sharpened - perhaps because the e-m5 has the pixel density it has paired with no AA-filter. I don't know. The female chaffinch has 0,3 applied - lower it gave no effect (that I could see) - and higher I found it too much.

The Kingfisher looks over sharpened to me but it could be because it is wet. The second bird is very nice.

See the separate thread on PP.

 

[cango]

The Kingfisher looks over sharpened to me but it could be because it is wet. The second bird is very nice.

See the separate thread on PP.

Yes, I agree. (and he also wet)

I saw I had applied to much sharpening in camera raw default. Here is he again with less

 

[DanC.Licks]

Better.

 

[JGobeil]

Yes ! A lot better.

 

[Paul Corfield]

This is one of a pair of Blue Tits currently feeding young in our nest box. This one looks really scruffy while the other one looks fine. The young should be leaving the box soon.

Paul.