Hi Ho! Hi ISO!

cooldragon said:

Though these pictures are useful in terms of noise level, I have to
say noise IS a issue with E-1 compared with DSLRs from other
companies.
If you look at the bottom-left part of the first picture, I guess
you can imagine what the noise look like on the full-scale image.

Click to expand...

No one, as far as I know, has done side by side comparisons of high ISO test with the E1 and other 'low noise' cameras outside of a test bench. Forget Phil's tests, as I'm talking about 'in the field' comparisons. It would be interesting to see exactly what final outcomes such a test would show.

Sure, the E1 does have noise, but when one prints the examples, from the orignial TIFFs, the results are much better looking than what one sees on the screen. The noise on the full scale image is fine (unless you're talking about the original).

My point here really was to demonstrate that you can get acceptable results at high ISO, without a great deal of work. Many people seem to think that you can't get 'anything' acceptable beyond ISO800, if that. I also wanted to show that PSPX can make that a relatively painless exercise.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

witzgall said:

Hey OzRay;

Could you do a similar test with a person as the subject? I would
love to see what happens to skin tones when doing the filtering you
are talking about.

Click to expand...

I'll see what I can do. Skin tones can be a test, but then when high ISO is required, the lighting is usually going to be one to test WB as well.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the post and the high ISO pics-- they're surprisingly good--maybe I'll have another go at using PSPX?-- still find the browser irritating though.

Cheers,

Craig

"While I may have less res and higher noise in my photos than someone else. I can go out in a snowstorm and have a blast taking pictures"

statik said:

Took this with a Canon 10D along with about a hundred others that day.The camera didn't fall apart as a result of getting very wet. It's been out in the rain and snow many-many times,no problems.

Click to expand...

Just kidding bigmack - it's a wonderful picture. Nice to see that you are justifiably proud of your equipment as well.

--
Thanks,
Brent

http://www.pbase.com/brent

I disabled the browser, as I thought it was a pain as well.

Cheers

Ray
--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

...that Big Mack secretly covets the E1 and it's marvellous range of lenses, and to join this wonderful forum, only he can't do it, as he's made a blood oath that would have him hunted down if he were to default.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

Than trying to lift us out of our misery and to see that life can be so much better - elsewhere. Most everyone seems so - happy - with their equipment here.

OzRay said:

...that Big Mack secretly covets the E1 and it's marvellous range
of lenses, and to join this wonderful forum, only he can't do it,
as he's made a blood oath that would have him hunted down if he
were to default.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

Click to expand...

--
Thanks,
Brent

http://www.pbase.com/brent

It's true . I kinda like this forum. Thanks for putting up with me.

I can't afford the E-system too,however .I'm sure I could get results of of it.[The E-system]

I have the opportunity to get PSPX for a ridiculously low price (less than 50%) directly from Corel. I currently use PS 7.0 for most of my post processing and do my RAW conversions with RSP (I know, I know, but I like it). I do not currently have NI, NN, etc. In your humble opinion, is the NR function worth the $55.00 (US) in addition to the other features that PSPX offers?
I'm thinking, yes.

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

Bill_Turner said:

I have the opportunity to get PSPX for a ridiculously low price
(less than 50%) directly from Corel. I currently use PS 7.0 for
most of my post processing and do my RAW conversions with RSP (I
know, I know, but I like it). I do not currently have NI, NN, etc.
In your humble opinion, is the NR function worth the $55.00 (US) in
addition to the other features that PSPX offers?
I'm thinking, yes.

Click to expand...

Bill

Much as I've bagged PSPX over the last month, I actually do think it's worthwhile getting, now that I've figured out some of the foibles and workarounds.

The main foible was that it wouldn't work with 16 bit TIFF files, as far as plug-ins are concerned, but does work with 8 bit TIFF files and the resultant prints are good (through Qimage).

I've not reverted back to PSP9, now that I found out what was going on. I suspect that other programs like PSE2 actually revert a 16 bit TIFF to 8 bit, so that things work and this happens in the background.

The noise reduction feature is surprisingly good and gives you a fair degree of control. Neat Image is probably more powerful, but I've never done more than very basic adjustments, as the controls are a tad complex.

The only time I use PSP is when I want to do some non-standard PPing like B&W, correcting DR errors, or converting TIFFs for web use. In all respects PSPX works quite well.

So after being initially disappointed, I'm not so anti-PSPX anymore.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

I think that was a "yes."

BTW, my experience with Elements is that it goes to 8 bit. I actually don't really worry about 8 bit as many really can't tell the difference.

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

I posted this earlier in the thread, but I revamped the NR on the 3rd image (put it through Viewer's NR on conversion; the got aggressive with NR in PSPX). The first is a RAW conversion without any NR; the 2nd is a copy of the first with a basic PSPX NR, but no NR on conversion; the 3rd is the product of both Viewer & PSPX NR.

Bill

That was a Yes for PSPX.

Henry

I found that you can get quite good noise reduction without losing a lot of detail, by playing around with the controls. Each image requires different manipulation to some degree, depending on the nature of the lighting. I think that you can create a script for each image type, which would speed up the process if you did a lot of high ISO work with different subjects.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

OzRay said:

Henry

I found that you can get quite good noise reduction without losing
a lot of detail, by playing around with the controls. Each image
requires different manipulation to some degree, depending on the
nature of the lighting. I think that you can create a script for
each image type, which would speed up the process if you did a lot
of high ISO work with different subjects.

Click to expand...

Hi Ray,

I agree. Most of the time I don't use high ISO, but I do play around with it. I took this photo & others at this luau using my E1 & OM 135 f2.8 combo, hand-held. Later on in the evening, I got much closer to the stage & used the combo with the FL40 flash. Worked much better, with ISO still set at 400 for the flash photos. Most of the photos from this evening won't ever see print--mostly just snaps for the family. If they do end up in print, they will be converted to B&W for a newletter of the group that sponsored the luau. For the third image that I posted, the one with the least amount of noise, I got really aggressive (84% with 70% mix in PSPX, plus going through all the other NR utilities in PSPX, too), just to see what the program could do. For my tastes, it's quite acceptable if I was doing a website posting or a Powerpoint presentation. The 2nd version might print better.

Cheers,
HS