Reading mode: Light Dark

s100fs pushed to the limit in low light

Go to last post
Thanks Dave. I will admit I did not go as far as I should have with this edit... my edit was only a 2 minute edit, at most. I did a quick and dirty noise reduction to show that S100FS images can be cleaned up nicely when exposed properly... even at very high ISO's. This shot was a bit underexposed with some slight motion blurring (which is noticable in the eyes in the full size image at Flickr) so I didn't spend as much time on it as I normally would. Honestly, I didn't think this one would clean up as nicely as you and others have shown here!

Normally, I would have isolated problem areas so I would not over-process cleaner areas of the image. I also would have spent more time on the eyes... curves to bring back color (if we brought out the color here we would see this model has beautiful brown eyes... eyes should always be the focus)... even out catchlights... sharpen... And, I have to admit, I would have isolated the skin to mildly tone down the slightly warm tint without affecting the ambience of the room lighting.

Thanks again! And, great edits everyone!

Patrick : )
 
eengelmann said:
Thank you Kim for having dedicated attentions to my picture.

I personally consider your result a little bit overalaborated, so that the atmosphere of the picture is not anymore the same of the original scene. There was in fact the contrast between the skin in candle light and the blue lamp in the background. These elements get lost in your version.
Click to expand...
One can always just remove the excess blue channel blotching and then run Topaz Denoise to clean out the excess grain ... leaving the orange glow alone ...



--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
@Kim
This last version is very nice.

I must say I didn' t think it could be possible to obtain so clean images starting from my one!

My only concern is: how do they look like at 100% resolution? I really can' t stand those images which look too artificial at full resolution. I prefer a little bit noise,if necessary!

Anyway, here is the crop of the jpg without any noise reduction, not even the one in s7raw (I don' t think the image is blurred! I think it is just the fact thaet at 3200 Iso the sharpness is very very low):



--
Enrico Engelmann
http://www.milanofotografo.it
 
eengelmann said:
@Kim
This last version is very nice.

I must say I didn' t think it could be possible to obtain so clean images starting from my one!

My only concern is: how do they look like at 100% resolution? I really can' t stand those images which look too artificial at full resolution. I prefer a little bit noise,if necessary!

Anyway, here is the crop of the jpg without any noise reduction, not even the one in s7raw (I don' t think the image is blurred! I think it is just the fact thaet at 3200 Iso the sharpness is very very low):
Click to expand...
I don't believe that I commented on sharpness, which I find to be fine.

As for 100%, well this version took be about 30 seconds to produce using the technique which I now know to work fairly well. I allowed the red and green channels to dominate here, so the skin is actually warmer than I would have normally left it, but you mentioned that you like the contrast against the blue light in the back ...

Step were:

1) ACR6.3 -- 100% color noise, 40% luminance
2) CS5 -- Curve to drop blue channel
3) Topaz Denoise 5

The thing about Topaz Denoise is that its algorithms actually reconstruct edges that have been subsumed by noise ... which means it is sometimes simply amazing.





--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
I have to admit that I was the one who stated I noticed some motion blurring... and it is in two places one would expect to see it first... both eyes almost appear double exposed as though the eyes darted to the subjects left, toward the camera, during the exposure... and, the lips and chin, are not nearly as 'crisp' as the rest of the face.

For a snapshot, which this is, the focus is fine for most people. But, when I first mentioned what I feel is probably motion blurring, I was saying that I didn't want to spend too much time post-processing this one because it is not as crisp as it could be and it is slightly underexposed (which was unavoidable in this situation). So I simply applied a basic noise reduction in a quick and dirty fashion.

Sorry for causing a bit of confusion on who said what!

Patrick : )
 
expressivecanvas said:
I have to admit that I was the one who stated I noticed some motion blurring... and it is in two places one would expect to see it first... both eyes almost appear double exposed as though the eyes darted to the subjects left, toward the camera, during the exposure... and, the lips and chin, are not nearly as 'crisp' as the rest of the face.

For a snapshot, which this is, the focus is fine for most people. But, when I first mentioned what I feel is probably motion blurring, I was saying that I didn't want to spend too much time post-processing this one because it is not as crisp as it could be and it is slightly underexposed (which was unavoidable in this situation). So I simply applied a basic noise reduction in a quick and dirty fashion.

Sorry for causing a bit of confusion on who said what!

Patrick : )
Click to expand...
I wasn't too worried about who said what because I see no motion blurring at all in this image. It is as crisp as a small sensor can get at 3200 ISO ... IMO at least.

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Lloydy said:
Thanks for showing this. It made me think about possibilities I had ignored before.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30172965&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=32158853&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30209264&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

I think your tendency to want to be everyone's best friend is causing you to ignore ground over which you have already stomped ...

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Excuse me, it is my foult! The answer about sharpness was in fact intended to you, expressivecanvas, not to Kim. I forgot to add a second @!

I just want to add that this is the first time that I use 3200 ISO on my camera with a reasonable result. I was lucky, because with 1/10 s usually pictures get blurred!

The idea of trying 3200 ISO came to me after watching the pictures of a friend of mine, who also takes pictures in parties, but who now uses a Nikon D700 (he started several years ago, and in the meantime he has become a professional photographer).
Kim Letkeman said:
expressivecanvas said:
I have to admit that I was the one who stated I noticed some motion blurring... and it is in two places one would expect to see it first... both eyes almost appear double exposed as though the eyes darted to the subjects left, toward the camera, during the exposure... and, the lips and chin, are not nearly as 'crisp' as the rest of the face.

For a snapshot, which this is, the focus is fine for most people. But, when I first mentioned what I feel is probably motion blurring, I was saying that I didn't want to spend too much time post-processing this one because it is not as crisp as it could be and it is slightly underexposed (which was unavoidable in this situation). So I simply applied a basic noise reduction in a quick and dirty fashion.

Sorry for causing a bit of confusion on who said what!

Patrick : )
Click to expand...
I wasn't too worried about who said what because I see no motion blurring at all in this image. It is as crisp as a small sensor can get at 3200 ISO ... IMO at least.

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
Click to expand...
--
Enrico Engelmann
http://www.milanofotografo.it
 
Kim Letkeman said:
Lloydy said:
Thanks for showing this. It made me think about possibilities I had ignored before.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30172965&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=32158853&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30209264&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

I think your tendency to want to be everyone's best friend is causing you to ignore ground over which you have already stomped ...
Click to expand...
... Better than trying to drown the forum in a sea of self obsessed opinions ;)

What's your problem ? You think I don't have a right to an opinion also ?

Nah. It's just the same ol' Letketricks.
Kim Letkeman said:
--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
Click to expand...
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.

http://eyemindsoul.blogspot.com/
http://www.panoramio.com/user/4243198
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixplanet/sets/72157625885285093/
 
CAcreeks said:
Kim Letkeman said:
I've been revisiting the blue channel noise from the Canon G10 with pretty decent results ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2011/02/neil-young-reprised.html
Click to expand...
Very interesting! Thanks for pointing us to it. Your instructions say:

"Once in CS5, go to levels and select the blur channel."

Do you mean "blue" channel? Or is the blur channel something that Adobe added between CS2 and CS5?
Click to expand...
Yeah ... typo ... I should fix that as it sounds too reasonable to be an error :-)

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Lloydy said:
Kim Letkeman said:
Lloydy said:
Thanks for showing this. It made me think about possibilities I had ignored before.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30172965&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=32158853&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30209264&q=lloydy+3200+s100fs&qf=m

I think your tendency to want to be everyone's best friend is causing you to ignore ground over which you have already stomped ...
Click to expand...
... Better than trying to drown the forum in a sea of self obsessed opinions ;)
Click to expand...
Although your writing is never very clear, I think you have just stated that you would rather be known to be obsequious than to have an opinion and to express it in the forum.

Obviously, I did not include your "self obsessed" adjective in the mix there because that's just more argumentum ad hominem from you ... neither original nor surprising ...
Lloydy said:
What's your problem ?
Click to expand...
Your gratuitous insults ... to a lesser extent your foggy reasoning ... but mostly your disingenuous obsequiousness ...
Lloydy said:
You think I don't have a right to an opinion also ?
Click to expand...
I was quite clear. You are choosing to suck up to people by thanking them for inspiration on ground that you have already covered. In the past you have been quite clear that you prefer to ignore ISO 3200 as it is not good on the S100fs. You have posted numerous times on it. I gave three of the five most relevant references I found.

So you were not expressing an opinion at all. You were being obsequious for whatever purpose ... that in itself is not clear. Had you expressed an opinion, it would have been on the image and on the usefulness or lack thereof of shooting the S100fs at such high ISO.

And since you have already expressed such opinions more than once, I consider the comment to which I responded rather disingenuous.
Lloydy said:
Nah. It's just the same ol' Letketricks.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what that might mean in your mind. It certainly is an obvious case of more argumentum ad hominem since mangling another's name is always intended as an insult. But to what end I cannot fathom. Perhaps you feel that you are playing to an audience and that they will think such low brow humor is clever ...

--
I am but one opinion in a sea of opinions ... right?
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top