Those are all at full zoom (357 mm actual, 2000 mm equivalent). Success depends primarily on the bird species. Gulls swoop in a predictable manner, so they're pretty easy to track at full zoom.
but gulls are huge no more than 600mm is needed
Those are really nice but must be far away here on Long Island they are right outside my bedroom window I'm sure I could shoot them BIF with my P900 but wouldn't use more than 600mm because they are so big,I posted some examples of P950 at full zoom in Feb 2020, using the software then available to me (Capture NX followed by Neat Image 8). Additional details are in the thread, including the recommendation for red dot sight and target-finding autofocus.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4467894
About a year later, DXO had added support for P950 and I had purchased Topaz Sharpen. The results from the 05/2021 reprocessing (not previously posted) are shown below. Images are cropped, but at full resolution.
The improvement obtained by using DXO followed by Topaz should be immediately obvious, even at ISO 100. At higher ISOs, the discrepancy is even larger.
I'm on long island south shore they come near my window lol
What do you mean by equivalency here?
comparing depth of field vs larger sensor cameras at the same focal ratio
I don't have any large-sensor camera yet... And even if I do, I may not care about DOF so much... :-D
Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I found you can also reduce resolution to reduce noise. Going to 4 megapixel makes noise a non factor even at ISO 1600.Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I remember I tried all those noise reduction options in NX Studio but ultimately decided that no NR is the best option for me.
The amount of noise can vary depending on your shooting conditions and also on your post-processing. One example is that a higher amount of Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten dark parts of a high-contrast photo (such as a kingfisher facing direct sunlight and having a dark back) can introduce more noise in shadows and blow out highlights (e.g. white hair on the neck shone upon by direct sunlight). In such a case, using more Shadow Protection and less or no Active D-Lighting can reduce both noise and overexposure.
OTM, why don't you share with us your gulls in flight. For the P900 my superzoom teacher - he used to post on DPreview - he shares his P900 BIF if interested.Those are really nice but must be far away here on Long Island they are right outside my bedroom window I'm sure I could shoot them BIF with my P900 but wouldn't use more than 600mm because they are so big,I posted some examples of P950 at full zoom in Feb 2020, using the software then available to me (Capture NX followed by Neat Image 8). Additional details are in the thread, including the recommendation for red dot sight and target-finding autofocus.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4467894
About a year later, DXO had added support for P950 and I had purchased Topaz Sharpen. The results from the 05/2021 reprocessing (not previously posted) are shown below. Images are cropped, but at full resolution.
The improvement obtained by using DXO followed by Topaz should be immediately obvious, even at ISO 100. At higher ISOs, the discrepancy is even larger.
You're all set BC - I'll just add don't forget the noise in the background - its not just feather noise. Absolutely agree from my limited experience the amount of noise can vary depending on shooting conditions and processing. All that matters is what you are happy with.Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I remember I tried all those noise reduction options in NX Studio but ultimately decided that no NR is the best option for me.
The amount of noise can vary depending on your shooting conditions and also on your post-processing. One example is that a higher amount of Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten dark parts of a high-contrast photo (such as a kingfisher facing direct sunlight and having a dark back) can introduce more noise in shadows and blow out highlights (e.g. white hair on the neck shone upon by direct sunlight). In such a case, using more Shadow Protection and less or no Active D-Lighting can reduce both noise and overexposure.
I tried all the NR options in NX Studio and they all introduced some smearing. So I always uncheck Noise Reduction in NX Studio for all shots.You're all set BC - I'll just add don't forget the noise in the background - its not just feather noise. Absolutely agree from my limited experience the amount of noise can vary depending on shooting conditions and processing. All that matters is what you are happy with.Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I remember I tried all those noise reduction options in NX Studio but ultimately decided that no NR is the best option for me.
The amount of noise can vary depending on your shooting conditions and also on your post-processing. One example is that a higher amount of Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten dark parts of a high-contrast photo (such as a kingfisher facing direct sunlight and having a dark back) can introduce more noise in shadows and blow out highlights (e.g. white hair on the neck shone upon by direct sunlight). In such a case, using more Shadow Protection and less or no Active D-Lighting can reduce both noise and overexposure.
I'd be curious to know what Noise Reduction software you tried that caused some smearing? I wouldn't like that either.
I probably didn't write clearly - I meant separate DeNoising software like PureRaw 2 or Topaz DeNoise, etc. I found TDN to be far superior to the NR you get inside processing software - to my knowledge all or almost all software from Lightroom to NXStudio to FastStone, etc., all provide a Noise Reduction tool - whether they stand up to someone's standards for noise reduction would be on an individual thing.I tried all the NR options in NX Studio and they all introduced some smearing. So I always uncheck Noise Reduction in NX Studio for all shots.You're all set BC - I'll just add don't forget the noise in the background - its not just feather noise. Absolutely agree from my limited experience the amount of noise can vary depending on shooting conditions and processing. All that matters is what you are happy with.Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I remember I tried all those noise reduction options in NX Studio but ultimately decided that no NR is the best option for me.
The amount of noise can vary depending on your shooting conditions and also on your post-processing. One example is that a higher amount of Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten dark parts of a high-contrast photo (such as a kingfisher facing direct sunlight and having a dark back) can introduce more noise in shadows and blow out highlights (e.g. white hair on the neck shone upon by direct sunlight). In such a case, using more Shadow Protection and less or no Active D-Lighting can reduce both noise and overexposure.
I'd be curious to know what Noise Reduction software you tried that caused some smearing? I wouldn't like that either.
Ev,OTM, why don't you share with us your gulls in flight. For the P900 my superzoom teacher - he used to post on DPreview - he shares his P900 BIF if interested.Those are really nice but must be far away here on Long Island they are right outside my bedroom window I'm sure I could shoot them BIF with my P900 but wouldn't use more than 600mm because they are so big,I posted some examples of P950 at full zoom in Feb 2020, using the software then available to me (Capture NX followed by Neat Image 8). Additional details are in the thread, including the recommendation for red dot sight and target-finding autofocus.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4467894
About a year later, DXO had added support for P950 and I had purchased Topaz Sharpen. The results from the 05/2021 reprocessing (not previously posted) are shown below. Images are cropped, but at full resolution.
The improvement obtained by using DXO followed by Topaz should be immediately obvious, even at ISO 100. At higher ISOs, the discrepancy is even larger.
I remember now that is where I learned about not shooting at full zoom -
don’t try to shoot at the long end of the zoom, especially as you are developing your technique. Finding focus and keeping the bird in frame are both easier at 600-1000mm equivalent fields of view, than they are at 1200-2000mm.
https://psnp.info/psnp_/?p=881
Looking forward to those gulls.
Ev
FWIW, here's what I get from the raw file out of DXO PL6 (top left) and after processing the DXO output in Topaz Sharpen using three different processing algorithms. All at 100%.I tried all the NR options in NX Studio and they all introduced some smearing. So I always uncheck Noise Reduction in NX Studio for all shots.You're all set BC - I'll just add don't forget the noise in the background - its not just feather noise. Absolutely agree from my limited experience the amount of noise can vary depending on shooting conditions and processing. All that matters is what you are happy with.Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I remember I tried all those noise reduction options in NX Studio but ultimately decided that no NR is the best option for me.
The amount of noise can vary depending on your shooting conditions and also on your post-processing. One example is that a higher amount of Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten dark parts of a high-contrast photo (such as a kingfisher facing direct sunlight and having a dark back) can introduce more noise in shadows and blow out highlights (e.g. white hair on the neck shone upon by direct sunlight). In such a case, using more Shadow Protection and less or no Active D-Lighting can reduce both noise and overexposure.
I'd be curious to know what Noise Reduction software you tried that caused some smearing? I wouldn't like that either.
Now that I’d like to see . You will be surprised how hard it is with these P series cameras even at lower focal lengths .Those are really nice but must be far away here on Long Island they are right outside my bedroom window I'm sure I could shoot them BIF with my P900 but wouldn't use more than 600mm because they are so big,I posted some examples of P950 at full zoom in Feb 2020, using the software then available to me (Capture NX followed by Neat Image 8). Additional details are in the thread, including the recommendation for red dot sight and target-finding autofocus.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4467894
About a year later, DXO had added support for P950 and I had purchased Topaz Sharpen. The results from the 05/2021 reprocessing (not previously posted) are shown below. Images are cropped, but at full resolution.
The improvement obtained by using DXO followed by Topaz should be immediately obvious, even at ISO 100. At higher ISOs, the discrepancy is even larger.
Hey man, these sharpening algorithms are Martian magic, or CIA tech used to recover detail in recon satellite imagery... I particularly like the lower left result. Really sharp kingfisher hairs should look like pine needles, as featured in some of my finest shots you guys all have seen before.FWIW, here's what I get from the raw file out of DXO PL6 (top left) and after processing the DXO output in Topaz Sharpen using three different processing algorithms. All at 100%.I tried all the NR options in NX Studio and they all introduced some smearing. So I always uncheck Noise Reduction in NX Studio for all shots.You're all set BC - I'll just add don't forget the noise in the background - its not just feather noise. Absolutely agree from my limited experience the amount of noise can vary depending on shooting conditions and processing. All that matters is what you are happy with.Some noise reduction options simply smear feather detail more or less, which is not acceptable for me. Also, when there is noise in feathers, it gives me a sense of "detail" which makes me feel good; in other words, I can't distinguish detail from noise in feathers, so I'd like to keep them both...NX Studio is nice software for NIkon users, no doubt about it. I liked it because it was user friendly and had some nice tools. Its the nature of all software - there is no perfect one for everyone. You loose some tools or features, and you can gain some tools or features.Third-party software may do noise reduction more intelligently than Nikon's native NX Studio, but you also lose an important feature with them - Active D-Lighting. It's such a magical touch, like wasabi, that adds vividness, brightness, contrast and a sense of 3D to an subject. Many people tried to reproduce the effects of ADL with other software but failed.I don't know about you, but as far as I can tell when you repost images here there is always some degree of compression - the image on your PC will look a little different when posted here. Or it can look a bit different.The first shot has a blurry tail and lower back. Initially I thought it was because I focused near the bird head instead of at the body center, but now I'm more inclined to WPMChan's opinion that the bird tail has motion blur.
The second shot has both a sharp head and tail, but the head is not as sharp as that in the first shot. I'm almost sure this is a motion blur problem. The head is not as sharp as some of my finest shots.
About noise: The second shot happened to use -1.0EV while the first was -0.3EV because I used a [-1.0, -1.7, -0.3] exposure bracket to prevent white neck overexposure. So, the second shot has more noise than the first if we use Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten them up to the same brightness level.
It's also important to note that if you use Shadow Protection instead of Active D-Lighting to brighten up dark parts, Shadow Protection will result in less noise. This is because Active D-Lighting adds or keeps more contrast, and more contrast leads to more noise.
Highlight Protection and Shadow Protection may be used to prevent the white neck from overexposure and to recover more detail on the white neck. Professional photographers would tell you a photo should never has a plain white portion (with the exception of the sun).
Here is the Google Drive link for the RAW for you RAW and post-processing junkies
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v3k6FfOHrQ8djyzyoyMTUVqu4b08Iw8?usp=share_link
The file on goggle drive is not the RAW file - it was a JPG.
I reduced the noise first - I think there is a clear difference. One of the best things I've done is invest in noise reduction software - user friendly. I'm a beginner only had it a couple of months.
Editing - the only thing I did to it was fix the small amount of blown out white on the neck. The white on the chin was not blown out.
My processing methods/steps is to hopefully do as little as possible - this one as noted before looked fine, except for the noise. I didn't see the blown out white with my eye - the software ID'd it and I could turn the highlights down on just that small patch of white on the neck. My software is Luminar Neo - not as sophisticated and high end as some such as DXO, Photoshop, etc. But then again I'm not convinced I'm getting the best out of Neo yet.
Ev
Topaz DeNoise is not end all software - it does what it advertises very well, is user friendly, and reasonable enough in cost. I'm curious did you use the native NX-Studio Noise reduction tool on these Kingfishers? Noise doesn't bother many people and are happy to ignore it. I really didn't get what a problem noise was for my photos until I started looking closely at them (expanding to 100%) and was shocked. I didn't like it at all.
I remember I tried all those noise reduction options in NX Studio but ultimately decided that no NR is the best option for me.
The amount of noise can vary depending on your shooting conditions and also on your post-processing. One example is that a higher amount of Active D-Lighting in NX Studio to brighten dark parts of a high-contrast photo (such as a kingfisher facing direct sunlight and having a dark back) can introduce more noise in shadows and blow out highlights (e.g. white hair on the neck shone upon by direct sunlight). In such a case, using more Shadow Protection and less or no Active D-Lighting can reduce both noise and overexposure.
I'd be curious to know what Noise Reduction software you tried that caused some smearing? I wouldn't like that either.
