On the contrary, what I described is exactly what one would expect from a raw image obtained with an ISO-independent sensor.
You can reduce the luminance noise reduction in NX studio to far lower than the "low" setting in the camera, however as soon as you move the luminance NR slider to the right, you start to see the same detail blurring as you see from the JPG engine.
"Low" is the lowest NR option above "None" in NX Studio, but it may not be the same "Low" option in the P1000 (the amount and/or algorithm of NR can be different). Besides NR levels such as "Low", NX Studio also provides three NR algorithms.Thanks, does NX Studio have a level of noise reduction less than the Low setting in the camera? Do you use it or is it still too much?NX Studio extends some in-camera settings (e.g. it has a wider range of Active D-Lighting options and Noise Reduction options) and provides many settings not offered by the camera.From what I understand third party software is better because NX Studio just mimics in camera settings?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.
You might not want to spend the money - I understand, it took me awhile.
Its neither here nor there, nor important you are satisfied with the noise in your images - which is fine. I'm sure no expert - and am not getting the most out of TDN because I'm a beginner -
Ev
Can't say whichever of NX Studio or third-party software is better because they each have unique advantages. For example, NX Studio has a proprietary feature "Active D-Lighting" that people simply can't simulate using third-party tools (some people say it's just "tone mapping" plus "local contrast" but it proved to be more).
sherman's answer is better than mine. I don't remember this luminance NR option now.
Interesting Sherm! These far lower settings still perform useful noise reduction? Would this be better used at ISO 100 and 200 or higher?
I wonder if these three NR algorithms are less "lossy" for detail than the default camera one?"Low" is the lowest NR option above "None" in NX Studio, but it may not be the same "Low" option in the P1000 (the amount and/or algorithm of NR can be different). Besides NR levels such as "Low", NX Studio also provides three NR algorithms.Thanks, does NX Studio have a level of noise reduction less than the Low setting in the camera? Do you use it or is it still too much?NX Studio extends some in-camera settings (e.g. it has a wider range of Active D-Lighting options and Noise Reduction options) and provides many settings not offered by the camera.From what I understand third party software is better because NX Studio just mimics in camera settings?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.
You might not want to spend the money - I understand, it took me awhile.
Its neither here nor there, nor important you are satisfied with the noise in your images - which is fine. I'm sure no expert - and am not getting the most out of TDN because I'm a beginner -
Ev
Can't say whichever of NX Studio or third-party software is better because they each have unique advantages. For example, NX Studio has a proprietary feature "Active D-Lighting" that people simply can't simulate using third-party tools (some people say it's just "tone mapping" plus "local contrast" but it proved to be more).
"Low" is still too much for me (both the NX Studio one and the P1000 one).
So there is a benefit to shooting at base ISO and boosting brightness later, Sherm? Increased dynamic range but the same amount of noise as if you shot at a higher ISO?
If you have a specific image which is not overexposed at a given aperture and shutter speed, with ISO 400, you cannot increase the dynamic range of that image or change the amount of noise by shooting at the same aperture and shutter speed and ISO 100, with brightening in post. The resulting images would be essentially identical.
When I tested initially (when the NX software was the only compatible product available), I could not adjust the noise/detail relationship to be better than what was produced in camera, so I ended up exporting the "zero luminance NR" output to TIF, and used a more competent NR product for additional processing.I wonder if these three NR algorithms are less "lossy" for detail than the default camera one?"Low" is the lowest NR option above "None" in NX Studio, but it may not be the same "Low" option in the P1000 (the amount and/or algorithm of NR can be different). Besides NR levels such as "Low", NX Studio also provides three NR algorithms.Thanks, does NX Studio have a level of noise reduction less than the Low setting in the camera? Do you use it or is it still too much?NX Studio extends some in-camera settings (e.g. it has a wider range of Active D-Lighting options and Noise Reduction options) and provides many settings not offered by the camera.From what I understand third party software is better because NX Studio just mimics in camera settings?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.
You might not want to spend the money - I understand, it took me awhile.
Its neither here nor there, nor important you are satisfied with the noise in your images - which is fine. I'm sure no expert - and am not getting the most out of TDN because I'm a beginner -
Ev
Can't say whichever of NX Studio or third-party software is better because they each have unique advantages. For example, NX Studio has a proprietary feature "Active D-Lighting" that people simply can't simulate using third-party tools (some people say it's just "tone mapping" plus "local contrast" but it proved to be more).
"Low" is still too much for me (both the NX Studio one and the P1000 one).
I probably played with all of them. Since I ended up with No NR, they must have all disappointed me.I wonder if these three NR algorithms are less "lossy" for detail than the default camera one?"Low" is the lowest NR option above "None" in NX Studio, but it may not be the same "Low" option in the P1000 (the amount and/or algorithm of NR can be different). Besides NR levels such as "Low", NX Studio also provides three NR algorithms.Thanks, does NX Studio have a level of noise reduction less than the Low setting in the camera? Do you use it or is it still too much?NX Studio extends some in-camera settings (e.g. it has a wider range of Active D-Lighting options and Noise Reduction options) and provides many settings not offered by the camera.From what I understand third party software is better because NX Studio just mimics in camera settings?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.
You might not want to spend the money - I understand, it took me awhile.
Its neither here nor there, nor important you are satisfied with the noise in your images - which is fine. I'm sure no expert - and am not getting the most out of TDN because I'm a beginner -
Ev
Can't say whichever of NX Studio or third-party software is better because they each have unique advantages. For example, NX Studio has a proprietary feature "Active D-Lighting" that people simply can't simulate using third-party tools (some people say it's just "tone mapping" plus "local contrast" but it proved to be more).
"Low" is still too much for me (both the NX Studio one and the P1000 one).
Thanks, it looks like you and Booted Cat came to the same conclusion. Does this apply to all ISO then? Looks like for NR using Topaz is essential.When I tested initially (when the NX software was the only compatible product available), I could not adjust the noise/detail relationship to be better than what was produced in camera, so I ended up exporting the "zero luminance NR" output to TIF, and used a more competent NR product for additional processing.I wonder if these three NR algorithms are less "lossy" for detail than the default camera one?"Low" is the lowest NR option above "None" in NX Studio, but it may not be the same "Low" option in the P1000 (the amount and/or algorithm of NR can be different). Besides NR levels such as "Low", NX Studio also provides three NR algorithms.Thanks, does NX Studio have a level of noise reduction less than the Low setting in the camera? Do you use it or is it still too much?NX Studio extends some in-camera settings (e.g. it has a wider range of Active D-Lighting options and Noise Reduction options) and provides many settings not offered by the camera.From what I understand third party software is better because NX Studio just mimics in camera settings?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.
You might not want to spend the money - I understand, it took me awhile.
Its neither here nor there, nor important you are satisfied with the noise in your images - which is fine. I'm sure no expert - and am not getting the most out of TDN because I'm a beginner -
Ev
Can't say whichever of NX Studio or third-party software is better because they each have unique advantages. For example, NX Studio has a proprietary feature "Active D-Lighting" that people simply can't simulate using third-party tools (some people say it's just "tone mapping" plus "local contrast" but it proved to be more).
"Low" is still too much for me (both the NX Studio one and the P1000 one).
ISO 100 JPGs are ok. Anything higher both the camera and the Nikon software cause unacceptable blurring.
No with the right software raw will always be better .
But you don't even use raw
no I don’t need to.But you don't even use raw
of course Nikon software is similar to what’s in the jpeg engine but remember it has some extra as it covers even pro model cameras not just point and shoots
External hard drives are cheap and a great way of keeping your pc drive clear to improve speed and performance.
are external hard drives more reliable than they once were? I went through a period where I owned 3 external hard drives in 5 years, they would always either break down or file transfers would always stop mid transfer and in one case the computer refused to power the drive (the other two had their own power connectors directly to mains.) Right now I have one 500 GB PCIe NVMe M2 SSD and one 2 TB regular hard drive.no I don’t need to.But you don't even use raw
of course Nikon software is similar to what’s in the jpeg engine but remember it has some extra as it covers even pro model cameras not just point and shoots
External hard drives are cheap and a great way of keeping your pc drive clear to improve speed and performance.
I download my cards after every photo session, it keeps the download times to a minimum and helps keep the camera performance at its best .
Nothing worse than powering up and having to wait while your camera reads through a ton of images to find the next clear sector
Man, you live on Long Island and can't afford a 4TB internal or external mechanical hard drive?But you don't even use raw
I guess with Nikon software it's the same especially at ISO 100.
and a big problem I have with raw is I need small file sizes, I have two hard drives and both of them are usually 90% full, I always keep deleting older images to make room
A USB 3.0 card reader will do it fast and is cheap.
I have three , two 1tb ( one usb2 so needs external power ) and a 2 tb usb3 drive and all still running fine as only used as mass storage units .are external hard drives more reliable than they once were? I went through a period where I owned 3 external hard drives in 5 years, they would always either break down or file transfers would always stop mid transfer and in one case the computer refused to power the drive (the other two had their own power connectors directly to mains.) Right now I have one 500 GB PCIe NVMe M2 SSD and one 2 TB regular hard drive.no I don’t need to.But you don't even use raw
of course Nikon software is similar to what’s in the jpeg engine but remember it has some extra as it covers even pro model cameras not just point and shoots
External hard drives are cheap and a great way of keeping your pc drive clear to improve speed and performance.
I download my cards after every photo session, it keeps the download times to a minimum and helps keep the camera performance at its best .
Nothing worse than powering up and having to wait while your camera reads through a ton of images to find the next clear sector
I download , back up then reformat in camera . It’s just good housekeeping.
Yes, an external mechanical hard drive can exhibit that behavior (the copying speed stays very low like 50-100KB/s for a while (can be a long while) because the computer somehow gives very little electricity to the USB port). If that happens, you have to wait, or probably power the external HDD with another power source. I have a Seagate 4TB Expansion external HDD so I know that. I also have a SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable external SSD and it doesn't have this problem.are external hard drives more reliable than they once were? I went through a period where I owned 3 external hard drives in 5 years, they would always either break down or file transfers would always stop mid transfer and in one case the computer refused to power the drive (the other two had their own power connectors directly to mains.)no I don’t need to.But you don't even use raw
of course Nikon software is similar to what’s in the jpeg engine but remember it has some extra as it covers even pro model cameras not just point and shoots
External hard drives are cheap and a great way of keeping your pc drive clear to improve speed and performance.
I download my cards after every photo session, it keeps the download times to a minimum and helps keep the camera performance at its best .
Nothing worse than powering up and having to wait while your camera reads through a ton of images to find the next clear sector
After unloading each photo session from my P1000 SD card to my computer, I put the SD card back to the P1000 and use the P1000's "Delete All Photos" command to clear the card (instead of reformatting). My card is a 128GB Kingston blue card (190MB/s read, 90MB/s write).
