Aquarium - M6 Mark II

Processed with DPP4; I reduced the (default) noise reduction to preserve detail, at the expense of some noise sneaking in obviously...

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

.

AWB-W priority used/selected in post on every shot, except the shot at "The Yard" of my son and daughter waiting for their milkshakes in which case AWB-Ambiance was preferred/used for optimal skin tone rendition.

.

Fine detail used exclusively, again, exceptions at The Yard afterwards where I preferred Auto (variant of Standard in this case) to make the whites "pop".

.

I find DPP4 handles high ISO much better than Lightroom, hence the gallery being exclusively DPP4 this round. I have another coming from Savannah which is the opposite, entirely Lightroom processed...

Excellent pictures.

What is this aquarium?

Where it is located?

I remember I watches in Vox channel (at YouTube)  that is almost impossible to have a shark in an aquarium.

Advi wrote:

Excellent pictures.

What is this aquarium?

Where it is located?

I remember I watches in Vox channel (at YouTube) that is almost impossible to have a shark in an aquarium.

Atlanta, GA. It's supposedly the largest aquarium in the U.S. by square feet. I'd have to say it is, however not to pick on it, I prefer the Aquarium in Monterey, CA. Quantity vs Quality fight.

.

Forgot to mention, all mech shutter used.

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

I like to keep the detail and remove the noise (hint Deep Prime hint). Nice set though, and also the ones in the Savannah thread. I used to live in Atlanta and have original EOS M images from many of the same spots.

AWB-W priority used/selected in post on every shot, except the shot at "The Yard" of my son and daughter waiting for their milkshakes in which case AWB-Ambiance was preferred/used for optimal skin tone rendition.

.

Fine detail used exclusively, again, exceptions at The Yard afterwards where I preferred Auto (variant of Standard in this case) to make the whites "pop".

.

I find DPP4 handles high ISO much better than Lightroom, hence the gallery being exclusively DPP4 this round. I have another coming from Savannah which is the opposite, entirely Lightroom processed...

I've played with Prime; I'll say I prefer DPP4 nonetheless.

Now I will say, having a FAST computer, helps DPP4 immensely. It was a breeze this last round with my Overclocked Hades Canyon with Cream of the Crop RAM (Muskin REDLINE sticks). Frankly all the other Post Processors leave DPP4 in the dust in terms of performance, however, DPP4 is hard to beat in terms of color retention with noise reduction, without producing artifacts (Prime does if you review corners, not to pick on it, it's a serious contender in my book).

Advi wrote:

Excellent pictures.

What is this aquarium?

Where it is located?

I remember I watches in Vox channel (at YouTube) that is almost impossible to have a shark in an aquarium.

I don't think I have ever been to one which didn't have a shark.

-- hide signature --

Bye

Man, you know how to get the best out of a trip to an aquarium, photographywise and familywise.  First post, first shot and fourth shot (profile of lovely little girl looking so serious) are especially nice.

As for PP, great handling of the distinctive shapes and rich colors. Noise? I didn't notice a speck, and I had just cleaned my glasses, although I didn't pixel peep.

What a fun place.  And fun camera!

Thanks for sharing,

R2

SW Anderson wrote:

Man, you know how to get the best out of a trip to an aquarium, photographywise and familywise. First post, first shot and fourth shot (profile of lovely little girl looking so serious) are especially nice.

As for PP, great handling of the distinctive shapes and rich colors. Noise? I didn't notice a speck, and I had just cleaned my glasses, although I didn't pixel peep.

It’s there, but that’s part of it; reducing the noise enough to not be seen in context… Some of those shots have almost zero noise reduction, but I won’t fess up as to which

Aquariums are difficult for autofocus systems. The M6II I will say did struggle in extremes which I didn’t post, but could. Only had to resort to MF, once, for an eel (not pictured) which was virtual darkness in its tube. The M6II is one of those cameras that can succeed where only larger formats would dare, except it’s not a larger format…

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

Great shots RLight.

So, have you settled for DLO for processing all your pictures from Canon EF-M lenses ?
I was searching for opinions on DLO and came across this post.
I also decided to stick to C-RAW and tend to turn off all kinds of noise reduction.
But DLO, I'm not so sure since I've not made comparison tests, there has to be some drawback.
DLO might be most beneficial with low end lenses, I wish the M6II could hold more than 3 lenses data sets in memory.

Thanks for sharing !

Nice shots and colors

Photato wrote:

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

Great shots RLight.

So, have you settled for DLO for processing all your pictures from Canon EF-M lenses ?
I was searching for opinions on DLO and came across this post.
I also decided to stick to C-RAW and tend to turn off all kinds of noise reduction.
But DLO, I'm not so sure since I've not made comparison tests, there has to be some drawback.
DLO might be most beneficial with low end lenses, I wish the M6II could hold more than 3 lenses data sets in memory.

Thanks for sharing !

I've personally done a number of tests in DPP4 with DLO on and off and could never tell a difference. I, too, am a bit unsure about where it is supposed to help. DxO, Lightroom, and RawTherapee/ART do a better job of sharpening in my experience. I posted some examples in this thread, though the sharpness differences are all pretty minor in these examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4666272

Photato wrote:

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

Great shots RLight.

So, have you settled for DLO for processing all your pictures from Canon EF-M lenses ?
I was searching for opinions on DLO and came across this post.
I also decided to stick to C-RAW and tend to turn off all kinds of noise reduction.
But DLO, I'm not so sure since I've not made comparison tests, there has to be some drawback.
DLO might be most beneficial with low end lenses, I wish the M6II could hold more than 3 lenses data sets in memory.

Thanks for sharing !

DPP4 is just more efficient for high noise reduction. I know folks here are sold on DXO, but I find retaining colors and without artifacts, is important. This series here would be a good one to demonstrate DPP4 vs DXO, but alas I burned my trial. You don’t want crisp faces and fuzzy fish, you want both crispy. And likewise, color reproduction here is important.

DLO is effective when needed. Largely the 22 wide open or the 55-200… Otherwise I have to agree with others, it’s not a big deal. It’s effective at reducing aberrations when they show but it doesn’t pay the same dividends on that 22 once you stop down to f/5.6, for example where its sharp without help, it’s more dramatic at f/2 where it really cleans it up when pixel peeping, or large print.

dan the man p wrote:

Photato wrote:

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

Great shots RLight.

So, have you settled for DLO for processing all your pictures from Canon EF-M lenses ?
I was searching for opinions on DLO and came across this post.
I also decided to stick to C-RAW and tend to turn off all kinds of noise reduction.
But DLO, I'm not so sure since I've not made comparison tests, there has to be some drawback.
DLO might be most beneficial with low end lenses, I wish the M6II could hold more than 3 lenses data sets in memory.

Thanks for sharing !

I've personally done a number of tests in DPP4 with DLO on and off and could never tell a difference. I, too, am a bit unsure about where it is supposed to help. DxO, Lightroom, and RawTherapee/ART do a better job of sharpening in my experience. I posted some examples in this thread, though the sharpness differences are all pretty minor in these examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4666272

I have to agree that “base” sharpening is handled better by LR, absolutely.

Havent touched RawTherapy/ART yet. I am sold on Ubuntu though. Fighting with idiosyncrasies with it presently hence my silence on the forum. Dumb stuff like WiFi drivers for the AX210, stink. Real performance is hobbled to 375mb, even with a 1440 negotiation, except only in Ubuntu. Windows it’s fine. That’s a driver right there…

RLight wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

Photato wrote:

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

Great shots RLight.

So, have you settled for DLO for processing all your pictures from Canon EF-M lenses ?
I was searching for opinions on DLO and came across this post.
I also decided to stick to C-RAW and tend to turn off all kinds of noise reduction.
But DLO, I'm not so sure since I've not made comparison tests, there has to be some drawback.
DLO might be most beneficial with low end lenses, I wish the M6II could hold more than 3 lenses data sets in memory.

Thanks for sharing !

I've personally done a number of tests in DPP4 with DLO on and off and could never tell a difference. I, too, am a bit unsure about where it is supposed to help. DxO, Lightroom, and RawTherapee/ART do a better job of sharpening in my experience. I posted some examples in this thread, though the sharpness differences are all pretty minor in these examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4666272

I have to agree that “base” sharpening is handled better by LR, absolutely.

Havent touched RawTherapy/ART yet. I am sold on Ubuntu though. Fighting with idiosyncrasies with it presently hence my silence on the forum. Dumb stuff like WiFi drivers for the AX210, stink. Real performance is hobbled to 375mb, even with a 1440 negotiation, except only in Ubuntu. Windows it’s fine. That’s a driver right there…

That's unfortunate. I've never had much trouble with drivers on Linux, but if your hardware is new you should probably run something with the most recent kernel available. With Ubuntu, that would be version 22.04 I believe.

dan the man p wrote:

RLight wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

Photato wrote:

RLight wrote:

Used DPP4 for all shots in post. C-RAW, DLO applied. Reduced noise reduction from defaults on every shot; apologies in advance to those who prefer "clean" images over grain detail. It's sorta like Coke vs Pepsi, some folks prefer clean shots others prefer to retain the detail with some noise retained with it.

Great shots RLight.

So, have you settled for DLO for processing all your pictures from Canon EF-M lenses ?
I was searching for opinions on DLO and came across this post.
I also decided to stick to C-RAW and tend to turn off all kinds of noise reduction.
But DLO, I'm not so sure since I've not made comparison tests, there has to be some drawback.
DLO might be most beneficial with low end lenses, I wish the M6II could hold more than 3 lenses data sets in memory.

Thanks for sharing !

I've personally done a number of tests in DPP4 with DLO on and off and could never tell a difference. I, too, am a bit unsure about where it is supposed to help. DxO, Lightroom, and RawTherapee/ART do a better job of sharpening in my experience. I posted some examples in this thread, though the sharpness differences are all pretty minor in these examples:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4666272

I have to agree that “base” sharpening is handled better by LR, absolutely.

Havent touched RawTherapy/ART yet. I am sold on Ubuntu though. Fighting with idiosyncrasies with it presently hence my silence on the forum. Dumb stuff like WiFi drivers for the AX210, stink. Real performance is hobbled to 375mb, even with a 1440 negotiation, except only in Ubuntu. Windows it’s fine. That’s a driver right there…

That's unfortunate. I've never had much trouble with drivers on Linux, but if your hardware is new you should probably run something with the most recent kernel available. With Ubuntu, that would be version 22.04 I believe.

It's the Intel Generic driver at fault here; it won't break 400mb/sec in total throughput in Ubuntu, on any Intel WiFi card on 22.04 (8265, AX200, AX210). Downstream and upstream are to no avail either. The 8265 can hit 515mb/sec in Windows and the AX2 series, both of em, hit around 800-900mb/sec, as can copper so that's a nascent (Debian) driver in play.

Going to give some Broadcom based WiFi adapters a shot as those are third party drivers that I noted are still active in terms of development. I've read mixed things about the N1535 on Ubuntu, but in theory if it's stable at 5ghz, then it's a boon (only 2x2 adapter that can manage MIMO I believe outside of the Intel AX2 series, and can fit in a AE slot). Broadcom has been the defeacto "King" of WiFi for years now, really it's the marriage between RivetJoint and Intel that challenge it, but, only in Windows at that.