CANON 40D High ISO examples.

[MeadsMan]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Mark, the full frame shot has had nothing done to it at all. No noise reduction, no sharpening no balancing. The cropped version has had all of those actions done, hence the difference. I only loaded the full frame to show how far I'd cropped it.

With DSLR's especially if your shooting RAW, you MUST edit the images or your in for a life of disappointment. That's the whole purpose of RAW, it's RAW data, nothing being done to it. Your the one expected to do the rest.
If you don't want to do anything, then your only option is to shoot JPEG, with one of the cameras Picture styles selected. If you do this, then the camera will apply what it thinks is the correct level of sharpness, colour etc. I'd rather not let the camera do this but do it myself.
In the Canon Menu, it even tells you this on your picture style menu choices. If you choose Neutral, it says that you should apply your own balances in software later.
It's one of the main benefits of DSLR's. Users of compacts have it done for them in camera and once the camera has done it, your stuck with it. Not so with RAW. If I wish to alter the style of the image I can always go back and do so.

As for prints, they'd be just fine. The full sized versions look much better than the reduced ones here. Once you've reduced them to screen size you lose a lot of the fine detail which is clearly evident on the full or larger sized version.

I have had a long hard think on this,and RAW in general,and I am of the opinion that I would never feel happy inside with an image,wich has been enhanced to this degree,neither in my photo album,and certainly not hanging on my wall,despite the end result looking so proffesional,I realise I will likely get roasted,but to all intents and purposes,this is nothing like the original image you took,to me, it ses little for actual photagraphy skills,when you can enhance and manipulate to this degree,on your computer,and get results of this nature,from what was at best a very average photo.It falses to ask how honest some peoples images are.I admire you for posting the original untouched image,it ses to me your quite happy with obtaining your photos in this manor,I know I wouldn`t be.Although it is very clever,I think I will take all the dissapointment,in the knowledge of knowing,that when I do get it right,it will not be via over enhancement.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by GerryNick2

Hi Graham

Nice shots, as a matter of interest I see the Robin was shot on the Bigma at f10 and 1/400sec. Compared to my shots using the same setup, tripod and ISO1000 there is a lot more noticeable noise, have you tweaked these images with Neat Image.

Gerry

No Gerry, but the Robin has been through Lightroom, so some noise reduction has been done.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

I have had a long hard think on this,and RAW in general,and I am of the opinion that I would never feel happy inside with an image,wich has been enhanced to this degree,neither in my photo album,and certainly not hanging on my wall,despite the end result looking so proffesional,I realise I will likely get roasted,but to all intents and purposes,this is nothing like the original image you took,to me, it ses little for actual photagraphy skills,when you can enhance and manipulate to this degree,on your computer,and get results of this nature,from what was at best a very average photo.It falses to ask how honest some peoples images are.I admire you for posting the original untouched image,it ses to me your quite happy with obtaining your photos in this manor,I know I wouldn`t be.Although it is very clever,I think I will take all the dissapointment,in the knowledge of knowing,that when I do get it right,it will not be via over enhancement.

Fair enough, each to their own. Can I ask which image in particular you were referring to? In reality I think you'll find that the main thing that's been done is to remove the noise which the digital sensor put there in the first place. So we 'unnaturally' remove something that is unnatural. A bit of sharpening is similar as well since camera sensors have anti-alias filters fitted which have the result of softening images. That said, the image has to be very sharp in the first place and all of Graham's images in this thread are. The only other major change is to crop the image.

Matt

[MeadsMan]

First my appolagies Graham,the way I worded that implied all your images were of a second rate,that`s not what I meant just how it sounded.I have asked you for advice in the past,I would not do that from someones work,that I did not admire.

Matt,the image I was talking about was the one of the Blue tit,I think it has taken enhancement to the extreme,I am still somewhat of a novice to digital,I had no idea that Digital SLRs had so many flaws when it came to focusing and getting a sharp image without tweaking,you are obviously somewhat of an expert compared to me,as I know nothing about anti-alias filters.To be fair,the cropped,sharpened,enhanced photo of the blue tit...well it`s hard to believe it`s from the same image when you look at it,it`s very clever,and very enhanced is it not ? I am merely saying if you have good enhancement skills as Graham,obviously does,that I would not be happy enhancing my images to that degree.I am absolutely gob smacked,and rather anoyed that it`s not actually made clear that digital SLRs struggle to get a sharp image straight from camera,I have asked before,but why are we spending out all this money on quality cameras and lenses if we have to sharpen up the image later anyway ? My appolagies again Graham,they are superb images,but it`s not the way I wish to obtain my photos,a bit to extreme for me.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

I have had a long hard think on this,and RAW in general,and I am of the opinion that I would never feel happy inside with an image,wich has been enhanced to this degree,neither in my photo album,and certainly not hanging on my wall,despite the end result looking so proffesional,I realise I will likely get roasted,but to all intents and purposes,this is nothing like the original image you took,to me, it ses little for actual photagraphy skills,when you can enhance and manipulate to this degree,on your computer,and get results of this nature,from what was at best a very average photo.It falses to ask how honest some peoples images are.I admire you for posting the original untouched image,it ses to me your quite happy with obtaining your photos in this manor,I know I wouldn`t be.Although it is very clever,I think I will take all the dissapointment,in the knowledge of knowing,that when I do get it right,it will not be via over enhancement.

Sorry you don't like them. So long as your happy doing it your way, good for you. I'll do it my way then we'll both be happy.
What I've done is not clever, neither have I ever said it was, it's what your expected to do with RAW images. As I said earlier, RAW isn't the finished article.
Assuming you've got a camera and shoot JPEG's, what do you think your camera does to images before you see them on your screen? Your camera apply it's own variation of what I've done, and often more. It applies sharpness, and adjusts the contrast, removes the noise etc, your simply not aware it's doing it.
Why is it OK for the camera to do it but the moment we do it in software we've done something wrong.
I think your simply misunderstanding the basic principles of how a digital camera works.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Assuming you've got a camera and shoot JPEG's, what do you think your camera does to images before you see them on your screen? Your camera apply it's own variation of what I've done, and often more. It applies sharpness, and adjusts the contrast, removes the noise etc, your simply not aware it's doing it.
Why is it OK for the camera to do it but the moment we do it in software we've done something wrong.
I think your simply misunderstanding the basic principles of how a digital camera works.

Exactly. You can get sharp images straight from the camera - you just need to shoot in JPEG and the camera sharpens the images for you (and makes lots of other adjustments). Alternatively, you can shoot RAW and make such adjustments yourself. But RAW files can still be sharp, some images I take with my 400 f5.6 lens don't need any sharpening.

But the other thing to bear in mind is that all images benefit from a bit of sharpening after they have been resized down to a low resolution image for the web (as they all obviously have been in this thread).

Matt

[GerryNick2]

Playing about with the bigma and 40D in the garden during the week I zoomed in on the dog. At the time I was using ISO1250, this was a RAW image and has only had default sharpening to it in Lightroom, whilst only a snap shot the sharpness and detail does demonstrate the potential for using high ISO with the 40D.



ISO 1250 500mm f8 1/500

Gerry

[glsammy]

Nice one Gerry.

1250 is very usable, I think nearer to the 800 from the 20D. That's not to say you wont get noise, you will, it's just that the detail holds up much better. It's hard to show the full effect when your re-sizing for the web, but I'm very pleased with the detail level on the full sized images.

[MeadsMan]

You seem to be offended Graham,I never said I didn`t like your photos now did I ? And be fair you have not just sharpened that image have you ? Did you not post your photos to get comments on them ? I have allready admited that I lack a lot of knowledge regarding digital.It`s all still fairly new to me.All the images posted here look good to me,from your birds to GerryNick2 `s pooch.I just don`t think I would be happy cropping into an image that far,sharpening and reducing the noise levels on it to that degree.I allready appolagised to you.Perhaps you would prefer I didn`t pass comment in the future ? Quote "I think your simply misunderstanding the basic principles of how a digital camera works. " Yes very likely. Quote "Why is it OK for the camera to do it but the moment we do it in software we've done something wrong". I think you took it a lot further than the camera alone could have,but then as you say,I don`t really have a clue what I am on about.

I never expected that the RAW image would be so fiddly to work with,I choose to use it so far because of it`s superior quality over J-pegs.Though It seems you need certain skills { I wont call you clever again Graham } and / or software to get the best from it.Sorry I offended,I`ll keep future comments to myself,and the Misses .

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

You seem to be offended Graham,I never said I didn`t like your photos now did I ? And be fair you have not just sharpened that image have you ? Did you not post your photos to get comments on them ? I have allready admited that I lack a lot of knowledge regarding digital.It`s all still fairly new to me.All the images posted here look good to me,from your birds to GerryNick2 `s pooch.I just don`t think I would be happy cropping into an image that far,sharpening and reducing the noise levels on it to that degree.I allready appolagised to you.Perhaps you would prefer I didn`t pass comment in the future ? Quote "I think your simply misunderstanding the basic principles of how a digital camera works. " Yes very likely. Quote "Why is it OK for the camera to do it but the moment we do it in software we've done something wrong". I think you took it a lot further than the camera alone could have,but then as you say,I don`t really have a clue what I am on about.

I never expected that the RAW image would be so fiddly to work with,I choose to use it so far because of it`s superior quality over J-pegs.Though It seems you need certain skills { I wont call you clever again Graham } and / or software to get the best from it.Sorry I offended,I`ll keep future comments to myself,and the Misses .

I don't know what you think I did with that picture. All I did was to crop it, sharpen it and reduce the noise. Nothing else whatsoever. It's what I do with every single shot I take.
"To that degree" What does that mean? What degree is acceptable? If you over sharpen it becomes obvious, you start getting halo effects around the image. Can you see any on that one?
I made the point it was a large crop; in fact larger than I would normally do. The whole point of it was to simply show the level of detail retained at that level of crop.
Let me just remind you it was you that came out with comments such as:

I admire you for posting the original untouched image,it ses to me your quite happy with obtaining your photos in this manor,I know I wouldn`t be.

Or

Although it is very clever,I think I will take all the dissapointment,in the knowledge of knowing,that when I do get it right,it will not be via over enhancement.

If you make statements like that, which are factually incorrect, then don't be surprised if I state my case vigorously.

[John D]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

I have had a long hard think on this,and RAW in general,and I am of the opinion that I would never feel happy inside with an image,wich has been enhanced to this degree,neither in my photo album,and certainly not hanging on my wall,despite the end result looking so proffesional,I realise I will likely get roasted,but to all intents and purposes,this is nothing like the original image you took,to me, it ses little for actual photagraphy skills,when you can enhance and manipulate to this degree,on your computer,and get results of this nature,from what was at best a very average photo.It falses to ask how honest some peoples images are.I admire you for posting the original untouched image,it ses to me your quite happy with obtaining your photos in this manor,I know I wouldn`t be.Although it is very clever,I think I will take all the dissapointment,in the knowledge of knowing,that when I do get it right,it will not be via over enhancement.

Hi Meads Man, I have read through your comments and would suggest that you have a great misunderstanding of how a DSLR operates and how there is a need for 'digital image editing'.
As has already been explained you can set the DSLR to produce JPEG images and allow the camera to carry out ALL the necessary functions including sharpening etc. All of these functions are done by the camera processor in a 'fraction of a second'. You can then just accept the image as produced as being the finished article. Alternatively you can improve the image, not necessarily alter, by using image editing software on a computer. For a more controlled method you can set the DSLR to take RAW images and carry out most of the image editing on the computer using software that can be more precise than in camera editing. All the computer software is doing is carrying out what can be done to a certain degree in camera but more precise and with greater control.
If in the past if you ever had a 35mm film processed via the 'local chemists' followed by automated processing equipment and the same film processed by a 'proffesional lab', who would be checking visibly all stages of the operation, you would see there was no comparison in the quality. The same applies now with regards to processing digital images.
Surely the aim is to obtain as sharp and detailed an image as possible. Cropping isn't new, it was done albeit by different method, when using 35mm film.
At the end of the day however it is for each and everyone of us to decide what we like to produce, what we acknowledge as to being acceptable and what methods we use to produce the final product.
I know what I prefer!
Just MHO
John D

[TERNAROUND]

Hi all,
Just thought i'd put my 'two pennorth' in with regards to image manipulation.

When most people used film,to compensate the exposure either the film was 'pushed or pulled' at the picture taking stage or the same process was applied at the developing stage. ( Exposure compensation )
If you needed to make an image appear closer you chose to make a 'selective enlargement' . ( cropping ).
If you needed to reduce or increase detail you could ' dodge or burn' at the printing stage. ( This facility is available on most photo software ).
The colour could be altered, colour casts removed,( White balance ) colour photos could be turned into black and white prints, I don't think I need to elaborate any further.

Digital image manipulation differs in no way to film processing, apart from the fact that it's easier to achieve by more people than would ever have tried to process their own films, but to achieve a high quality end product the potential has to be there, you can not make a good photo without it being a good photo to start with.

All the best John.

[GerryNick2]

Originally Posted by TERNAROUND

Hi all,
Just thought i'd put my 'two pennorth' in with regards to image manipulation.

When most people used film,to compensate the exposure either the film was 'pushed or pulled' at the picture taking stage or the same process was applied at the developing stage. ( Exposure compensation )
If you needed to make an image appear closer you chose to make a 'selective enlargement' . ( cropping ).
If you needed to reduce or increase detail you could ' dodge or burn' at the printing stage. ( This facility is available on most photo software ).
The colour could be altered, colour casts removed,( White balance ) colour photos could be turned into black and white prints, I don't think I need to elaborate any further.

Digital image manipulation differs in no way to film processing, apart from the fact that it's easier to achieve by more people than would ever have tried to process their own films, but to achieve a high quality end product the potential has to be there, you can not make a good photo without it being a good photo to start with.

All the best John.

Your quite right in what you say John. However, one needs to be careful in choice of words. To my mind manipulation refers to the application of image editing techniques in order to create an illusion or deception. I am certainly not a supporter of digital manipulation. On the other hand I am a supporter of digital enhancement for correction or to bring out the best in an image.

Gerry

[RichBrew]

Originally Posted by TERNAROUND

Hi all,

... but to achieve a high quality end product the potential has to be there, you can not make a good photo without it being a good photo to start with.

All the best John.

A common phrase in the recording industry: "You can't polish a tu*d".

RichBrew