Jump to content

Fun with MM Digital files - part 3 10,000 ISO


jonoslack

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI There

This is the third part of the experiment - Thank you so much for chipping in on the other two shots (which are still available for download for a day or so).

 

There is also a potential problem with dropbox limits - I do pay for it, so there is a larger daily limit, but please don't download the file over and over again.

 

 

You can play with the file, and then you can post your conversion on this thread.

 

Enjoy!

 

Click on the Downloads link on the top right

 

This is my take - I'm sure you can do better

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

If interest continues, I'll try and post something else over the weekend.

 

all the best

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a quick go on my work monitor.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

At 1 to 1, I dont like it at all.

 

I think it's too noisy. It's exposed properly, but the shadows and blacks are too speckly. Some will ooh and ahh that it's "film-like" or "just like grain", but it isn't. That's Contrast Noise, there's a HUGE difference. Applying enough noise reduction to mitigate it, either in Lightroom or in DFine 2 makes all the shadows and blacks in the photo look smeared, and completely counterbalances the use of a sharp lens like the one used in the sample.

 

I'm interested in the lens signature, not the fixing the noise of an over cranked sensor, a sensor sadly that still doesn't seem ready for the big leagues.

 

Again, it's not the picture, not the photographer, it's the file.

 

Jay

Edited by Jaybob
Link to post
Share on other sites

At 1 to 1, I dont like it at all.

 

I think it's too noisy. It's exposed properly, but the shadows and blacks are too speckly.

 

Still, it's not bad for ISO 10,000, no?

 

Trying to keep the near-whites here, and the second image is actual pixels of centre.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, it's not bad for ISO 10,000, no?

 

.

 

I swear I'm not intentionally trying to be a killjoy. It's probably killer at 2500. I still have to tiptoe around D3 files, supposedly so clean and bulletproof at high ISO, but they still can be crunchy if underexposed. This M Monocrome file is perfectly exposed and sorta messy.

 

The whites look better than the blacks. Inside that bowl is nice....This is just opening the file up with no corrections at all...It looks MUCH worse on my screen than this sRGB translation of a screenshot...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the detail matters more than the noise in a high ISO photo. I don’t mind a bit of texture as long as the detail is preserved. The noise in this file seems to be quite well behaved and detail shines through almost regardless of what one does or doesn’t do to the image.

 

I haven’t attempted to remove all the noise but I did tinker with the luminance controls in ACR ending up with all three at the 25 setting. I also reduced slightly the sharpness and detail values from the defaults and made some curves adjustments. I found an increase in the clarity setting to be beneficial. I took the slider up to 25.

 

As we’ve seen with the other files that Jono has posted, it is very easy to overdo the processing. pico’s treatment, for example, pushes up the sharpness a little too much for my taste. I don’t think this file needs it, especially when viewed at full size.

 

Having spent some time experimenting with the file, I’ve ended up very close to where I started. For me, this is a less is more camera - the less I interfere with its output, the more I like the result.

 

Here’s a crop and the full frame. Thanks again, Jono!

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Edited by euston
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the noise, sorry grain! This is my camera.

Thank you for sharing these files.

 

To get the noise shown in the actual-pixels of Jono's shelf picture to show on a typical monitor-size, you would be cropping the image to Minox size. Rather a waste, eh?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just by looking at your 100% crops, I dont´t think this is bad at all. Sure there is visible noise, but it isnt blotchy.

 

Lately I have realized that a picture with some noise prints (in the newspaper) a lot better than ones without. Particularly black and white pictures. Added noise also seem to make better duotone mixes too (which again makes for even better newspaper prints).

So now I am actually ADDING "film grain" in photoshop before I print my pictures on photo paper. Adding noise also means less need for sharpening with in turn means less artefacts, halos etc.

 

I am not going down the "which film does this look like/not look like" , all I am saying is that these are pretty nice files. Sure you cant expect top contrast and everything at such a high range. I doubt the 5DIII (or whichever is regarded as the ISO killer nowadays) perform dramatically better than this in B&W without NR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just by looking at your 100% crops, I dont´t think this is bad at all. Sure there is visible noise, but it isnt blotchy.

 

Lately I have realized that a picture with some noise prints (in the newspaper) a lot better than ones without. Particularly black and white pictures. Added noise also seem to make better duotone mixes too (which again makes for even better newspaper prints). [...]

 

I am really missing something because I've never seen a duo-tone image in a newspaper. What paper, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jono, the thing that immediately struck me about this image is you saw the Shame About Ray tour! :D

Oh my God, It says 2012 on it. What's going on?

Pete

 

Hi Pete

He was okay, the band was okay, . . . . I hope he's making some money out of it, but I suspect it was just okay!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really missing something because I've never seen a duo-tone image in a newspaper. What paper, please.

 

Most modern newspapers print in 4-color, even if you put a black and white image in there. Hence, the CMYK process, at least the one we use, produces very "flat" images if they are in grayscale. Now, add a second color through the duotone setting in photoshop, you are able to get a lot more tonality in the picture than regular grayscale.

 

We are not talking full-blown sepia here, just a second color for the platemaker to work with.

 

So even if you have never noticed it, chances are that you have seen them several times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I can improve on Chris's version.

 

I'm amazed at 10,000 ISO! Okay, there's grain. I wouldn't enlarge this image at all, but in a weird way, the grain give texture to the shot, adding something to the drama. I like whites that are white, and shadows that are dark - mid tones are good for everything in between, but if everything is mid tone, you get a hazy wash over the entire image which isn't pleasant.

 

I don't see any point in diving into shadows and detail looking for noise - particularly at 10,000 ISO. The question is, does the resolution hold up for the size of image you want.

 

Cheers

John

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the noise shown in the actual-pixels of Jono's shelf picture to show on a typical monitor-size, you would be cropping the image to Minox size. Rather a waste, eh?

 

This may be a tad inaccurate.

 

For high ISO pictures, I've done the noise reduction procedures in Lightroom or in Dfine 2, always at 1 to 1, otherwise I get too much NR (robbing me of the sharpness in the lens and making everything look smeared and overdone) or not enough NR which just plain looks speckly and bad (in my opinion). Finding the proper amount of detail in the darkest shadows of the milled focusing ring while applying NR is very difficult. I feel it should look sharp with detail even after applying NR, I could not get a result that I was overjoyed with.

 

However, It's NOT ALL BAD!!! Everything above that darkest tonal range responds pretty well to the NR procedures that I tried and looks AMAZING.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...