Dwayne Oakes
New member
Thanks for taking a look !
Take care,
Dwayne Oakes
Take care,
Dwayne Oakes
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Shadow Wings
- Thread starter Dwayne Oakes
- Start date
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Dwayne,
before I start a disclaimer: This is not meant as a critique, but a collection of impressions and questions I have when looking at this photo.
The dragonfly shadow:
Where was the insect at the time of exposure? The shadow has a high contrast and is well defined.
At what time the photo was taken?
The surface of the piece of wood:
I am pleased by the diagonal composition ( I love diagonals!) but I am somehow confused about the surface of the piece of wood. The shadow contrast suggests light you would expect around noon, but the surface of the piece of wood is far from being as crisp as I would expect (and this can be me), it reminds me even of compression artifacts, but again, this can be me.
The overall composition is lovely, there are just the two things mentioned above which leave me puzzled.
Best regards,
Michael
before I start a disclaimer: This is not meant as a critique, but a collection of impressions and questions I have when looking at this photo.
The dragonfly shadow:
Where was the insect at the time of exposure? The shadow has a high contrast and is well defined.
At what time the photo was taken?
The surface of the piece of wood:
I am pleased by the diagonal composition ( I love diagonals!) but I am somehow confused about the surface of the piece of wood. The shadow contrast suggests light you would expect around noon, but the surface of the piece of wood is far from being as crisp as I would expect (and this can be me), it reminds me even of compression artifacts, but again, this can be me.
The overall composition is lovely, there are just the two things mentioned above which leave me puzzled.
Best regards,
Michael
Dwayne Oakes
New member
Thank you very much for the comments Michael and questions !
Q-Where was the insect at the time of exposure?
A-The Damselfly was hovering an inch above the stick in the frame. The hover was froze
at 1/6400 second. In pp I healed out the damselfly to leave just its shadow.
Q-At what time the photo was taken?
A-EXIF shows photo taken at 12:55 so you are right about high noon and the light.
The reason for the low texture of the stick is due to a pass with NR software. I had to use
ISO 4000 "lots of noise" to get a shutter speed of 1/6400. Since there is not much
texture in the shadow it is not affected by the NR pass, in fact it will improve the shadow.
Take care,
Dwayne Oakes
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Dwayne,
Thanks for the answers and further explanations on the post-processing.
Personally I am not so strict on noise - especially in b&w it all sums up to luma noise which is only moderately disturbing from my point of view. Some even add noise to increase the impression of sharpness...
You write "lots of noise", but looking on your website I see that you used a D7000 (K-5 user here, same sensor) which I would expect showing only a moderate amount of noise in this ISO range (the sensor is excellent).
Could you shed some light on this (literally
)?
Best regards,
Michael
Thanks for the answers and further explanations on the post-processing.
Personally I am not so strict on noise - especially in b&w it all sums up to luma noise which is only moderately disturbing from my point of view. Some even add noise to increase the impression of sharpness...
You write "lots of noise", but looking on your website I see that you used a D7000 (K-5 user here, same sensor) which I would expect showing only a moderate amount of noise in this ISO range (the sensor is excellent).
Could you shed some light on this (literally
)?Best regards,
Michael
Last edited:
Dwayne Oakes
New member
Dwayne,
Thanks for the answers and further explanations on the post-processing.
Personally I am not so strict on noise - especially in b&w it all sums up to luma noise which is only moderately disturbing from my point of view. Some even add noise to increase the impression of sharpness...
You write "lots of noise", but looking on your website I see that you used a D7000 (K-5 user here, same sensor) which I would expect showing only a moderate amount of noise in this ISO range (the sensor is excellent).
Could you shed some light on this (literally
Best regards,
Michael
Thanks Michael. My base ISO for all my work with this new camera is 800 ISO. This one
photo was a one-off idea needing 4000 ISO. I can tell you I see a big jump in noise level
from 800 to 4000 ISO "100% crop" with this camera. I checked the web reviews because you
got me thinking, the web reviews show the same results as mine. Thought there was something
wrong with my camera lol so I had to check. She's all good lol.
Take care,
Dwayne Oakes
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
The perception of an acceptable noise level is pretty subjective. I do not pixel-peep for noise. chroma noise is pretty awful, but luma noise is not so disturbing and can be still ok at higher levels in comparison.
It would be interesting to see the photo at different noise reduction levels...
Best regards,
Michael
It would be interesting to see the photo at different noise reduction levels...
Best regards,
Michael