When I sold my D90 and some very nice lenses to purchase the new D7000 it was with great hope that it would be a superior camera. I have not been disappointed. Most of these were shot at ISO 4500.
hi bob, your grand daughters? very cute! yes..the iso on the D7000 is probably 1 stop better then the D90. was there any noise reduction applied on these shots? they look pretty clean!
Very cute! Nice photos too . . . wait a minute . . . did you say you sold lenses to buy a body? Oh my. I consider glass an investment. Bodies are consumables.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Very cute! Nice photos too . . . wait a minute . . . did you say you sold lenses to buy a body? Oh my. I consider glass an investment. Bodies are consumables.
I sold a Nikkor 60mm F/2.8 Micro and a Nikkor 35mm F/2.8 prime.
hi bob, your grand daughters? very cute! yes..the iso on the D7000 is probably 1 stop better then the D90. was there any noise reduction applied on these shots? they look pretty clean!
These photos of children were at my church's Christmas luncheon. Noise reduction in CS5 was applied. The only light sources in the room were the white strings of Christmas bulbs strung from the center of the ceiling.
These photos of children were at my church's Christmas luncheon. Noise reduction in CS5 was applied. The only light sources in the room were the white strings of Christmas bulbs strung from the center of the ceiling.
Yep...the noise is clearly evident in the shadows of number 1...and eyes, and nose to throat in 3. I wouldn't call these a stellar examples of shooting at ISO4500...
I think number would benefit from being warmed up a little...it looks a bit too cool to me. Two is better over all...noise is well controlled for the ISO...
I can see why you wanted to photograph them...you couldn't ask for cuter subjects....
Just my thoughts...
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Yep...the noise is clearly evident in the shadows of number 1...and eyes, and nose to throat in 3. I wouldn't call these a stellar examples of shooting at ISO4500...
I think number would benefit from being warmed up a little...it looks a bit too cool to me. Two is better over all...noise is well controlled for the ISO...
I can see why you wanted to photograph them...you couldn't ask for cuter subjects....
Just my thoughts...
Thank you so much for your ancient & venerable opinion. Number 2 was the point of the post as I switched to Topaz DeNoise which does a much better job of eliminating noise in higher ISO photographs than the noise reduction filter I used in the other two photos. Number 3 was an extreme crop as well so I expected additional problems. "Tis better to come home with a decent photo of a cute kid than to hit the delete button because it ain't "perfect"".
Yep...the noise is clearly evident in the shadows of number 1...and eyes, and nose to throat in 3. I wouldn't call these a stellar examples of shooting at ISO4500...
I think number would benefit from being warmed up a little...it looks a bit too cool to me. Two is better over all...noise is well controlled for the ISO...
I can see why you wanted to photograph them...you couldn't ask for cuter subjects....
Just my thoughts...
IMO this comment is pretty humorous. We're not talking about ISO 400 or 800 here. We're talking about ISO 4500. Dissing a photo for a discernable bit of noise at ISO 4500 is like criticizing a talking dog for using poor grammar.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
IMO this comment is pretty humorous. We're not talking about ISO 400 or 800 here. We're talking about ISO 4500. Dissing a photo for a discernable bit of noise at ISO 4500 is like criticizing a talking dog for using poor grammar.
Agreed. I actually prefer #1 to be honest. The noise reduction on #2 has made it a bit too plasticy for me. While there is some noise in #1, it's quite fine and not distracting, and the texture of the skin looks a bit more natural to me. It's a personal preference thing though. I have in the past been guilty of what I would now consider going too far with noise reduction. Especially when I first got Lightroom 3! I was cranking it up on every photo, and I actually liked the plastic look that I was getting... now when I look back on those shots I cringe a bit. Oh well, in a year I'll probably cringe at some photos that I've done recently as well... that's the way it goes.
Comments
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I sold a Nikkor 60mm F/2.8 Micro and a Nikkor 35mm F/2.8 prime.
These photos of children were at my church's Christmas luncheon. Noise reduction in CS5 was applied. The only light sources in the room were the white strings of Christmas bulbs strung from the center of the ceiling.
Yep...the noise is clearly evident in the shadows of number 1...and eyes, and nose to throat in 3. I wouldn't call these a stellar examples of shooting at ISO4500...
I think number would benefit from being warmed up a little...it looks a bit too cool to me. Two is better over all...noise is well controlled for the ISO...
I can see why you wanted to photograph them...you couldn't ask for cuter subjects....
Just my thoughts...
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
Thank you so much for your ancient & venerable opinion. Number 2 was the point of the post as I switched to Topaz DeNoise which does a much better job of eliminating noise in higher ISO photographs than the noise reduction filter I used in the other two photos. Number 3 was an extreme crop as well so I expected additional problems. "Tis better to come home with a decent photo of a cute kid than to hit the delete button because it ain't "perfect"".
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Agreed. I actually prefer #1 to be honest. The noise reduction on #2 has made it a bit too plasticy for me. While there is some noise in #1, it's quite fine and not distracting, and the texture of the skin looks a bit more natural to me. It's a personal preference thing though. I have in the past been guilty of what I would now consider going too far with noise reduction. Especially when I first got Lightroom 3! I was cranking it up on every photo, and I actually liked the plastic look that I was getting... now when I look back on those shots I cringe a bit. Oh well, in a year I'll probably cringe at some photos that I've done recently as well... that's the way it goes.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
-Fleetwood Mac