Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 4, 2012, 6:05 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
You're capturing 12MP images with your D300s, downsampling them to 1600x1067, and you still have visible noise?

Or are these 1600x1067 crops from the 12MP original?
TCav: I think these are what you describe as option 2. i.e. I take my 12 MP and resize them down to 1600 pix wide using PSE8.

Don't get me wrong..the noise is typically not visible to the average viewer. But here's an example of an image from my D300s that was rejected by the screeners at airliner.net for grain. Note that this one is only 1200 pix wide.

Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 6:28 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Have you ever gotten any approved?

Can you post an example of one that has?

I don't think that getting a higher resolution camera, 'Full Frame' or otherwise, will help.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 7:01 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Have you ever gotten any approved?

Can you post an example of one that has?

I don't think that getting a higher resolution camera, 'Full Frame' or otherwise, will help.

Here's a recent one at 1400 pix wide.



For more you can visit : http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...s=593j104227j6
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 6:58 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Jehan,

Wow, I took a look at both the accepted & rejected images. My eyes are simply not good enough to 'see' the differences in noise.

I would offer this to you, if noise is indeed the issue, have you considered either adding a noise reduction plug-in (you probably already have one).
The other consideration, before I bought another camera, is downloading the latest Lightroom 4 software.

Adobe has made significant improvements to the Adobe Camera RAW engine that is used to post process in LR4. It is the same as the one found in much more expensive Photoshop's CS6 version.

I know that it will give you greater control over noise reduction than PSE8.

One further point, Using the luminous noise reduction slider tool in Adobe's Camera RAW photo editing plug-in will definitely remove the fine grain out of the image with no loss of detail. Since your images are copyrighted,
I can't post an example,but know this to be true.

Just a thought.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.

Last edited by zig-123; Dec 5, 2012 at 7:05 AM.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 7:27 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

If there was any noise or "grain" in the original 4288x2848 image from the D300s, it almost certainly would not have survived downsampling to 1600x1067. I can only surmise that whatever AIRLINERS.NET is seeing, it has nothing to do with the camera.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 8:39 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Hi Jehan,

Wow, I took a look at both the accepted & rejected images. My eyes are simply not good enough to 'see' the differences in noise.
Zig, don't feel bad...the screeners at a.net have ultra high definition monitors that are capable of exposing the most minute of flaws. On my 23" LED monitor at home, I can't see much of a difference either. However, in the one that was rejected, if one looks real close, there is a minute amount of grain in the sky...talk about being picky. FYI, I use the NR filter in PSE8 by selecting darker areas such as those under the wings and applying it to kill any grain. I should consider an NR plug in as you've suggested...I'll add it to my Santa list! Knowing the stratopheric standards at a.net, I take extra care in what I submit...yet, my acceptance ratio is on average 50% and peaked at 60% recently. Also, I shoot in JPEG...I could try RAW and see if it makes a difference. I find RAW to be a bit cumbersome...overall, I'd prefer to spend more time behind the camera than on my PC in post processing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If there was any noise or "grain" in the original 4288x2848 image from the D300s, it almost certainly would not have survived downsampling to 1600x1067. I can only surmise that whatever AIRLINERS.NET is seeing, it has nothing to do with the camera.
Tcav: I can't figure this one out either.

Based on this very insightful discussion, I might just save myself the $ on a FF and use it for a trip to St. Maarten where there's some outstanding airplane spotting opps along with warm weather and a nice beach. Check it out: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-F...3d1913754f0af0

Thanks again for everyone's comments and suggestions!

Jehan

Last edited by Wingman; Dec 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM.
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:11 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Jehan,

Rather than tell you what to do, Here is a good article on the subject of Jpegs vs RAW.

It's worthwhile reading.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 3:18 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

One last thought.

It seems to me that the photo they denied (Polar) had a lot more DoF than the shot they accepted (DHL). The Polar was closer, so the foreground was in focus, and the trees in the background were sharper than the ones in the background of the DHL shot. Also the DHL was moving so there was motion blur.

I don't know if this would generally apply, but I think I'd keep the aperture large. The shallow DoF and the motion blur may get you past their scrutiny. Also, if you can do it, I think I'd shoot RAW and submit downsampled PNG files instead of JPEGs. You're a lot less likely to get compression artifacts ("grain"?) in PNGs than JPEGs.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 5:59 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,320
Default

Zig and TCav: Thanks for the suggestions. I might start shooting in RAW to see if it makes a difference. Not looking forwrd to the extra time spent in PP, but if the results are noticeable better, I'll have to adapt.

Did not think about the impact of motion blur of the background that could effectively eliminate detail (and therefore grain) in the sky. As for DOF, I typically use apertures at or around f8. I find it gives me a good results in getting the entire aircraft in focus, especially the full size B747's. Even at that, there are times when I have images rejected for parts of the aircraft being OOF. The screeners at a.net are highly selective (aka bloody picky!!).

Anyhow, the both of you have given me some ideas to try out and hopefully make for better shots.


And I'm not quite convinced that I need to go FF yet


Thanks again!

Jehan
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 6:35 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Jehan,

Not to belabor the point, but if you decide to try shooting in RAW, than it is critical to have the latest Adobe Camera RAW plug-in. The older versions such as the one available for PSE8 is not nearly as powerful as the latest versions found in CS6 or LR4.

Keeping in mind how picky Airlines.net is, I would recommend that you download a trial version of LR4 to get the full benefit of RAW.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:07 PM.