Show your Bird Portraits

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,074
6,453
Well the only downside I can think of 500mm PF is that it needs a … Nikon behind it :ROFLMAO:
If Canon had put the equivalent of the sensor and AF of the D500 into the body of the 7DII, we would have the 7DIII we had dreamed of. What I mean is that the 7DII has superb ergonomics in both physical handling and menus, and Canon should have updated its sensor and AF.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tron and jmeyer

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,098
1,848
Female of White-rumped Shama with her lunch (it was around 1pm today). I think after this sausage (Mourning Gecko) she may skip the dinner:unsure:. Didn't know they are including also lizards in the menu (so far I have seen them with insects and worms only). She made my not very successful day today:love:!

DSC_5765_DxO-1.jpg
DSC_5773_DxO.jpg
 

jmeyer

http://www.jmeyerphotography.net/
CR Pro
Dec 11, 2014
125
514
41
Wisconsin
www.jmeyerphotography.net
We have a Varied Thrush visiting our state, roughly 4 hours to the northwest of me. I took a road trip yesterday, and visited a few areas in that part of the state. I got to the area of the thrush, about 20 minutes before sunrise. It was still very dark, and even after sunrise, lighting was pretty bad. The first picture was at ISO 3200 and the other two at ISO 1600. After several of you have recommended Denoise AI, I tried it out on these photos. It really works well, thanks! It turned these 3 photos from blah to very acceptable. Sometimes conditions are just terrible for shooting. 7D mkll & EF 500 F4 IS for the 3 photos.

Jeremy

B34A5777-2-denoise-denoise.jpg
B34A6027-denoise.jpg
B34A6045-denoise.jpg
 
Last edited:

Click

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 29, 2012
13,329
1,598
Canada
Female of White-rumped Shama with her lunch (it was around 1pm today). I think after this sausage (Mourning Gecko) she may skip the dinner:unsure:. Didn't know they are including also lizards in the menu (so far I have seen them with insects and worms only). She made my not very successful day today:love:!

Very nice shots. I especially like the first one.
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,074
6,453
Privatebydesign has been wanting to be shown with examples why I and others use DxO for RAW noise reduction. I use it for that and also as a RAW converter as it gets me the most detail than my limited skills can get with DPP and PS, and very quickly too. Here is an image of a bellbird taken in New Zealand by wife using a 5DSR and 100-400mm II at close range. It was deep in the canopy, illuminated by green light, taken at iso 6400 pushed through 1.6ev in post-processing, equivalent to a shot at iso 19000. THe top 3 shots are processed respectively in DPP, PS and DxO prime. To get them on the site they are reduced from 50Mpx to 6Mpx. At this reduction, they all look rather good, and show that the 5DSR is fine at high iso. But, the likes of us birders crop like mad. So, below, I have the centre section of each at cropped at 100% at full resolution. Again, DPP, PS and DxO prime. Here, we can see clearly that the bottom one from DxO has the sharpest detail and in the shadows on the left the least noise. I really didn't want to do this as someone will want me to play around more with the sliders in PS and DPP, and I am not going to do that as I have spent enough time in the past doing so and my skills set is not improving. If you don't work at high iso and don't crop, you won't see much advantage, but if you do, there is a great one. I haven't used Topaz etc for ages and can't comment on those.
Edit - I have added the unsharpened uncorrected at the very bottom for comparison.

3Q7A8969_Bellbird_DPP_full_reduced.JPG
3Q7A8969_Bellbird_P_full_reduced.jpg
3Q7A8969_DxO_bellbird_lum60_full_reduced.jpg
3Q7A8969_Bellbird_DPP_Crop.jpg
3Q7A8969_Bellbird_PS_Crop.jpg
3Q7A8969_DxO_bellbird_lum60_Crop.jpg


3Q7A8969_DxO_uncorrected_crop.jpg
 
Last edited:

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,098
1,848
Beautiful pictures, Jeremy. I really like the second one.
My choice is the first - no snow here and I hardly can find background that emboldens the bird so nicely...
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,098
1,848
Privatebydesign has been wanting to be shown with examples why I and others use DxO for RAW noise reduction. I use it for that and also as a RAW converter as it gets me the most detail than my limited skills can get with DPP and PS, and very quickly too. Here is an image of a bellbird taken in New Zealand by wife using a 5DSR and 100-400mm II at close range. It was deep in the canopy, illuminated by green light, taken at iso 640, pushed through 1.6ev in post-processing, equivalent to a shot at iso 19000. THe top 3 shots are processed respectively in DPP, PS and DxO prime. To get them on the site they are reduced from 50Mpx to 6Mpx. At this reduction, they all look rather good, and show that the 5DSR is fine at high iso. But, the likes of us birders crop like mad. So, below, I have the centre section of each at cropped at 100% at full resolution. Again, DPP, PS and DxO prime. Here, we can see clearly that the bottom one from DxO has the sharpest detail and in the shadows on the left the least noise. I really didn't want to do this as someone will want me to play around more with the sliders in PS and DPP, and I am not going to do that as I have spent enough time in the past doing so and my skills set is not improving. If you don't work at high iso and don't crop, you won't see much advantage, but if you do, there is a great one. I haven't used Topaz etc for ages and can't comment on those.
Edit - I have added the unsharpened uncorrected at the very bottom for comparison.

View attachment 187955View attachment 187956View attachment 187957View attachment 187958View attachment 187959View attachment 187960

View attachment 187961
I have no bird photo taken with high ISO right now but I have this flower - I had to increase the ISO because of the very high winds that day
ISO 2000, f7.1, -1 2/3 EV (because some occasional sunlight was effecting parts of the plant). Resulting speed 1/800s.
Sorry for posting plant on this treat but it's just to illustrate why I like Dxo PL3. Unfortunately I have no other photo editing program installed on this computer to make comparison.

DSC_5378_DxO-1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cog and tron

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,041
3,119
120
Privatebydesign has been wanting to be shown with examples why I and others use DxO for RAW noise reduction....
Many thanks Alan, I appreciate it but hope you realize my bigger point was it helps everybody when they see what unbiased actual users are getting in the way of results, particularly when that use gets narrowed down to very specific genres that have a good following. I have absolutely no doubt that if, like you said, I worked at high iso and cropped heavily I'd 100% see the value of your workflow.

I am surprised that of the three full images it appears to me that DPP version is the weakest, so many people like DPP that I assumed it would be better than third party Adobe. I downloaded the unprocessed crop but can't even match the PS version so presume the jpeg just doesn't have the flexibility or bit depth needed to rework.

My personal uses tend to be big prints, too big for the mp and actual viewing distances, but from low iso shots. I end up benefiting more from better upsizing plugins than noise reducing and sharpening software.

Thanks again and I feel your post is a valuable resource for the wider community.

P.S. I presume you have a typo, the image was taken at 6400 iso not 640!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,624
1,996
Alberta, Canada
Many thanks Alan, I appreciate it but hope you realize my bigger point was it helps everybody when they see what unbiased actual users are getting in the way of results, particularly when that use gets narrowed down to very specific genres that have a good following. I have absolutely no doubt that if, like you said, I worked at high iso and cropped heavily I'd 100% see the value of your workflow.

I am surprised that of the three full images it appears to me that DPP version is the weakest, so many people like DPP that I assumed it would be better than third party Adobe. I downloaded the unprocessed crop but can't even match the PS version so presume the jpeg just doesn't have the flexibility or bit depth needed to rework.

My personal uses tend to be big prints, too big for the mp and actual viewing distances, but from low iso shots. I end up benefiting more from better upsizing plugins than noise reducing and sharpening software.

Thanks again and I feel your post is a valuable resource for the wider community.

P.S. I presume you have a typo, the image was taken at 6400 iso not 640!
Alan it's a lot of work but I for one will be looking carefully. Thanks.

I am still using DPP to take me from RAW but the three sliders, strength, fineness, and threshold definitely can be optimally set to be a benefit on sharpness. I'm still using the free Define2 for the bit of selective sharpening I do, typically based on colour in the regions where we want maximum detail and sharpness - I'd never suggest it's optimal but it's a lot better than nada. Since my surgery I'm doing well but I can't explain my inability to dive into new software - I just don't feel like it and I don't have many new photos either. :unsure: :) Put hey, I'm alive so maybe tomorrow.

Jack
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,655
877
Many thanks Alan for this detailed presentation. It seems that the new DXO Prime Noise reduction rocks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,098
1,848
Privatebydesign has been wanting to be shown with examples why I and others use DxO for RAW noise reduction. I use it for that and also as a RAW converter as it gets me the most detail than my limited skills can get with DPP and PS, and very quickly too. Here is an image of a bellbird taken in New Zealand by wife using a 5DSR and 100-400mm II at close range. It was deep in the canopy, illuminated by green light, taken at iso 6400 pushed through 1.6ev in post-processing, equivalent to a shot at iso 19000. THe top 3 shots are processed respectively in DPP, PS and DxO prime. To get them on the site they are reduced from 50Mpx to 6Mpx. At this reduction, they all look rather good, and show that the 5DSR is fine at high iso. But, the likes of us birders crop like mad. So, below, I have the centre section of each at cropped at 100% at full resolution. Again, DPP, PS and DxO prime. Here, we can see clearly that the bottom one from DxO has the sharpest detail and in the shadows on the left the least noise. I really didn't want to do this as someone will want me to play around more with the sliders in PS and DPP, and I am not going to do that as I have spent enough time in the past doing so and my skills set is not improving. If you don't work at high iso and don't crop, you won't see much advantage, but if you do, there is a great one. I haven't used Topaz etc for ages and can't comment on those.
Edit - I have added the unsharpened uncorrected at the very bottom for comparison.

View attachment 187955View attachment 187956View attachment 187957View attachment 187958View attachment 187959View attachment 187960

View attachment 187961
Very good job Alan! Thanks!
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,074
6,453
Alan it's a lot of work but I for one will be looking carefully. Thanks.

I am still using DPP to take me from RAW but the three sliders, strength, fineness, and threshold definitely can be optimally set to be a benefit on sharpness. I'm still using the free Define2 for the bit of selective sharpening I do, typically based on colour in the regions where we want maximum detail and sharpness - I'd never suggest it's optimal but it's a lot better than nada. Since my surgery I'm doing well but I can't explain my inability to dive into new software - I just don't feel like it and I don't have many new photos either. :unsure: :) Put hey, I'm alive so maybe tomorrow.

Jack
All best wishes for a healthy and happy 2020, Jack! By the way, DxO bought up the Nik collection and sell it - no longer free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,074
6,453
Many thanks Alan, I appreciate it but hope you realize my bigger point was it helps everybody when they see what unbiased actual users are getting in the way of results, particularly when that use gets narrowed down to very specific genres that have a good following. I have absolutely no doubt that if, like you said, I worked at high iso and cropped heavily I'd 100% see the value of your workflow.

I am surprised that of the three full images it appears to me that DPP version is the weakest, so many people like DPP that I assumed it would be better than third party Adobe. I downloaded the unprocessed crop but can't even match the PS version so presume the jpeg just doesn't have the flexibility or bit depth needed to rework.

My personal uses tend to be big prints, too big for the mp and actual viewing distances, but from low iso shots. I end up benefiting more from better upsizing plugins than noise reducing and sharpening software.

Thanks again and I feel your post is a valuable resource for the wider community.

P.S. I presume you have a typo, the image was taken at 6400 iso not 640!
Thanks for correcting the typo. I can mail you a time-limited link via Firefox to the RAW file if you want to play with it. It's quite possible you will do much better than me by using more sophisticated methods. I recall that Art Morris of birdsasart used DPP followed by a commercial noise reduction package. Topaz, NoiseNinja exist, I presume, because they do better than DPP or PS. I have lots of very, very boring shots of charts processed by DPP and PS from when new cameras models were not compatible with DxO and then subsequently processed by an update to DxO - generally DxO squeezed out a bit more resolution (most recently the 90D).