Show your Bird Portraits

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
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.JPG3Q7A8969_Bellbird_P_full_reduced.jpg3Q7A8969_DxO_bellbird_lum60_full_reduced.jpg3Q7A8969_Bellbird_DPP_Crop.jpg3Q7A8969_Bellbird_PS_Crop.jpg3Q7A8969_DxO_bellbird_lum60_Crop.jpg

3Q7A8969_DxO_uncorrected_crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,453
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 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: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
I've been getting great results with Topaz DeNoise AI and or AI Clear, and editing/processing in ON1 2020.
I've never tried DxO PhotoLab, I may have to download the trial version and check it out and see what the difference is; see which seems to work better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,453
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.

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

View attachment 187961
Very good job Alan! Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
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).
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
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.
Thanks Alan. My lungs have taken a hit but my strength is fine, so no excuse for not being out carrying the 400 DO, slowly. ;)

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
To put this shot in perspective, it is of a Eurasian Kingfisher at full velocity flying against a background of reeds and is 40m away, occupying only 580x270 pixels. The Eurasian Kingfisher is much smaller and faster than a Belted Kingfisher or a Pied Kingfisher. For 95% of my photography, my Canon DSLRs are first choice but for difficult BIF, the Nikon D500 + 500mm f/5.6 PF is the gear as its AF is awesome and was able to pick out the bird. Or maybe luck? I attempted to pan it and there was this one sharpish keeper. For straightforward BIF, it performs uncannily.

DSC_0574_DxO_kingfisher_in_flight_u.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,453
Thanks Alan. My lungs have taken a hit but my strength is fine, so no excuse for not being out carrying the 400 DO, slowly. ;)

Jack
Slowly and don't be shy to stop time to time to compensate for the oxygen in the blood! The strength may fall rapidly without enough of oxygen - be careful!
And keep your spirit high like now!(y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,453
It's so difficult to find birds here at present that I was happy to take a photo of a Great Tit yesterday while doing a bit of testing.
View attachment 187965
Nice photo Alan, but keep in mind that D500 (is this it?) have a tendency to underexpose a little-bit in some scenes (at least my newly acquired one does it:)).
On other hand it's a child-game to recover a lot in the highlights and after that to increase little-bit the exposure... or the mid-tones.
 
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,453
Here I have few from my first try of my new camera (same lens). Found them slightly softer but I still haven't check for lens/body alignment (aka fine tuning the lens) - I hope this is the problem. Otherwise just ~2.5MP loss should not be that visible! Focus-tracking is superior (I still have to evaluate the focus acquisition and accuracy). I didn't have a chance to try BIF today but it looks promising...
I'm still into very basics of this camera. In generally not that big deal (in comparison with Alan who is trying this from different system) but still - one day is not enough! Last two photos at ISO 1000.

DSC_0164_DxO-1.jpgDSC_0194_DxO.jpgDSC_0199_DxO.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0