Maybe I will upload a Volleyball photo at a later date. Glad you enjoyed it.
Used lots of local lab, noise reduction, then wavelet edge contrast to reintroduce details.
I would have loved to have an averaged dark frame, so that I could perfectly reduce the amp glow along the right border.
I have no Idea what you are talking about, but I would love to understand it, if it will get more sales for me.
Please add an explicit license to your raw file, @254AllStar.com
Can you explain what that means and how to do it? I do not post here often.
Those are example licences. You could choose a different more suitable licence on the CC site.
Ok, I am researching. Sorry about this.
My attempt using ART. The noise isn’t that bad - modern cameras are amazing…
Also darkened the van in the background which I found distracting…
Nice shot thanks for sharing!
High iso challenge.nef.arp (14.1 KB)
Are you referring to my raw editing workflow and comments in my edit?
I try to keep things as simple as possible, I did not go to school for editing. But I always want to bring my noise down. A variable Zoom shows more noise than my 135 prime lens. But that is to be expected. I am comparing a zoom to my Sigma 135 1.8 prime which is probably not fair. LOL
What is ART?
It’s my favourite Raw editor and becoming popular with many others too…
The project is thanks to @agriggio (and of course everybody else who built RawTherapee in the first place)
Tried cropping a little bit on the right side. Also used Adobe RGB as color space.
Thanks for sharing a nice image.
20-05-3020-09-115420.nef.xmp (51.8 KB)
I think in your situation, low light and shorter shutter speeds, the noise comes from less light to the sensor through the zoom lens. Upping the ISO just lets you use that shorter shutter speed. Your camera is a decent low-light camera, meaning that shot signal-to-noise is managed well into the shadows, so de-noising in post works well. I spent a lot of time trying to acceptably denoise such images from my D7000, but yours from the D75000 was a breeze.
Having a wide aperture and a good sensor keeps one from having to later do shenanigans in the software…
Edit: You are using a wide-aperture lens, went back and looked at the metadata. good shape…
Agreed, I shoot 3000-5000 photos a week andthe D7500 and D500 share the same image sensor and processor. For clearer shoots that are a little closer I use my 135 1.8 at 1.8 and in the same situation I am shooting about 3500 ISO on that. Of course it has much less noise. In Gym I Use the 135 and the Sigma 50-100 1.8 and it is remarkable the difference in noise while shooting at the same exact settings. I think on the football field I am going to go up a tiny bit more on ISO another 1/3rd of a stop and see what I get. I can always go down to 1000 as well on speed.
Our brief exchange here has helped me to clarify my recent perspective on equipment acquisitions. I upgraded from the D7000 to a Z6 to chase dynamic range, and that decision has been very beneficial to that. But looking at the f2.8 glass, I just can’t justify that expense now because my sensor lets me do ISO-driven low exposures with little need for post-processing denoise. And the sensor does that two ways: 1) it’s own good DR, and 2) IBIS, which lets me reliably shoot handheld down to 1/10sec. I really didn’t consider #2 until I started using the camera…