I'll mention one tip I have learned in post processing. Since noise is often worse in the background since the bird was in better light, I found a way to deal with that first. If using Lightroom now that it has good masking tools, I usually mask the bird and perch then duplicate and invert the mask. On the inverted mask, (which is basically the background), I reduce texture and clarity a lot, sometimes all the way to the left. I do this before denoising and it makes the process easier and better results. Often, I can get by just using LR noise reduction when using this approach.
I've done this before, but you have to be careful around the fringe of the bird as you can get quite an abrupt line around the bird if the texture and clarity are dropped all the way down and become too 'creamy'
great vid as always Paul, couple other tips, don't post crop if you can help it on higher iso images, i noticed if i shoot a high iso image i can get away with it if i compose the image for the final size, cropping can bring any noise that is acceptable to an ugly mess. another thing to do is to make a test chart of you sensors noise on every iso level because sensors don't ramp up evenly like a smooth curve, its more like a staircase with some iso numbers next each other or a few apart being more or less noisy than you would expect basically set the camera to manual so your setting stay the same and leave the lens cap on, then take an image for every iso, then check the file size recorded and put each image in photoshop or what ever you use and boost the exposure to the same amount to highlight the noise, you can visually see the results too this will help in the field as you will know that you can bump up the iso a bit on a certain stop because you know that one is just a bit cleaner than a lower one, as for the lesser known one you mentioned, i have noticed this too when shooting foxes in very low light, the fur does hide alot of the noise, something i'm wondering thogh, as a child/teen i used to do alot of basic astro work with a telescope and the bigger the front element the more light it collected well i did ask it this was the same with lenses when i first started in photography and mostly it was no its all to do with the aperture, in most cases yes thats true but i use the sigma 105mm ƒ1.4 for low light and that has a huge front element, i also have the M50 which you know can be poor in low light with slow lenses but when i compare huge element lenses with smaller ones with the same aperture the huge ones do give a much cleaner image
good tips but mostly for older canon dslr models, I shoot multiple systems and on some, i.e. sony you can happily underxepose for highlights and recover shadows beautifully. I think same goes for new canon mirrorless as well nowadays
Thanks, Paul! Great and effective tips! Love to see you using a beautiful Reflex and not overestimating the market waves. My thanks also go to the fellows that posted brilliant tips below! Greetings from South Brazil.
Good video! I like the summarization of key points. Obviously the things we can control vary greatly by location and shot, but it is best to keep these principles in mind. There is no question I have been very disappointed when moving quickly from bright sun to deep shadow environments and not having time to adjust exposure or loose the shot, to find out later that my shots are dark and as a result, very grainy. I do use post processing software to help remedy the impact of the noise as others have mentioned. I find all of these ideas require balance and flexibility in application to get the best results in the broadest circumstances. Thanks again for a good video.
All your points are valid but the game changer for me has been Topaz Denoise. Since I discovered this software, I have been able to rescue even old, 'noisy' jpegs. Yes, it involves post processing, but if you are shooting RAW (as we all should be) then you are going to be doing post processing work anyway. Just saying...
You should keep in mind though, that Topaz replaces your noisy detail with perfect detail that just happens not to be taken from your image. It's not all that different from sky replacement, just replaces the smallest stuff instead instead of the upper half. I'm still at a loss why a non-professional nature photographer could want either.
My experience is, that there dark areas have still a lot more detail in them than the white ones. You can bring something back which is almost completely black, in Lightroom, but you can‘t bring a lot of the overexposed whites down.
For me noise is the enemy of the sharp image. But as you say, there is no, or at least very little time and I normally use Auto ISO. But I always bag off a few shots then if the critter as not taken for the hills then, I start dropping that shutter speed (I shoot wide open all of the time). The only time I go for F8/11 is when the conditions are perfect and the situation is controlled, where the animal as come to me. Thanks for posting.
Underexposure tends to only be an issue in very old cameras and Canon's sensors. Most of Sony's sensors from the last 6 or so years are essentially ISO invariant, meaning that a shot at ISO 800 pushed up 3 stops in post has the same amount of noise as a shot at ISO 6400.
A couple of equipment tips I use are, shoot with faster prime lens, rather than zoom in poor light conditions, such as I always use my prime, rather than zoom in the forest. Secondly, large megapixel camera tend to produce more noise, so I use my smaller megapixel camera body when shooting in poor light
Higher resolution cameras do not produce more noise outside of certain extreme examples. For example, the 61mp A7R IV has slightly less noise than the 12mp A7S III at every ISO up to around 25,600, while capturing WAY more detail. Only at 51,200 and 102,400 does the A7S III pull ahead.
👏👏 just the thing i have been thinking about thank you. Again your tips and ideas came at exactly the right moment. Going out now to try them!! Or perhaps a coffee first. 😂😀👏👏 cheers Paul.
During these hot sunny days I have had the good fortune to be able to photograph red kites as they float over my garden and I have always used the ettr theory...... But I found that this was no good for me for this particular bird, even shooting away from the sun I was getting a yellow/orange halo along the birds back and the beak massively over exposed, my best shots were 1/2 stop under and then to adjust in light room
If people got it right in camera there wouldn't be a need for software to 'fix' any images on the PC. Why the hell does most everyone fail to learn basic principles of photography such as lighting, shadows, composition to set shutter-aperatue and ISO. Then shoot a thousand photos of a wedding then spend more time hunched over a PC furiously attempting to fix then they spent taking those photos and never meeting the deadline to show proofs to the client. Back in the day real wedding photographers who shot film got it correct in camera and shot a fraction of the number of photos and had time to manually develop and make enlargements, showed proofs to the client without spending days in Photochop or Lightsoff Room. Digital cameras have made idiots out of photographers and photographers out of idiots.
People make mistakes ALL the time. Get settings wrong etc, it happens. So therefor they need to correct some problems that happen during shooting. You're assuming most of the people in the world don't know how to do photography. I think you'll find, people aren't "failing to learn basic principles". They're simply new to photography and are still learning. Although I wont disagree entirely, there are people who don't bother to learn. But not "most" of the people. Your statement of "back in the day, real wedding photographers who shot film got it correct" = This makes it sound like people are only real photographers either "back in the day" or one who "shoot in film". And that only those people got it correct. I've known plently of amazing photographers who shoot digitally, and put in hard work and effort. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but my opinion is digital cameras have changed the photography world, for the better. I love a good film camera, it is its own world of fun, but you can't beat a good digital camera. Forgiving for new photographers who can't spend a fortune on film. 😊 And one more note: There are PLENTY of film photographers "back in the day" that made AWFUL photos lol. So not even film photographers got it correct first time 😉
Get your images right in camera with my Wildlife Photo Guides: koji.to/k/9jxs
I'll mention one tip I have learned in post processing. Since noise is often worse in the background since the bird was in better light, I found a way to deal with that first. If using Lightroom now that it has good masking tools, I usually mask the bird and perch then duplicate and invert the mask. On the inverted mask, (which is basically the background), I reduce texture and clarity a lot, sometimes all the way to the left. I do this before denoising and it makes the process easier and better results. Often, I can get by just using LR noise reduction when using this approach.
Great stuff. I admit I'm not that great when it comes to post-processing in this way. Useful techniques, thank you
I've done this before, but you have to be careful around the fringe of the bird as you can get quite an abrupt line around the bird if the texture and clarity are dropped all the way down and become too 'creamy'
That marbled white butterfly covered by dew was exquisite.
It's always interesting and pleasure to watch your channel.
So kind. Thank you!
great vid as always Paul,
couple other tips, don't post crop if you can help it on higher iso images, i noticed if i shoot a high iso image i can get away with it if i compose the image for the final size, cropping can bring any noise that is acceptable to an ugly mess.
another thing to do is to make a test chart of you sensors noise on every iso level because sensors don't ramp up evenly like a smooth curve, its more like a staircase with some iso numbers next each other or a few apart being more or less noisy than you would expect
basically set the camera to manual so your setting stay the same and leave the lens cap on, then take an image for every iso, then check the file size recorded and put each image in photoshop or what ever you use and boost the exposure to the same amount to highlight the noise, you can visually see the results too
this will help in the field as you will know that you can bump up the iso a bit on a certain stop because you know that one is just a bit cleaner than a lower one,
as for the lesser known one you mentioned, i have noticed this too when shooting foxes in very low light, the fur does hide alot of the noise,
something i'm wondering thogh, as a child/teen i used to do alot of basic astro work with a telescope and the bigger the front element the more light it collected
well i did ask it this was the same with lenses when i first started in photography and mostly it was no its all to do with the aperture, in most cases yes thats true but i use the sigma 105mm ƒ1.4 for low light and that has a huge front element, i also have the M50 which you know can be poor in low light with slow lenses but when i compare huge element lenses with smaller ones with the same aperture the huge ones do give a much cleaner image
Amazing info. You should start your own UA-cam Channel.. I'm not joking! Fascinating to read about the huge element thing.. never heard about that.
Image stabilization is a big help (in body or lens) coz the only that that you have to worry is freezing the subject
Fantastic video Paul. Very helpful tips 👍🏻
good tips but mostly for older canon dslr models, I shoot multiple systems and on some, i.e. sony you can happily underxepose for highlights and recover shadows beautifully. I think same goes for new canon mirrorless as well nowadays
Thanks for sharing. Yes, I guess that's true to an extent.
Thanks, Paul! Great and effective tips!
Love to see you using a beautiful Reflex and not overestimating the market waves. My thanks also go to the fellows that posted brilliant tips below!
Greetings from South Brazil.
Thank you. Lots of good comments on this video
Great tips as always Paul 👍will be trying alot of theese👌keep teaching us all 👏👏
cheers Paul. Hope you're well.
An excellent explanation of why to shoot to the right.
Do not go more than a 1/2 of a stop. You will start to get blown out pics.
Very kind. Thanks!
Really interesting.Cheers!
Good video! I like the summarization of key points. Obviously the things we can control vary greatly by location and shot, but it is best to keep these principles in mind. There is no question I have been very disappointed when moving quickly from bright sun to deep shadow environments and not having time to adjust exposure or loose the shot, to find out later that my shots are dark and as a result, very grainy. I do use post processing software to help remedy the impact of the noise as others have mentioned. I find all of these ideas require balance and flexibility in application to get the best results in the broadest circumstances. Thanks again for a good video.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think you are right about balance and flexibility. As ever, this is difficult where wildlife is concerned.
Great video Paul. It's very helpful tips. Thank! 💪👍
All your points are valid but the game changer for me has been Topaz Denoise. Since I discovered this software, I have been able to rescue even old, 'noisy' jpegs. Yes, it involves post processing, but if you are shooting RAW (as we all should be) then you are going to be doing post processing work anyway. Just saying...
You should keep in mind though, that Topaz replaces your noisy detail with perfect detail that just happens not to be taken from your image. It's not all that different from sky replacement, just replaces the smallest stuff instead instead of the upper half. I'm still at a loss why a non-professional nature photographer could want either.
@@daran0815 Have you used Topaz it's very good on Raw images from my Nikon d7500 camera same sensor as d500
@@alistairmartins6970 I didn't say it wasn't good. Replacement skies tend to look good, too. It's just not what you photographed.
Good conversation here. Valid points.
Paul another great video. You commendations are just what I need to help me reduce the gain I have been getting,. John
My experience is, that there dark areas have still a lot more detail in them than the white ones.
You can bring something back which is almost completely black, in Lightroom, but you can‘t bring a lot of the overexposed whites down.
I plan on using all of the tips in this video. Thank you again, Paul. ✌️❤️
Glad they're helpful Tom.
For me noise is the enemy of the sharp image. But as you say, there is no, or at least very little time and I normally use Auto ISO. But I always bag off a few shots then if the critter as not taken for the hills then, I start dropping that shutter speed (I shoot wide open all of the time). The only time I go for F8/11 is when the conditions are perfect and the situation is controlled, where the animal as come to me. Thanks for posting.
I like that approach Chris. Similar for me.
Also don’t use the cameras built in noise reduction as it doubles the time to take a shot. It has a bigger impact when doing longer exposures.
Underexposure tends to only be an issue in very old cameras and Canon's sensors. Most of Sony's sensors from the last 6 or so years are essentially ISO invariant, meaning that a shot at ISO 800 pushed up 3 stops in post has the same amount of noise as a shot at ISO 6400.
Appreciate that, thank you.
Paul can you get your very expensive camera and lens any closer to edge of your table? Seriously what are you thinking?
thanks. very helpful tip.
A couple of equipment tips I use are, shoot with faster prime lens, rather than zoom in poor light conditions, such as I always use my prime, rather than zoom in the forest. Secondly, large megapixel camera tend to produce more noise, so I use my smaller megapixel camera body when shooting in poor light
Interesting. I would have thought the large MP would be better on noise.?
Higher resolution cameras do not produce more noise outside of certain extreme examples.
For example, the 61mp A7R IV has slightly less noise than the 12mp A7S III at every ISO up to around 25,600, while capturing WAY more detail. Only at 51,200 and 102,400 does the A7S III pull ahead.
👏👏 just the thing i have been thinking about thank you. Again your tips and ideas came at exactly the right moment. Going out now to try them!! Or perhaps a coffee first. 😂😀👏👏 cheers Paul.
Really nice to hear. cheers Robin
Also: use a silent shutter
During these hot sunny days I have had the good fortune to be able to photograph red kites as they float over my garden and I have always used the ettr theory...... But I found that this was no good for me for this particular bird, even shooting away from the sun I was getting a yellow/orange halo along the birds back and the beak massively over exposed, my best shots were 1/2 stop under and then to adjust in light room
I understand. ETTR not always appropriate. Thanks for sharing that with us Phil.
👍📷😎
Exposing to the right means slower shutter speed or higher iso which defeats the purpose 😂
Best tip I can mention. Don't place your camera at the edge of a table.......
😁
Haha! It's the only way I can frame the shot perfectly..!
BS, The higher the ISO the higher the noise. You can't remove it in camera.
If people got it right in camera there wouldn't be a need for software to 'fix' any images on the PC.
Why the hell does most everyone fail to learn basic principles of photography such as lighting, shadows, composition to set shutter-aperatue and ISO.
Then shoot a thousand photos of a wedding then spend more time hunched over a PC furiously attempting to fix then they spent taking those photos and never meeting the deadline to show proofs to the client.
Back in the day real wedding photographers who shot film got it correct in camera and shot a fraction of the number of photos and had time to manually develop and make enlargements, showed proofs to the client without spending days in Photochop or Lightsoff Room.
Digital cameras have made idiots out of photographers and photographers out of idiots.
People make mistakes ALL the time. Get settings wrong etc, it happens. So therefor they need to correct some problems that happen during shooting.
You're assuming most of the people in the world don't know how to do photography. I think you'll find, people aren't "failing to learn basic principles". They're simply new to photography and are still learning. Although I wont disagree entirely, there are people who don't bother to learn. But not "most" of the people.
Your statement of "back in the day, real wedding photographers who shot film got it correct" = This makes it sound like people are only real photographers either "back in the day" or one who "shoot in film". And that only those people got it correct. I've known plently of amazing photographers who shoot digitally, and put in hard work and effort.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but my opinion is digital cameras have changed the photography world, for the better. I love a good film camera, it is its own world of fun, but you can't beat a good digital camera. Forgiving for new photographers who can't spend a fortune on film. 😊
And one more note: There are PLENTY of film photographers "back in the day" that made AWFUL photos lol. So not even film photographers got it correct first time 😉
Really ??? All these points are as your solution ???? Whats new in all the points you said ??? Come on you are just trying to make vid for youtube...