Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Thought I would process these 1600 files . They are underexposed so give them a little credit since they are at least a half stop darker in exposure than they should be
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
This I can relate too. . . . . and just to add another poison, Aperture does a grand job with the A900 files, but like Guy, my poison is so incorporated into my DNA that the thought of changing it might be terminal:ROTFL:The M9 is a good example of this, as it out performs the a900/a850 in some ways considerably, and is 'only' 18MP versus the 24.5MP of the Sonys. In unfiltered MP performance, I feel the Sonys run around 13-15MP compared to the M9, although some of the actual performance may also be related to the lenses (in my case Leica R on the Sony and Leica M on the M9).
I sure do like the way the Sony cameras perform, though.
HI MichaelThere are clearly tradeoffs for rendering, but if you are thinking high speed shooting, I think LR3 does a great job. Not that it should convince anyone to change from their preferred package, but in a pinch, it can be leveraged to do very 'good things'. Ugh, now I sound like Martha Stewart!
---Michael
I'm not really that lazy - here is a go with Aperture 3The images are so far apart that it is impossible to compare...
I grabbed the C1 3200 image and the LR3 New 3200 image and put them together for easier comparison.
Jono,HI Michael
Thanks for that . . . . now please could you have a go in Aperture 3 as well :ROTFL:
Mind you, I completely understand why Guy isn't even going to load LR3 - once you have a workflow and a large library, changing over to another program is really a big deal (and if you spend the months necessary to do it, then when you've finished you'll find that your old program comes out with a better version!).
I suspect that Aperture would come somewhere between the two, but I'm not sure I really want to know.
. . . . the mono chair shot is lovely.
It's chroma noise that kills a picture (IMHO of course) I don't usually mind luminance noise, and it usually looks okay on Sony shots anyway.
thanks again.
all the best
:thumbs: Absolutely . . . . incidentally, I didn't do any noise reduction on the Aperture version (or anything much at all to be honest).Jono,
Thanks for the compliment on the images. I was pleased enough with it that it made it into a calendar for my friends this year.
You are absolutely right; chroma noise is the real problem. Since we both agree, I guess that makes it true and unequivocal.
I quite agree - I think also that when people compare high ISO quality between say the D3 and the A900, they will pixel peep at 100% . . . . . . and the D3 will always look better - the problem of course being that they are doing much more magnification with the Sony image..
Regardless of the software chosen, it's remarkable that a 3200 image holds together as well as it does these days. It's a credit to the technology that images like this can be made VERY useable even under somewhat non-ideal conditions.
---M