Agility shots, Getting sharper, shame about the ISO !

Well finally I am starting to get the sharpness I want of agility dogs at speed
Unfortunately when I took the latest pics the sky was very dull and overcast with no particular light direction to utilise, so I put the ISO setting to 400 to give it a whirl, [ with speed setting at 1500, in for a penny and all that ].

Unfortunately the ISO setting resulted in a lot of noise, far too much to reduce effectively,[ on my software anyway ], but that aside this is the first time I have taken pics with fairly consistent sharpness of the dogs themselves, my timing is getting better also in the main and some of these I tried out using the panning suggestion I was given here previously which I`m hopefully getting the hang of as well.

I know these are still way below par because of the hideously horrendous noise levels but I`m looking on each set I take at the moment as trying to improve individual aspects, [ speed and blur reduction at the moment ], so that I can put together what I`m learning to produce shots worthy of posting in the better pics section eventually

On the whole though, for the sharpness side I admit to actually being quite excited when I was going through them and the one`s I have printed out at 6 x 4 look a lot better quality than on the screen size below as they are more compact at smaller size of course, in fact the noise is`nt so bad at all on the small prints which I was pleasantly surprised by.

Critiques/comments welcome as always and if anyone has the time and inclination to edit to improve the noise I would be thrilled

*Sits with hands over eyes peeking through fingers in case comments suggest I am just seeing what I want to see rather than how they actually are but I can`t stress enough I know how lousy the noise is on them all *

Speed wise they look fine (1500 is quick though) but you're right about the noise. What size (quality) are you shooting at and are these the full image or crops ?

How 'fast' is your lens - (aperture size) - a larger aperture would allow you to get more light into the camera. It would give you a shallower depth of focus although that might be something you might like - just the dog and jump in focus for example.

Great to see you're experimenting with how all the settings work.

Some cameras just don't do high iso very well unfortunately.

Wonder if Bob could try his new software out on one to see what it comes out like?

Noise Reduction Software

You with your agility and me with my garden birds we are nothing if not determined. You do seem to be getting there your dogs are far more in focus now, I don't like noise but sometimes a certain amount is unavoidable except with the most advanced (and expensive) cameras.

We will both find things easier in the better weather except I will have to deal with the leaves by then. Some of the shots are acceptable as far as the noise is concerned where others are distracting, did you crop some of them? The 5th & 6th do not seem to be badly effected by noise but the 7th is bad then the 8th is again acceptable so if you did something different between these or cropped or changed the size perhaps that is making matters worse. Love the dog BTY, is it a standard?

Hi Phil, thank you for responding
They are crops, just to tidy them up and centre on the dogs, [ and crop out handlers especially if their heads were missing ], also as it was so overcast I did use auto-fix to lighten them as they came out too dark `as is` even at 400ISO

The info for the shots is :

1 :
File Size: 627 kb - 820 x 1024
Resolution: 820 x 1024
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

2:
File Size: 632 kb - 1023 x 700
Resolution: 1023 x 700
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

3:
File Size: 501 kb - 1024 x 683
Resolution: 1024 x 683
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

4:
File Size: 560 kb - 1024 x 699
Resolution: 1024 x 699
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

5:
File Size: 642 kb - 821 x 1024
Resolution: 821 x 1024
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

6:
File Size: 620 kb - 821 x 1024
Date/Time: 2009:02:22 14:45:57
Resolution: 821 x 1024
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

7:
File Size: 617 kb - 712 x 1024
Resolution: 712 x 1024
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/3.5
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

8:
File Size: 512 kb - 765 x 1024
Resolution: 765 x 1024
Flash Used: No
Exposure Time: 0.0007 s (1/1500)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

This is one of them as taken, uncropped and unlightened [ pic 4 ]

I have told daddy I am saving up for a dSLR so hopefully he might be able to find a few pennies here or there to help me along, I did explain that it`s his fault for getting me my Kodak which has started me off on this photo taking lark in the first place

I had a look at the thread but don`t know if it would be compatible with my software, [ microsoft picture it, various versions ]

True true

Thank you That aspect has always been my nemesis but I am determined to beat it once and for all

I will have a super dooper camera one day - I will be very old and very grey by then but have one I will


They were taken over a period of 2 hours, from 2pm to 4pm so the light was gradually getting worse, I didn`t process the pics in the same order I took them though, and photo host upload order was a bit random too

Edited to add, just realised from posting the specs that pic 7 was taken on aperture f3.5 and the rest were f2.8, I remember now I did try the zoom a couple of time, that shot must have been one of them ]


She is yes, she is a Standard, full of fun and bubbliness, she a divinely lovely natured girl, she also does Obedience and Breed Showing

You are so right that better weather would be a huge help, I`m looking forward to being able to take pics on a warm day with a nice blue sky for a change, I just hope I don`t miss the one or two days that we might have as a Summer

The standard is gorgeous.

This was an opportunity to try the new Noiseware software I posted in another thread. I believe it dramatically reduced the overall noise to a respectable level. I may have been able to do better work with the original unedited version. I submit these examples for your critiques.

Original


Reduced Noise

Bloomin` `eck bobmielke, that`s some serious software
Thank you so much for that one Tomorrow I will upload the originals and pm them to you then as many as you can find time to work on perhaps post the comparisons ?
If you don`t mind of course, gawd that must sound pushy, I don`t mean it to, it`s just excitement at the thought of the possibility of seeing how they should have come out if I`d got them right
I would very much appreciate any time you you are willing to spend on any of them