Craftysnapper

Sounds good, my fav time of year to.

Fuji has BP said at web size noise is reduced ay way. I'd be more impressed if you posteed a 100% crop of the original like this so we can see the real result. of noise reduction

Olympus E-M5 at ISO 3200 just a straight raw conversion in Capture One 8 using it's noise reduction.

100% crop so you can see detail and also plain area  where noise shows the most.

Mines simple, I know use Olympus mft cameras exclusivly and my name is Paul.

Now all I need to do is load avitat but I;'m damned if I can work it out!

Don't you mean auto ISO Fuji?

Am I right in presuming that most of these plugins/standalone programs do not work on aw images so you are actually working on a  tiff or jpeg that has had the noise baked in.

So fine if you shoot jpeg but I have yet to come acrooss one that does a better job than noise reduction at the raw stage,even ACDSee Ultimate 9 I use deas well with ISO6400 on mft raw images.

Well done Terry.

Welcome James.

Took this one accidently while checking the new camera out on the first day, had the 45mm on it and accidently pressed the shutter whule looking at the front. So I suppose it's a selfie.

Not much Chrissy that olympus 76mm f1.8 is tack sharp even wide open

 Heres a screen grab of  the raw file in LR with no sharpening or adjustments at all.

The eyes have it at f1.8.

Unless it is intentional as in artistic intent then yes it should be sharp at the point of focus and there is alwas a sharpest point of focus alandscape fore ground or background can be out of focus as can a portrait (you usually want the eyes sharp) but where ever the focus point is should be sharp. If it is not it is more than likely slopy technique caused by camera shake or or to slow a shutter speed causing subject movement. I see to many people pictures where camera shake has rendered them fuzzy..you did ask Chrissy. 

Thank you for all the well wishes and I do intend taking pics and posting here amongst my friends as long as possible.

Sorry I have not been around much and have nt been posting but I have had a few problems. As some may know I lost a fair amount of my sight in my right eye to chemo last year. A few weeks a go I sudenly started to lose some sight in my left eye (blurry patches), this is unrevesable as it is damge to the optic nerve due to lack of blood and oxygen to it courtsy of the chemo due to a drop in plattlets and hemagloben.Hopefully now they know to keep my blood levels up the detiriation can be aressted.

I'm not complaing but this means I mow have difficulty seeing print on the computer screen even when enlarged. images are not so bad so please bear with me if my spelling seems childish.

I'm learning to take pictures again even thouh I cannot see detail very well and pretty well have to get itb right in camera now. knowing where the controls are by touch helps.I will post some recent pics soon, though if you tell me they are not sharp I will have to take your word for it.

Excelent and well deserevd.

Hi Dave and welcome from another dog lover.I am sure you will like it it here.

I could not agree more Phil and of course it also depends on the viewing distance of the print and if you are one of these that has to press his nose up to the print or alway view them on a screen at 100% then your more likely a gear geek than someone appreciates images, after all no one views bill board poster from a few feet and they usaully put them where you can only view them from the correct distance.

For example this was taken with a 3.2 Mp Kodak zoom compact and when the original would break up viewed at 100% but as a 12x8 mounted print it won me first place in the advanced section of my then camera club.

Congrats and like BP I have been back to this one few times.

Thank you everyone and thank you Dee for choosing my pic.

Congratulation to Jason, I bet you are proud of him.

 You would have to take that on honour as it is to easy to alter the date on a jpeg so it proves nothing, just one click in something like ACDSee does it.

This was taken in 2008 check the date with your exif viewer.

The only sure proof of date is a raw file which cannot be altered, you can change the date on the xmp file but not the raw file itself.

I'd take that with a pinch of salt JH until verified by another source. Searching the site using there search box reveals nothing about model releases, just copyright, care to point me to this article.

Any blowback if they are wrong will be on the photographer and not them.

This American advert for Olympus made me laugh.

http://www.getolympus.com/dslarm

Leon you have little chance of getting detail out of a dark shadow area like that in a jpeg without it being grainy and I'm pretty sure it was dark with little detail in the grass as you probably exposed for the sky.

In situations like this it is best to shoot raw and expose to the right as far as you can then pull back detail in the shadow and highlight areas in your raw converter.

It is surprising what you can do with a correctly exposed raw image.

Before and after in LR6

Congratulation Martyn it's always nice to be published.

Very well deserved indeed.