K200D - Raw vs Jpeg Noise at ISO 1600

I was recently able to compare the K200D's in-camera black and white filter (and resulting jpeg) with raw processing + photoshop. In both cases +1 EV was applied post capture, and the ISO setting was 1600. (It was DARK!)

These are crops viewed at 100%

In camera:



Raw:



I actually applied some grain to the raw capture.

This is the full image:




Yes its a blurry old shot - but it was taken indoors, low shutter speed and wide aperture etc, and of course they were moving.

I know some will criticise this on technical grounds, but not me. It has a wonderful spontaneous feel to it and the lack of flash helps. I love the warm, rich tone and the girl's expression.

A shot like this is, unlike, say, one of my rusty wagons, is unrepeatable and all the more valuable for that!

It's what, after all, photography does best. Anyone can stand about in a Welsh bog and wait for the clouds to look good over the mountains...

LOL, totally agree with your comments Andrew, it`s a cracking photo. Works well on lots of levels and proves that a GOOD photograph is more than a technical exercise.

Davex.

Very decent results, I also see I'm pushing my K10D (same sensor) also a but further then before.
As long as the exposure is good or even slightly over exposed it's most of the time very good.

Thanks chaps. I guess when the subject is as glamorous as Yolanda, a bit of fuzziness doesn't matter... I'd almost go as far as to say it gives the shots a 'vintage photography' character

Just wait until "Joy" or "Happiness" comes up as a theme for the weekly comp.

The rest of us will have no chance vs. this!

Lovely.

Coker

That's quite a noise difference! Interesting how the raw is so much pinker as well.

Most likely because the RAW is toned with software on the PC, RAW files come out the camera without any processing.

Only one, Andrew?

Will, I agree with the comments above also. It's certainly a substantial difference between RAW and the in camera jpg, and this is the sort of shot (marginal conditions as you've detailed) where that difference has clearly given you a useable shot.

Given the young couple is dancing, a bit of blur really adds to the feel of the shot anyway. These people have a really touching innocence about them.

As the first two comments.

A very good result..

Been a while since I was in Wales but hadn't realised that the outside loo's are now roofless?

Regards

Great image, and I agree with all of the above comments. When I started processing my RAW images I was blown away by the control you have. Now I only shoot RAW.

In my climbing days, they usually had roofs, but were built over little streams. This is one reason I always took great care over the provenance of the drinking water while on camping trips.

G

You say that as though criticism is wrong.

Without criticism, or with uncritical praise, one can be lulled into thinking that one is a better photographer than one actually is.

G

No, I meant that a great picture can be technically imperfect.

So vintage shots are grainy and blurred?

Step this way Mr Bresson, no Mr Adams wait your turn - and Mr Brandt put that piece of 4x2 down!

I trust this will be taken in the spirit it's offered.