A noisy picture...
No flash, back light and added even more noise during post-processing...
Edit: By the way, do checkout Hart (Agetan) link, http://www.tomato.sg/main.html <- Nice photos.
Last edited:
High ISO Noise: Questions & Observations
- Thread starter biggorilla
- Start date
A noisy picture...
No flash, back light and added even more noise during post-processing...
Edit: By the way, do checkout Hart (Agetan) link, http://www.tomato.sg/main.html <- Nice photos.
A noisy picture...
No flash, back light and added even more noise during post-processing...
Edit: By the way, do checkout Hart (Agetan) link, http://www.tomato.sg/main.html <- Nice photos.
Maybe if I zoom 100% I can see all the noise... :bigeyes:
Anyway... I am sure the parent sure make lots of noise for this image... :bsmilie:
guys, don't feed the troll.
females can be trolls too. let them buy their d3x and then shoot at iso25,600 all the time. and then whine about other things when it comes down to it.
maybe they can be the next zenten. every camera also got something to complain about. :thumbsup:
females can be trolls too. let them buy their d3x and then shoot at iso25,600 all the time. and then whine about other things when it comes down to it.
maybe they can be the next zenten. every camera also got something to complain about. :thumbsup:
i guess u r using a full frame loh..
my 550d iso 1600 pic can only barely make it, and i am taking about 600 to 800 pixels on the long side..
and when i do PP, the noise will be magnified when i raise contrast etc...
i cannot use flash , bcos i take street photos , so i don't want to use flash on strangers....
yes i agreed too.
in fact sometimes i add some noise to some parts...
but u hate it when noise is present where u don't wan it to be... and it seems it limit your PP too.... noise will be enhanced when u do certain PP on hi iso pics...
if you expose optimally, noise is not a problem even on my old time k20d at iso1600..
i think the 550d is on par or better, i don't see what the complaint is.
this is iso3200,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...461196&Signature=Juv9wl6hmbOB+zUkixVyec8WEwk=
looks good to me.
ditto for this:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...461196&Signature=jFLw10jeuTYgcq4pQyCmoKKMoxs=
so i don't know what you are complaining about.
those 2 pics are good...
as fo the exposre, i either use evaluative or spot or partial... but i do get worse noise than these 2 pics at iso1600.... sometimes i set it to -1ev and sometimes no compensation....
what dou mean by exposre optiamlly?
anyway i am using 500d... not 550d... typo... pai seh
i shoot street photos as well, i wait for the right light, angular, sharp, cutting light.. that yields the results i want.
what's the point of shooting in flat light? even when i feel like doing it, iso800 with f/5.6 usually gives a handholdable shutter speed around 1/60 seconds or so from my experience.
to be honest, i look at a lot of david solomon's street pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/
look at these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/4544868305/
iso1600, f/3.8, 1/25 seconds focal length 20mm: camera d300 (CROP FRAME)
is this a sharp photo?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/4345250465/sizes/o/
probably taken on film. grainy too.
sharp and noise free?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/708474465/
street = no flash?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/187940918/
no noise?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/186479008/
i wish people would stop making noise about noise. i've seen millions of noisy pictures that didn't bother me none, and millions more of sharp photos that were horrible.
there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept. ansel adams said that. perhaps he should added on that there is also nothing worse than a noise-free photo of a fuzzy concept as well so that we could quote him.
what's the point of shooting in flat light? even when i feel like doing it, iso800 with f/5.6 usually gives a handholdable shutter speed around 1/60 seconds or so from my experience.
to be honest, i look at a lot of david solomon's street pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/
look at these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/4544868305/
iso1600, f/3.8, 1/25 seconds focal length 20mm: camera d300 (CROP FRAME)
is this a sharp photo?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/4345250465/sizes/o/
probably taken on film. grainy too.
sharp and noise free?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/708474465/
street = no flash?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/187940918/
no noise?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsolomons/186479008/
i wish people would stop making noise about noise. i've seen millions of noisy pictures that didn't bother me none, and millions more of sharp photos that were horrible.
there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept. ansel adams said that. perhaps he should added on that there is also nothing worse than a noise-free photo of a fuzzy concept as well so that we could quote him.
noise occurs only in shadows. the highlights and midtones are mostly relatively clean. if you think about it, either you make sure that whatever is in your highlights and midtones is attention grabbing enough, no one will notice the noise - case in point with david solomons' street pictures, since you are shooting street. of course that's a whole higher level than what is deemed as "street photography" in singapore.
alternatively, even lighting will give you very clean images with high isos, with an absence of shadows.
anyway i am not complaining .. just stating what i found and feel... pls take it easy...
i do agree with you and others on your view point too... that's " do not be too over concern with gear etc...."
i myself am not too concern with gear... cos i dun wan to spend too much $$ on it...
but it is a fact that noise does affect my pic at iso1600... not all, but some... there are especially an issue during PP...
iso1600 - really that bad? canon 500d.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...462392&Signature=Zt8lTyp6B2pZoj2j33e/2WP72YE=
that bad??
http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...462392&Signature=R6Q85x72xqrVj+A9eYyYOkYuqoU=
looks ok to me.
of course if you pixel peep or underexpose........ :dunno:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...462392&Signature=Zt8lTyp6B2pZoj2j33e/2WP72YE=
that bad??
http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...462392&Signature=R6Q85x72xqrVj+A9eYyYOkYuqoU=
looks ok to me.
of course if you pixel peep or underexpose........ :dunno:
firstly - don't even know if that is user problem or camera problem. most modern dslrs are much better than the older generations before already, yet people are still complaining. will no one be satisfied until all of them get a d3x?
secondly, i think the percentage of photos that people take with >iso1600 is like.. way low. and that is a fact.
of course improvement is good, but that said, we're all on the same platform - all aps-c users probably not usable from iso3200 upwards with current generation, or iso6400.. full-frame probably iso6400 and above.. no big deal. :dunno:
it's just a bonus, clean high iso images. like i've said before, you lose other things with high iso - even if it's clean, there is reduced DR, detail, etc.
no lah , i don't pixel peep...
i won't say very bad lah.... at least i think it is better than dslr many years ago... but yday when i PP one iso1600... noise really become an issue when i raise the contrast of the wall... it look weird ., so LL got to lower the contrast lor...
anyway tks for all your recommendations...
hi
i visited davidsolomons flickr, yes it is really good...
i guess he must have spend alot of time on streets... patiently waiting .. searching...
tks for sharing...
Similar threads
