| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2006 01:50:17 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Sometimes you just don't have the luxury to expose to the right. For example, in the photo I posted 4 posts before this one |
uhm...it looks like you did expose to the right. Otherwise you would have horrible noise all over the place. |
No. I did the exact opposite. I had to underexpose by 1.5 stops to achieve a hand-holdable shutter speed. I then pushed the exposure by 1.5 stops to get a correctly exposed photo.
Exposing to the right only works if you have enough light to to do it. If I was to have overexposed my shot by 1 stop, I would've had to use a shutter speed of around 1/50 which would've ruined the shot seeing as I was using a FL of 180mm. 1/250 is pushing it with my hands.
Try googling with "Exposing to the right". There's a lot of reading on this topic. Also, read this article on Luminous-Landscape. It should explain your misconceptions on this matter.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
It might seem a bit confusing at first but it's really quite logical and makes perfect sense once you get the idea. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 02:14:10 PM · #27 |
| Travis99, Can you post up examples of the shots you are talking about? I am curious to see them. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 02:37:38 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Sometimes you just don't have the luxury to expose to the right. For example, in the photo I posted 4 posts before this one |
Don't have the luxury of exposing right? I thought that was one of the challenges in photography. Being able to expose right it what separates the pros from the wanna bes. People are getting lazy with getting the proper exposure in their digital cameras. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 02:43:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Sometimes you just don't have the luxury to expose to the right. For example, in the photo I posted 4 posts before this one |
uhm...it looks like you did expose to the right. Otherwise you would have horrible noise all over the place. |
No. I did the exact opposite. I had to underexpose by 1.5 stops to achieve a hand-holdable shutter speed. I then pushed the exposure by 1.5 stops to get a correctly exposed photo.
|
Considering that you had to remove the color noise in PP, I'm not sure how this really reflects all that well on the 20D for this type of photography.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 02:48:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Sometimes you just don't have the luxury to expose to the right. For example, in the photo I posted 4 posts before this one |
uhm...it looks like you did expose to the right. Otherwise you would have horrible noise all over the place. |
No. I did the exact opposite. I had to underexpose by 1.5 stops to achieve a hand-holdable shutter speed. I then pushed the exposure by 1.5 stops to get a correctly exposed photo.
|
Considering that you had to remove the color noise in PP, I'm not sure how this really reflects all that well on the 20D for this type of photography. |
Show me a camera with which you can thke a photo at high ISO, underexpose it, and push it 1.5 stops in conversion and *not* require some noise reduction. And this reflects pooly on the 20D?? Not. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 03:06:47 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Sometimes you just don't have the luxury to expose to the right. For example, in the photo I posted 4 posts before this one |
uhm...it looks like you did expose to the right. Otherwise you would have horrible noise all over the place. |
No. I did the exact opposite. I had to underexpose by 1.5 stops to achieve a hand-holdable shutter speed. I then pushed the exposure by 1.5 stops to get a correctly exposed photo.
|
Considering that you had to remove the color noise in PP, I'm not sure how this really reflects all that well on the 20D for this type of photography. |
Show me a camera with which you can thke a photo at high ISO, underexpose it, and push it 1.5 stops in conversion and *not* require some noise reduction. And this reflects pooly on the 20D?? Not. |
I was just saying that it's not all that impressive, as the photog suggested. Nothing more, wasn't knocking the 20D at all.
I think we'd all get better results if we switched to Contax, Hassleblad, or Mamiya, and obtained Phase1 p25 backs. For now, everone just has to deal with all the noise.
Someone go invent infinitely adjustable per pixel ISO so we can shaddup about this.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 03:15:34 PM · #32 |
sorry, I was out doing a photoshoot, I will post examples when I get through looking at the files I just shot.
Travis
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 03:22:29 PM · #33 |
Okay. Here's a serie of pics of the editing procedure in RSP + PS (USM)
//www.kolumbus.fi/uusilehto/img/temp/editingsteps.jpg
Even without any noise removal, the shot is quite usable. For this type of a shot, I would consider the loss of data after colour noise removal almost negligible.
Like I said. Sometimes you don't have the luxury to expose to the right.
I think the decision between a compromise and no shot at all is pretty obvious.
And when you do those compromises, the camera ought to be able to handle them.
Message edited by author 2006-05-14 15:36:51. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 03:58:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Okay. Here's a serie of pics of the editing procedure in RSP + PS (USM)
//www.kolumbus.fi/uusilehto/img/temp/editingsteps.jpg
Even without any noise removal, the shot is quite usable. For this type of a shot, I would consider the loss of data after colour noise removal almost negligible.
Like I said. Sometimes you don't have the luxury to expose to the right.
I think the decision between a compromise and no shot at all is pretty obvious.
And when you do those compromises, the camera ought to be able to handle them. |
Can you do that again at 100%, you can't really see much difference there.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 04:03:32 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Okay. Here's a serie of pics of the editing procedure in RSP + PS (USM)
//www.kolumbus.fi/uusilehto/img/temp/editingsteps.jpg
Even without any noise removal, the shot is quite usable. For this type of a shot, I would consider the loss of data after colour noise removal almost negligible.
Like I said. Sometimes you don't have the luxury to expose to the right.
I think the decision between a compromise and no shot at all is pretty obvious.
And when you do those compromises, the camera ought to be able to handle them. |
Can you do that again at 100%, you can't really see much difference there. |
Those ARE 100% |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 04:13:45 PM · #36 |
I thought I heard Mamiya went under?
What was the lighting like at this wedding? I'm picturing candlelight, if you had to shoot at these high ISOs. That or maybe your camera isn't metering correctly, or your shutterspeeds are off?
Message edited by author 2006-05-14 16:16:00. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 05:15:39 PM · #37 |
Been shooting at 800,1600 and 3200 (by accident!) on my old 300d. Yes there is noise at 3200 but then I would expect that. At 800 nothing too obvious, at 1600 there is noise but I think that in some of the 1600 shots I was using the kit lens and not my 50mm f1.8.
Only usm and resize done on these
Photos in this thread Declan - High ISO shots
Message edited by author 2006-05-14 17:16:20.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 08:21:26 PM · #38 |
Here's 2 x ISO12800 shots with my dslr. ie ISO3200 and -2EV pushed back in post.
All dslr's are capable of this with noise cleaning in post.
bazz.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2006 09:50:53 AM · #39 |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 08:35:11 PM · #40 |
I just ran a test between the Canon 30D and a Nikon D70 for ISO noise comparison. Details:
- Both were equipped with the 50mm 1.8 lens (no filters)
- Both were white balanced used an expodisc neutral
- Both were used without flash
- Both were shot at ISO 200, 400, 800, 1000, 1600 (and 3200 for the 30D)
- Both were exposed as properly as i could (Histogram looked good)
- Shots were taken indoor, first set at night time under tungsten (around 2500K) and second set the following morning (natural window light, will check color temperature)
- NO Shot was adjusted for noise reduction, whether in-camera or in post processing
- all shots are straight from the camera with no sharpening, saturation, nothing
- D70 was set on color mode Ia, no saturation, no contrast, custom tone curve (curve enhances midtones 1/3 stop) and Canon was set on neutral
- both metering modes were set on matrix (nikon) and evaluative (canon)
- both were shot in RAW
Differences are minimal, almost invisible under natural light, the Canon is slightly better (more detail is retained) under tungsten.
If you guys want, I can post pictures |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 08:42:09 PM · #41 |
| Get the picture. Don't worry about noise. |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 08:49:33 PM · #42 |
This was shot at 1600 ISO:
...and this one at 800 ISO:
|
|
|
|
07/20/2006 08:51:52 PM · #43 |
| My new canon 5d has unbelievable low noise. I have almost no noise at 800, minimal at 1600, and it is quite useable at 3200. Quite a switch from my old Kodak, where 320 was much noisier than the canon's 3200. Also, when I see noise, it has more of a grain type appearance, kinda looking like film. |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 08:59:55 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
The more I look at them, the more I think I was using just to slow of a shutter speed. When the flash went off the noise wasnt that bad, not as bad as I thought anyway. I will be buying a sb800 today so maybe that will help me out. |
Quite th contrary, your shutterspeeds should have been longer to allow ambient lighting levels to fill the dark areas. Noise is more a problem in under-exposed areas than in well lit areas.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2006 09:44:01 PM · #45 |
I was shocked to read this entire thread, and never see anybody ask what lens was being used.
I did notice that you spoke of it, up top this page, but at 180, I don't understand why you didn't use the 50/1.8 or equivelent. Heck even the 18-55mm w/a flash would of been sufficient right?
I'm not sure, still very new at all this stuff. |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 09:51:15 PM · #46 |
| The lens doesn't really affect the noise of a picture. |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 09:56:25 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
The lens doesn't really affect the noise of a picture. |
Not directly, no.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2006 09:57:49 PM · #48 |
But indirectly cant it solve noise problems?
Message edited by author 2006-07-20 21:59:00. |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 10:13:36 PM · #49 |
Travis your right. That darn Nikon D200 is way to noisy! The Canon will blow it away.
I'll buy you a brand new Canon 30D for a staraight across trade and get rid of the problem for ya ....
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:39:27 AM · #50 |
I shoot a lot of indoor concerts with no flash and high ISO (800 to 1600).
I'll admit that the Canon 5D is wonderful at low light shadow noise but...if you expose your shots properly and play it cool on pushing your exposures I think most good DSLR's can get nice results.
The below shot is at 1600 ISO, 1/160th sec, shot hand-held with a 70-200 mm zoom with Vibration Resistance at 2.8 AP. Just cropped and slight leveling. No noise reduction or pushing the exposure.
You definitely have to be careful with exposures and not every shot is great but I have lots of photos just like the one above appear in magazines at full page ( 8 x 11 or so). Just be careful.
Message edited by author 2006-07-21 01:39:46. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 08:38:44 AM EDT.
