Getting a grip on high ISOs ... how high is TOO high, for you?
Nov 28, 2017 21:37:36 #
mwsilvers wrote:
Sorry, I wish I could, but if you want us to believe you have good quality images at 51200 without post processing them to remove the noise, you'll have to show them to us. Even the best full frame cameras made start to get very noisy at 51200. And as good as it may have been, the 16 megapixel K-50 was not one of the best cameras ever made.
I don't post process - as I've already stated ... other than to reduce, so they can be posted here in the Gallery. The Pentax K-50 is a rare breed.
Other than the Sony a77 II, and its predecessor, the a77 ... I would say, overall - it produces the best images of all - Nikons and Canons, included.
And, considering 4 of the 5 Nikons are all 24MP ... that's saying a lot! ... The only Nikon that isn't 24MP is the D7000 - and that has the 16MP sensor - virtually identical to the K-50. I believe they're both on a par. But, because the ISO capability in the K-50 is so much greater, it wins out!!!
Maybe you'd like to take this up with RE Hess. He has a similar camera - the K-30. Perhaps he could post something for you taken at 51,200 ISO.
Nov 28, 2017 22:31:47 #
I'm reluctant to go above 6400 ISO because Noise reduction software will not bring back lost dynamic range at super high ISOs. But I will do it to get the shot.
Nov 28, 2017 22:36:10 #
Fotoartist wrote:
I'm reluctant to go above 6400 ISO because Noise reduction software will not bring back lost dynamic range at super high ISOs. But I will do it to get the shot.
What NR Software do you use, FA?
Nov 29, 2017 10:30:50 #
I use Adobe Camera Raw in raw to start with and Nik Dfine 2 in Photoshop. And for stubborn areas, I will use Photoshop's Reduce Noise on top of that with a mask over the detailed areas as it softens a bit. Sometimes I'll use all 3 together to get rid of noise in the 12,800 ISO range.
Chris T wrote:
What NR Software do you use, FA?
Nov 29, 2017 22:21:32 #
Fotoartist wrote:
I use Adobe Camera Raw in raw to start with and Nik Dfine 2 in Photoshop. And for stubborn areas, I will use Photoshop's Reduce Noise on top of that with a mask over the detailed areas as it softens a bit. Sometimes I'll use all 3 together to get rid of noise in the 12,800 ISO range.
That sounds complicated, FA ... three separate steps to get there ... ever heard of Topaz?
Nov 30, 2017 02:17:53 #
Chris T wrote:
One of my dig cams gets all fouled up when I set it to any other number than the one it was designed to cover. That number is 51,200. If I set it for less ... it doesn't seem to know which way is up, anymore. So, after much experimentation - I've returned it to its maximum threshold. What about you? ... Have you done similar experimentation? ... Which ISO has turned out to be right for you? ... Do you change it, or set on Auto and forget it?
I set ISO to a reasonable number for the situation. Mostly 400-800 for day lite shooting. That gives me the widest range of control of aperture and shutterspeed. Shooting inside museums, churches, etc., I have no problem upping to 12,800, picking up minimal noise. Can't remember ever needing ISO higher than that, but maybe I'll do some experiments so time.
Nov 30, 2017 02:45:14 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
I set ISO to a reasonable number for the situation. Mostly 400-800 for day lite shooting. That gives me the widest range of control of aperture and shutterspeed. Shooting inside museums, churches, etc., I have no problem upping to 12,800, picking up minimal noise. Can't remember ever needing ISO higher than that, but maybe I'll do some experiments so time.
Thanks for your input, Reinaldo ....
400-800 sounds reasonable ....
12,800 - is a bit of a push, depending on the camera ... for the Pentax with a max of 51200 - definitely do-able ...
That'd be flat out on my D5300 ... halfway on my D5500 ... but I have them both set to half of the max - for top ... otherwise, noise is a problem ...
Nov 30, 2017 11:24:37 #
Fortunately I seldom have to use all three. I could illustrate with a before and after but this is not my post.
Chris T wrote:
That sounds complicated, FA ... three separate steps to get there ... ever heard of Topaz?
Nov 30, 2017 11:36:45 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Fortunately I seldom have to use all three. I could illustrate with a before and after but this is not my post.
Oh, FA .... don't let that bother you ... please ... feel free ....
Dec 1, 2017 09:53:21 #
Here's a closeup of a particularly grievous example of noise. Pic of lady on a treadmill for a fitness gym ad. I had to use all three and more noise reduction techniques to make it barely acceptable. This was not fun. Any one technique wouldn't have worked including Topaz.
Chris T wrote:
Oh, FA .... don't let that bother you ... please ... feel free ....
Dec 1, 2017 22:49:00 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Here's a closeup of a particularly grievous example of noise. Pic of lady on a treadmill for a fitness gym ad. I had to use all three and more noise reduction techniques to make it barely acceptable. This was not fun. Any one technique wouldn't have worked including Topaz.
Oh, I see, FA ....
Yes ... particularly nasty example of noise, there ....
You did a good clean-up job, too ...
But there's still some on the right side of her face ....
Wouldn't Topaz have been able to help, there?
Dec 3, 2017 11:19:37 #
I just noticed that recently. This is and was a blow up of a much larger image of the entire treadmill this lady is on, so I didn't catch it before. I spot handled it now. I didn't want to take all of the noise out in general anyway. Would have looked plasticky. The goal is to make it look like it Wasn't retouched. But it would have been a much better image without all the noise to start with, that's for sure.
Chris T wrote:
Oh, I see, FA ....
Yes ... particularly nasty example of noise, there ....
You did a good clean-up job, too ...
But there's still some on the right side of her face ....
Wouldn't Topaz have been able to help, there?
Yes ... particularly nasty example of noise, there ....
You did a good clean-up job, too ...
But there's still some on the right side of her face ....
Wouldn't Topaz have been able to help, there?
Dec 3, 2017 12:11:13 #
Where high ISOs are concerned, I get the impression that the significance of the loss of dynamic range is under-rated. If I was in a situation that involved a high dynamic range, especially if it was a predominantly dark scene that included bright highlights, I would do a re-evaluation regarding the ISO value. Dynamic range decreases linearly with increasing ISO, and blown highlights is one of the few things that in some cases have the potential to render a shot unsalvageable.
Unfortunately, ISO noise is one of the other things that can render a shot unusable. When my D5200 goes above 3200 the results are, by my evaluation, not worth bothering with. I shoot mostly landscapes, and a major requirement is that they be aesthetically pleasing - difficult to achieve with large amounts of ISO noise. Above 3200 you'd get a shot, but not a good one, regardless of how good your PP skills were.
That's probably the commonest criterion that's used to decide how high to go - do I need the shot so badly that I'll tolerate unpleasant amounts of noise?
Unfortunately, ISO noise is one of the other things that can render a shot unusable. When my D5200 goes above 3200 the results are, by my evaluation, not worth bothering with. I shoot mostly landscapes, and a major requirement is that they be aesthetically pleasing - difficult to achieve with large amounts of ISO noise. Above 3200 you'd get a shot, but not a good one, regardless of how good your PP skills were.
That's probably the commonest criterion that's used to decide how high to go - do I need the shot so badly that I'll tolerate unpleasant amounts of noise?
Dec 3, 2017 12:38:34 #
Your reply exactly fits the story behind the picture I just posted, (image represents a part of it). Loss of dynamic range, coupled with noise degraded that picture so much that it couldn't be used. And since it couldn't be reshot, I bailed this shot out of the fire by at least minimizing the noise issue and calling the loss of dynamic range, an "effect". Also, using it as B&W was an "effect". Actually, not having to deal with color noise is half the battle.
R.G. wrote:
Where high ISOs are concerned, I get the impressio... (show quote)
Dec 3, 2017 12:43:36 #
Fotoartist wrote:
I just noticed that recently. This is and was a blow up of a much larger image of the entire treadmill this lady is on, so I didn't catch it before. I spot handled it now. I didn't want to take all of the noise out in general anyway. Would have looked plasticky. The goal is to make it look like it Wasn't retouched. But it would have been a much better image without all the noise to start with, that's for sure.
It sure would have, FA ...
I see the spot-retouching you did ...
Effective to some extent, but now you have a light channel running between the cheek and the ear ... since the face is in shadow ... it doesn't make a whole lotta sense! .... But, if you can live with it, that's fine!!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.