How much noise is too much noise? An ISO question
Jun 5, 2018 14:05:54 #
My backyard has been an amazing place to grab some "urban" wildlife (i.e birds, bunnies and squirrels). But now as we are deeper into summer, I am finding that the heavy shade from the trees has "stolen" much of my light, and the images I am capturing successfully (maybe my standards are not accurate) are with higher ISO than I had originally thought acceptable. When I do my PP, and it is minimal (crop, color saturation where needed, and maybe play with the contrast/highlights) I don't see what appear to be too much noise? Am I too green into the analysis to know what too much is??? Please share some thoughts.
FYI all images captured with Nikon d3400 with AF-S Nikkor 70-300 4.5-5.6 ED VR G
FYI all images captured with Nikon d3400 with AF-S Nikkor 70-300 4.5-5.6 ED VR G
f/7.1 , 1/1250, ISO-12800
(Download)
f/7.1, 1/800 ISO-4000
(Download)
f/11, 1/1600, ISO-6400
(Download)
f/7.1, 1/1600, ISO-8000
(Download)
Jun 5, 2018 14:10:48 #
These look quite nice to me. But, being a film guy, grain is a normal part of the image.
--Bob
--Bob
swartfort wrote:
My backyard has been an amazing place to grab some... (show quote)
Jun 5, 2018 14:14:28 #
swartfort wrote:
My backyard has been an amazing place to grab some... (show quote)
How much will be different for each person , the person looking will decide , it's called taste )
Jun 5, 2018 14:17:24 #
Only you can make that judgment, unless you're submitting to a contest where technical quality is highly important. What are your intentions for these? Will you be printing? How large? Are you happy with them as far as composition, light and pose?
I find the squirrel to be the most detailed and well focused, the rabbit an adorable shot (also well focused) in flattering light and pretty surroundings, and the woodpecker (?) an interesting action shot. The cardinal appears soft beside the crisper leaves and it could be your focus point was on the leaves rather than the bird or you were over-aggressive with noise reduction in pp.
If you find joy in observing and photographing your backyard critters, don't obsess over noise. Just focus (no pun intended) on getting unique poses in flattering light and surroundings (the squirrel's background is a bit messy and distracting because of the areas of strongest light). For other folks viewing, if the initial impact is there, they aren't going to care about pixel peeping
I find the squirrel to be the most detailed and well focused, the rabbit an adorable shot (also well focused) in flattering light and pretty surroundings, and the woodpecker (?) an interesting action shot. The cardinal appears soft beside the crisper leaves and it could be your focus point was on the leaves rather than the bird or you were over-aggressive with noise reduction in pp.
If you find joy in observing and photographing your backyard critters, don't obsess over noise. Just focus (no pun intended) on getting unique poses in flattering light and surroundings (the squirrel's background is a bit messy and distracting because of the areas of strongest light). For other folks viewing, if the initial impact is there, they aren't going to care about pixel peeping
Jun 5, 2018 14:39:49 #
I think Linda from Maine hit the nail with the head... Whether printing or even digital display, it really depends on the final size and the resolution it will print at or be displayed at. The noise, which may not be noticeable to our eyes, on a photo which is only 2" x 3", a 5x7, or even an 8x10 is far different than a photo which is 10x15, 14x20, 20x24...
To prove this, try to experiment with any post processing software. Take your photos and enlarge them through the software to a larger size. If your shots were taken at high iso, the noise will be more evident.
Good luck
To prove this, try to experiment with any post processing software. Take your photos and enlarge them through the software to a larger size. If your shots were taken at high iso, the noise will be more evident.
Good luck
Jun 5, 2018 14:43:18 #
ballsafire
Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana
swartfort wrote:
My backyard has been an amazing place to grab some... (show quote)
With my Canon rebel, I too have experienced high ISO readings but what looked like good images, like yours. Of course I was using Auto ISO.
Jun 5, 2018 14:53:26 #
ballsafire wrote:
What is frustrating to me about discussions that revolve solely around technical aspects is there is so much more to photography than noise! With my Canon rebel, I too have experienced high ISO readings but what looked like good images, like yours. Of course I was using Auto ISO.
To the OP: click on the link in my signature line for the article, "What's important in a photograph and what isn't." And think about the last photos you viewed that made you say, WOW!
Jun 5, 2018 15:02:14 #
Linda From Maine's statement is so true. I'm reaching the point where I'm worrying less about noise (i.e., doing less noise reduction) and more about over-sharpening, which can become very distracting. Your shots are generally sharp and you have to enlarge them significantly before the noise becomes really noticeable. You may reach the point where you want to reduce the noise in the background but not the main subject because reducing the noise on the main subject leaves it looking soft and blurred. There are some good You Tube videos on selective noise reduction that you may find useful. The Adjustment Brush in the Develop Module of Lightroom can be set to "Auto Mask," which helps to select around the main subject so you can more quickly reduce noise in the selected (masked) background. You could use the same tool and selective masking to reduce background contrast or reduce background saturation and thereby lower the distraction, for example, in the squirrel picture that Linda From Maine mentioned. Keep up the good work and happy shooting...
Jun 5, 2018 15:14:50 #
I have a Canon 7D II and would be very happy with any of your pics at those ISOs.
Jun 5, 2018 15:30:22 #
To the OP: click on the link in my signature line for the article, "What's important in a photograph and what isn't." And think about the last photos you viewed that made you say, WOW![/quote]
Thank you so much Linda for the link to the article.... So now another question, and I'll make it relative to the cardinal picture:
If the noise is not "off putting", but we look for lighting, and emotion, relative to the same image, which crop evokes more emotion from you? Does the "layering" alter the emotion?
Thank you so much Linda for the link to the article.... So now another question, and I'll make it relative to the cardinal picture:
If the noise is not "off putting", but we look for lighting, and emotion, relative to the same image, which crop evokes more emotion from you? Does the "layering" alter the emotion?
Jun 5, 2018 16:10:07 #
swartfort wrote:
Two problems for me with your wider view:Thank you so much Linda for the link to the article.... So now another question, and I'll make it relative to the cardinal picture:
If the noise is not "off putting", but we look for lighting, and emotion, relative to the same image, which crop evokes more emotion from you? Does the "layering" alter the emotion?
If the noise is not "off putting", but we look for lighting, and emotion, relative to the same image, which crop evokes more emotion from you? Does the "layering" alter the emotion?
1. I've never been a fan of out of focus foreground objects, especially if fairly large and not evenly distributed in the frame.
2. I don't find these particular dead leaves appealing - just personal opinion; others may vary
Below, I did a crop in between your two choices, then did a poor clone job (Chromebook app, touchpad) on the leaves still showing on the right side. Made the mid-tones a little darker, then applied a subtle vignette to bring it all together.
So we have the contrasting colors (warm advances, cool recedes) and also a contrast in "beauty" (or vibrant life vs. death) if you want to make that your story. What do you think?
Jun 5, 2018 17:14:40 #
That is so cool. I have not delved into any type of serious (even semi-serious) PP. I am still shooting in JPEG and doing MINOR PP in Google Pics..... Seriously embarrassed now hahahahaha. My focus and satisfaction so far has come from working with the camera, lens, and light to capture images. Looks like I need to expand my learning curve again.
Thanks so much. It really popped and made a difference!!
Thanks so much. It really popped and made a difference!!
Jun 5, 2018 17:17:27 #
swartfort wrote:
Many people prefer to spend their time taking pictures, and may even hate computers. I admit to only becoming hooked on pp after I joined UHH and I also admit to having stalled a few years back so I now know "just enough" to be happy That is so cool. I have not delved into any type of serious (even semi-serious) PP. I am still shooting in JPEG and doing MINOR PP in Google Pics..... Seriously embarrassed now hahahahaha. My focus and satisfaction so far has come from working with the camera, lens, and light to capture images. Looks like I need to expand my learning curve again.
Thanks so much. It really popped and made a difference!!
Thanks so much. It really popped and made a difference!!
All the best in your own journey!
Jun 6, 2018 12:47:42 #
Jun 6, 2018 14:28:12 #
swartfort wrote:
My backyard has been an amazing place to grab some... (show quote)
Start using flash and that worry is gone!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.