ISO 3200 Usable on Canon 30D?

feRRari4756 · Jan 18, 2009

Hey guys I recently shot a basketball game at ISO 1600, Shutter Speed: 1/125, and Aperture f4 (my largest).

My images had a moderate amount of noise but noise ninja reduced most of it. now, i discovered Imagenomic Noiseware Pro and it works a lot better than noise ninja.

here are some examples:
(original)

after run through Imagenomic Noiseware Pro:

Now my question is, if i raised my ISO to 3200 (since theyre a little underexposd), do you think the images would still be clean after a run through that program?

tirediron · Jan 18, 2009

I can't see your images (Blocked my work firewall) but why not simply do some experimentation; it's digital, the film is cheap.

Katier · Jan 18, 2009

as tirediron said it's digital so experiment although 3200 is usually very noisy. Personally I'd work on improving the lighting as the images do feel a bit flat to me.

RyanLilly · Jan 18, 2009

Yes. I often shoot at 3200 on my 20D's, using Noiseware pro, I get results like these.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/151340-concert-photos-st-louis-pink-floyd.html

All shot at 3200. Not too much PP, just noiseware, a bit of color adjustment and a little tweaking of curves.

feRRari4756 · Jan 18, 2009

Thanks for all ur input everybody!

What do you mean they look flat? What do I do to improve that without adding lighting or using a flash (I will be shooting cheerleading rather than basketball in the gym and I don't have a flash anyway)?

And I will try the ISo 3200 tommorow. Do I really need to mess with ALL those setting with noiseware or not really? If so how do I learn What each one does?

Thanks

tsaraleksi · Jan 18, 2009

I'd say that you'd be better off getting a correct exposure with 3200 than underexposing with 1600.

feRRari4756 · Jan 18, 2009

Okay guys I just tested my Canon out at ISO 3200 and it did have a lot of noise...until i ran it through Noiseware. I swear that is the BEST noise reduction software out today.
I will now shoot very confidently with Noiseware at ISO 3200.

Look at the difference:

RyanLilly · Jan 19, 2009

The standard settings in noiseware are pretty good, I only recently got the program, so I have not move too much into the advanced settings either

Katier · Jan 19, 2009

feRRari4756 said:
Thanks for all ur input everybody!

What do you mean they look flat? What do I do to improve that without adding lighting or using a flash (I will be shooting cheerleading rather than basketball in the gym and I don't have a flash anyway)?

And I will try the ISo 3200 tommorow. Do I really need to mess with ALL those setting with noiseware or not really? If so how do I learn What each one does?

Thanks

It's just a very flat uniform image.. nothing pops or sings out. Partially down to the under exposure but more so the fact your using ambient light. Really could do with additional controlled lighting IMO.

ksmattfish · Jan 19, 2009

You can adjust contrast with levels or curves. Controlled lighting isn't usually an option during the game, and the fluorescent lights most gyms use just suck.

I agree that in general you'll get less noise with a well exposed higher ISO than an underexposed lower ISO. All of the photos you've posted look underexposed to me, and if you can get more exposure you will see a noticeable decrease in noise before youu use the noise reduction software.

JerryPH · Jan 19, 2009

feRRari4756 said:
I will now shoot very confidently with Noiseware at ISO 3200.

Though Noiseware does remove a lot of the grain, it is also removing a ton of detail when over-used at the higher settings. In facial shots, it will give them that plasticy or fuzzy feel. This is why it is so important you nail the exposure. All your shown shots are still always badly underexposed. There will be LESS noise in the picture if you start nailing the exposure in camera over depending on PPing to correct for user level errors.

The Santa shots also had a severe colourcast. Your WB was quite far off. The beard looks orange, not white and the hat looks more black than red.

It could have come closer looking something like this:

Not having the original to work with, one was very limited in the amount of correction possible, but you get the idea.

The consistent underexposure leads me to ask you... are you even looking at the camera meter? If yes, it could be your camera has an issue. If not, it could be that you are not paying attention to a critical tool.

Ferrari, here is an ISO 3200 Ferrari for you (lol)... with NO post processing other than added sharpening and conversion from RAW to JPG. This area of the car show was OBVIOUSLY very dark and did indeed need ISO 3200 to get a minimum of 1/30th shutter speed (any less and I could start to introduce motion blur due to camera motion). I could have opened up the aperture, but that would have reduced my DOF, making the red Ferrari behind it blurry, which I did not want.

Note the top right B&W Ferrari sign... the white looks white and black looks black, neither look grey (as it would, if the when the exposure compensation was incorrect), details are clear and the exposure is good... not underexposed, and no blown highlights either. This is the goal you are aiming for. Now, your camera won't be able to touch this level of detail, but thats not the point. You have to concentrate on proper exposures to minimize noise and then practice with and get to know Noiseware. Use the most minimal settings to preserve detail as every bit helps.

Now, I know you were practicing with higher ISO settings on the Santa, but when they said it was a flat picture, they meant that the lighting across the scene was uniform and boring. It has nothing to do with your tests, but it does make for good info for you in the future. Sometimes extra flash is important, but for what you are now discussing, it is not possible nor even a good idea. The last thing you want to do is give some poor cheerleader at the top of a 3-tier pyramid a face full of full power flash from 6-feet away at a game. Not only would you be endangering her, at that point, you would also likely be escorted out.

As a final note, be aware that the higher up the ISO scale that you go, saturation and contrast drops, dynamic range drops (rather drastically in your case), detail is lost and more PPing work is required. In the end, understanding how your camera works, what are it's limitations and what are the consequences of higher ISO over say, fast glass or supplementary lighting are all part of the photography equation.

Big Mike · Jan 19, 2009

It can be hard to do when shooting sports...but you can really reduce noise by slightly overexposing. Your examples, on the other hand, are underexposed...and if you had tried to brighten them in post, it would really have brought out even more noise.

Here is a good article about maximizing the signal to noise ratio and exposing to the right.
Expose Right

feRRari4756 · Jan 19, 2009

Thanks everybody so far, i really learned a lot.

Haha I knew about the color cast and the WB being off, but my mac froze as I was adjusting it in aperture and I couldnt export it. Because I was so tired, i just left it that way.

Jerry, I know it is important to nail the exposure, but how could I without gettting more blur than I already was (unless raiseing the ISO)? What is it that you are reccomening for me to do?

JerryPH · Jan 19, 2009

feRRari4756 said:
Jerry, I know it is important to nail the exposure, but how could I without gettting more blur than I already was (unless raiseing the ISO)? What is it that you are reccomening for me to do?

If 1-2 of your pics were underexposed, I would say, yeah, there is not too much short of raising ISO, but all your pics in this thread were at least 1 or more stops underexposed. If you are telling me the camera is doing that, you have a camera issue. If you are telling me that you are doing it, you need to change that. Even your Santa pics, ones with no motion, were 1.8 stops underexposed, if I recall correctly... thats a huge amount to be off by.

In order of best to worst recommendations, they would be:

1 - camera that can handle high ISO cleanly, barring that
2 - faster glass (large apertures), barring that
3 - a little faster glass, and moderate increases in ISO, barring that
4 - raise the ISO, barring that
5 - shoot in highest quality RAW (you're doing this all the time already anyways, yes?) and restore what you can, barring that
6 - we're pretty much screwed... lol

No matter what, your primary goal is to nail the exposure in camera for best results. If you cannot do it with large apertures and/or high ISO settings or software settings in post process, you are beyond the capabilities of your equipment, or you are not doing something right. Shooting in RAW is a cheap place to start (becuase it has more latitude for playing with the exposure recovery than any JPG file ever will), but the proper place to start is fast glass. If you already have fast glass and your needs to shoot in low light are still not attainable but very important to you, you need a body that can do that.

With my D700 and 85mm F/1.4, for example, I see details in low light situations on my pictures... that I do NOT even see in that same room with the naked eye and I still get more than acceptable shutter speeds.