Do my pictures look soft?

My ISO was at 1000. It was a very overcast day and we were inside or on a shaded patio.
really? a 1000? Can I ask Why so high? I don't think I've ever used that high of a Iso during a portrait shoot. Do you not have any lights,flashes,strobes? I think the pics are great, but the noise just destroys it. When I get that much noise I scrap the pic. My house is a very dark dingy place where it's very hard to take a pic of anything without a flash. But even without a flash the highest Iso I use is 400 (IMO) anything higher than that usually just kills all detail in the pic. the pics don't look soft because they are not sharp or out of focus, they are soft from the high iso. It's rare I will shoot anything higher than 100 Iso. Have you read any of Brain Petersons books? (understanding exposure,understanding shutter speed,beyond portriats,ect. ) He gives you excercises in those books as you read. Low lighting conditions and all, he never takes the camera off 100 iso.
 
anything higher than that usually just kills all detail in the pic.

Wow that sucks. What're you shooting with that you are unable to get unusable pictures at higher iso settings?

Low lighting conditions and all, he never takes the camera off 100 iso.

Unless he is shooting with a tripod affixed to his camera, then he aint shooting at ISO 100 in all his photographs.

The black and white conversions of these photos go a long way towards accentuating and bringing in the ISO noise as a part of the photograph, rather than a distraction from it.
 
Wow that sucks. What're you shooting with that you are unable to get unusable pictures at higher iso settings?



Unless he is shooting with a tripod affixed to his camera, then he aint shooting at ISO 100 in all his photographs.

The black and white conversions of these photos go a long way towards accentuating and bringing in the ISO noise as a part of the photograph, rather than a distraction from it.

Well right before I said that I put IMO IN my opinion! That means my standard for my pics. I Don't think any noise is acceptable (In MY PICS) So yes When I get a rather noisy picture I usually scrap it. I like my pics sharp! that my opinion.
2- Have you read any of those books? I don't think so? Because if you have or taken any of his classes or even talked to him you would know 90% of his photography is taken @ ISO 100. You don't need a tripod to get a great pic without using iso 100. I have thousands taken with 100 and no tri pod! and plenty of them are of kids running around in my low lit house. heck I hardly ever use my tripod. unless I'm doing landscape shots or HDR.
 
really? a 1000? Can I ask Why so high? I don't think I've ever used that high of a Iso during a portrait shoot. Do you not have any lights,flashes,strobes? I think the pics are great, but the noise just destroys it. When I get that much noise I scrap the pic. My house is a very dark dingy place where it's very hard to take a pic of anything without a flash. But even without a flash the highest Iso I use is 400 (IMO) anything higher than that usually just kills all detail in the pic. the pics don't look soft because they are not sharp or out of focus, they are soft from the high iso. It's rare I will shoot anything higher than 100 Iso. Have you read any of Brain Petersons books? (understanding exposure,understanding shutter speed,beyond portriats,ect. ) He gives you excercises in those books as you read. Low lighting conditions and all, he never takes the camera off 100 iso.


yes, I've read understanding exposure & suggest it to everyone starting with photography. I went so high so I could have a faster shutter speed for the moving kid and not have to open up my aperature past 2.8, because I wanted to keep some DOF. But, she was a lot stiller than I expected once I pulled out the camera, so I should have turned it down.

I prefer to not use flash with a baby. I prefer natural light & I also don't want to bother her with the flash. This wasn't a portrait set up. I was just taking pictures of her while we were vacationing with her family. I didn't want to take up so much of their time or create a big event by taking these pictures. I would like to do a portrait session with her to control the situation more next time.

I am still learning how to deal with noise. I have been reviewing noise reducing software & finally decided on neat image. I'll run all of these through neat image to see how they look.

Thanks again for all of the advice.
 
A little, but the eyes is all that matters for me - the rest of the baby can be a bit soft and I'm ok with it. After all, babies are "soft" to begin with, and it only reinforces that.

I love the third one, as far as the baby pose goes, but a little more light would have done so much for it and really brought out her eyes.

If you were on the porch and just taking these on a whine, then I think you did well. Positioning baby into the light would have helped a lot, but I understand that they do what they do, so it's not always possible in a casual setting.

I just noticed your second posts of pics. The sharpening seems to be making them noisier. I suggest you just select the things you want sharpened (eyes, etc) and apply to that, or the baby's skin will suffer.
 
editIMG_5603.jpg

Quickie edit...I tried to bring her eyes out a little more:

baby_edited-1.jpg
 
Have you read any of those books? I don't think so? Because if you have or taken any of his classes or even talked to him you would know 90% of his photography is taken @ ISO 100.
Funny. No, the only one of Bryan's books I have read is his classic UE, and - to the best of my recollection as this was a few moons ago - nowhere does he mention he ONLY shoots at ISO 100. If he does and I skipped it, well the devil is in the details.

You don't need a tripod to get a great pic without using iso 100.
You'll note I qualified the comment I made. Of course you don't need a tripod to shoot iso 100 in ANY situation, but I would like to see the photos individuals are taking at iso 100, handheld, in indoor ambient/low light. If they are using a dedicated flash, that is a whole nother story.

That means my standard for my pics.
If you're not able to get "sharp" photos without keeping the iso below 400 or so, then there is DEFINITELY something amiss with what you are doing.
 
thanks. yes, I was very worried about the amount of noise. I have not purchased noise reducing software yet, because I'm still deciding on which to get. I will probably buy neat image this week.
This may work in your favor...noise reduction software does soften an image since it tries to 'blur' the noise. Just experiment with the one you get...it you push the NR too much it tends to make skin look like silly putty.
 
About the ISO 1000, I am seeing in the EXIF shutter speeds of 1/1000. One of the shots from the 2nd posting (with the original and sharpen more photos) I saw shutter of 1/8000 and ISO 1000! Yikes!

There shouldn't be any reason to need that high of an ISO if you have a shutter speed of 1/1000 for these shots I would think.

Is my EXIF view just wrong? That seems way over the top to be at ISO 1000 and shutter of 1/8000 or even the 1/1000 for shots like these.

I'd say turn the ISO down until you see somewhere between 1/250 and 1/500 and they would be perfectly fine. Actually, much much better because I would think that would get it down to ISO 200 or 400 at the highest.
 
About the ISO 1000, I am seeing in the EXIF shutter speeds of 1/1000. One of the shots from the 2nd posting (with the original and sharpen more photos) I saw shutter of 1/8000 and ISO 1000! Yikes!

There shouldn't be any reason to need that high of an ISO if you have a shutter speed of 1/1000 for these shots I would think.

Is my EXIF view just wrong? That seems way over the top to be at ISO 1000 and shutter of 1/8000 or even the 1/1000 for shots like these.

I'd say turn the ISO down until you see somewhere between 1/250 and 1/500 and they would be perfectly fine. Actually, much much better because I would think that would get it down to ISO 200 or 400 at the highest.

yes, it was a mistake to leave it so high. I had it high earlier inside, but I did not adjust later.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top