I think high ISO my images? Losts of noise.

[Sw1tchFX]

I cranked my ISO up and I think it ruined my images. Take a look.
View attachment 20877View attachment 20878

You're kidding me? People these days, that's practically IMMACULATE compared to what was acceptable 10 years ago...let alone the FILM days..


Good god, this younger generation can be so retarded and completely devoid of context.


You think that's lots of noise or grain? I SHOOT WEDDINGS ON DELTA 3200.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Just for context...

This is Delta 3200..you know, film?


Full image:

100% crop:

"oh no! it's ruined! No contrast! so much noise! it's not sharp! what is a photographer to do?!?!?!?"

 

[Derrel]

For all intents and purposes the skin texture is nothing but noise.

Yes! And it looks relatively good too.

 

[skieur]

^This.... apparently High ISO and underexposed also. Appears that the exposure was brought up in processing... as it is very noisy. Any print you do will show that, and the larger you go, the worse it will look!

I am assuming the image you posted is a crop of the main image? If that is a major crop, the full image might be somewhat usable, but will still have noise obviously!

I remind you of my point related to one of your previous posts. NO camera does well with noise at high ISOs.

skieur

 

[charlie76]

I cranked my ISO up and I think it ruined my images. Take a look.
<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20877"/><img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20878"/>

Ya think....?

 

[charlie76]

at....ISO "Ooopsie!!! Level!"...

LOL

 

[mwild]

OMG IT'S HIDEOUS! THE .... NOISE?

Actually there's far more JPEG compression artefacts than noise in that picture. There's no visible noise if you are interested in look at the picture. If on the other hand your only interest is that fingernail paint she's got then I highly suggest getting closer to her fingers next time

Hi there! (I'm super new to the forum) just a quick question, how can you tell the difference between compression artifacts and noise in a photo? You've peaked my interest.

 

[MK3Brent]

^This.... apparently High ISO and underexposed also. Appears that the exposure was brought up in processing... as it is very noisy. Any print you do will show that, and the larger you go, the worse it will look!

I am assuming the image you posted is a crop of the main image? If that is a major crop, the full image might be somewhat usable, but will still have noise obviously!

I remind you of my point related to one of your previous posts. NO camera does well with noise at high ISOs.

skieur

My camera does pretty well at 12,800.
It's all relative.

 

[cgipson1]

^This.... apparently High ISO and underexposed also. Appears that the exposure was brought up in processing... as it is very noisy. Any print you do will show that, and the larger you go, the worse it will look!

I am assuming the image you posted is a crop of the main image? If that is a major crop, the full image might be somewhat usable, but will still have noise obviously!

I remind you of my point related to one of your previous posts. NO camera does well with noise at high ISOs.

skieur

I disagree.... all have noise at higher ISOs! But some bodies have significant noise even at 800... some have the same amount of noise at 6400 / 12800. Some cannot deliver a decent photo at 800... some can do it 12800 and above.