iso and noise

[12sndsgood]

so im still learning my camera (nikon D3000) and I am working on taking things more and more manual. Currently ive been working in A or S mode but would like the confidence to shoot in full manual. The newest thing im looking at is ISO and noise.

Just from seeing pics and seeing the noise and working with ISO I know my camera doesnt get very high in ISO before noise starts being an issue. for setting ISO im thinking the best ISO is the lowest setting you can keep it on while still having a well exposed shot? am i correct in this thinking.

I know you can adjust diffrent setting for lighter or darker exposure, so im just wondering more on which should be your first adjustments when setting up shots. should ISO be the first change made and then work your setting from there? rereading this im wondering if what your shooting may have a more impact on what setting you should change first. I hope that made sence to some of you lol

 

[tirediron]

The D300 handles ISO-induced noise very well. You're right however, always keep your ISO as low as you can while still getting the shot. Also remember that under-exposure increases noise a great deal, so an under-exposed image at a low ISO can have significantly more noise in some areas that a correclty exposed image at a much higher ISO.

 

[12sndsgood]

The D300 handles ISO-induced noise very well. You're right however, always keep your ISO as low as you can while still getting the shot. Also remember that under-exposure increases noise a great deal, so an under-exposed image at a low ISO can have significantly more noise in some areas that a correclty exposed image at a much higher ISO.

oh, man i do this every time its a D3000 not a D300. always forgetting that extra 0 (i'll be editing that now)


thats definatly a possibility. while playing with my new 35mm 1.8 in low light setting in my den i was coming up with allot of noise, at the time i was just making allot of diffrent changes on everything esp iso and white noise? (having a brain fart, can't think of the term for shooting with diffrent light envirements) so i was coming up with allot of drastically diffrent shots and was thinking maybe having the higher iso was the issue but it was more likely do to being underexposed since the ones i remember being heavy in noise were also quite dark.

i need to pay more attention to the diffrences that come out from the changes im making even when im just playing.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, the result of higher ISO is digital noise, so therefore it it almost always preferable to use the lowest ISO possible.

The main reason to turn up the ISO, is because you are shooting hand held or are shooting moving subjects, and you want a faster shutter speed.

The first option to getting a faster shutter speed, is usually using a larger aperture, but once that limit is reached (or if you don't want a shallow DOF), then your next option is to increase the ISO. (or if you can, use a tripod rather than shooting hand held).

And yes, noise will most often occur in darker areas of your image, as those areas have a lower signal to noise ratio. Expose Right

Also, when you use software to increase the exposure/brightness, it can really bring out the noise, which is why it's important to expose correctly, especially when shooting at higher ISO.

 

[edouble]

Also read your D3000 user manual under the topic "high ISO noise reduction (ISO NR)". This may help you. I believe the default setting is automatic above iso800 or low.

 

[Derrel]

Noise is also usually at its worst at low Exposure Value levels; you can often get away with shooting at higher ISO levels, like 500,640,800,1000, or 1250, if the light level is HIGH, and especially if the light level is high, and the lighting ratio is fairly low, such as on a hazy or cloudy day. Indoors, under artificial lighting sources, which are deficient in some areas of the spectrum, noise can be horrible. Outdoors, with a fuller spectrum from the lighting, noise is usally less of a problem.

You need to ask yourself which is better: a perfectly-exposed, low-ISO "smear" of a photo, or a higher-noise, well-exposed, sharp, motion-blur-free picture? I do NOT, most emphatically do NOT agree that the lowest ISO possible is usually the "best" ISO to get the best pictures. In fact, I think more images are ruined by using too low of an ISO setting than are ruined by using one that is a bit too high. This is especially true with consumer- and mid-level cameras and lenses which are still, today, equal or better than pro-level sensors were five years ago. I think lingering down in the ISO 100 and ISO 200 ghetto with consumer cameras and lenses is a huge mistake, much of the time.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Noise is also usually at its worst at low Exposure Value levels; you can often get away with shooting at higher ISO levels, like 500,640,800,1000, or 1250, if the light level is HIGH, and especially if the light level is high, and the lighting ratio is fairly low, such as on a hazy or cloudy day. Indoors, under artificial lighting sources, which are deficient in some areas of the spectrum, noise can be horrible. Outdoors, with a fuller spectrum from the lighting, noise is usally less of a problem.

You need to ask yourself which is better: a perfectly-exposed, low-ISO "smear" of a photo, or a higher-noise, well-exposed, sharp, motion-blur-free picture? I do NOT, most emphatically do NOT agree that the lowest ISO possible is usually the "best" ISO to get the best pictures. In fact, I think more images are ruined by using too low of an ISO setting than are ruined by using one that is a bit too high. This is especially true with consumer- and mid-level cameras and lenses which are still, today, equal or better than pro-level sensors were five years ago. I think lingering down in the ISO 100 and ISO 200 ghetto with consumer cameras and lenses is a huge mistake, much of the time.

Ya I think i get what you are saying. Too many people try to always get the lowest possible ISO to get a shutter speed that is JUST BARELY GOOD ENOUGH, the scene may overall a little dark, producing more noise.

Did I get that right?

 

[Derrel]

Noise is also usually at its worst at low Exposure Value levels; you can often get away with shooting at higher ISO levels, like 500,640,800,1000, or 1250, if the light level is HIGH, and especially if the light level is high, and the lighting ratio is fairly low, such as on a hazy or cloudy day. Indoors, under artificial lighting sources, which are deficient in some areas of the spectrum, noise can be horrible. Outdoors, with a fuller spectrum from the lighting, noise is usally less of a problem.

You need to ask yourself which is better: a perfectly-exposed, low-ISO "smear" of a photo, or a higher-noise, well-exposed, sharp, motion-blur-free picture? I do NOT, most emphatically do NOT agree that the lowest ISO possible is usually the "best" ISO to get the best pictures. In fact, I think more images are ruined by using too low of an ISO setting than are ruined by using one that is a bit too high. This is especially true with consumer- and mid-level cameras and lenses which are still, today, equal or better than pro-level sensors were five years ago. I think lingering down in the ISO 100 and ISO 200 ghetto with consumer cameras and lenses is a huge mistake, much of the time.

Ya I think i get what you are saying. Too many people try to always get the lowest possible ISO to get a shutter speed that is JUST BARELY GOOD ENOUGH, the scene may overall a little dark, producing more noise.

Did I get that right?

Yes, diz-actly right!

 

[12sndsgood]

allot of good information guys, thanks.