Pixels vs. Prints

ksmattfish · Feb 12, 2009

I just hung a show of my live music photography. In the past I've always tried to shoot at ISO 800 or 1600 worried about excessive noise. Recently I've been using ISO 3200 (with a 5D) because I figured the subject matter could tolerate a little noise.

Pixel peeping I've been pleased. I shoot raw, and normally I like to expose to the right, but there's not enough extra light in most of my bar situations. I use the default ACR chroma noise reduction (which is 25 for my cameras), and no luminous noise reduction, no other NR software. When pixel peeping I can see some noise, but it's not too bad. So I ordered a bunch of 8"x12" prints. Holy cow! There is no noise at this print size. It looks like ISO 200 color print film. Digital just keeps surprising me.

If prints are your final goal don't just rely on pixel peeping, have some test prints made. And if you happen to be in Lawrence, KS between now and April 2 stop into Papa Keno's Pizzeria (11th & Mass St.) and see my live music photography.

ISO 3200

ISO 6400 (camera set to ISO 3200, intentionally underexposed, pushed in processing)

Big Mike · Feb 12, 2009

Another good reason why pixel peeping is nothing but measurebation.

I don't remember where I heard it first...but one way to judge the 'quality' of your images is to print an 8x10 and hold it at arms length (or at least 24"). If it looks good in that situation, then you have nothing to worry about.

Seefutlung · Feb 12, 2009

The trick to low-noise (or at least lower noise) at high ISO is proper exposure. A properly exposed 1600 will have less noise than an underexposed 800.

Gary

bhop · Feb 12, 2009

This is why I don't think i'll need to upgrade from my d200 for a long while. Sure on your computer screen you can see some noise at higher iso, but when I print something, the inks seem to smooth it all out.

EOS_JD · Feb 12, 2009

Seefutlung said:
The trick to low-noise (or at least lower noise) at high ISO is proper exposure. A properly exposed 1600 will have less noise than an underexposed 800.

Gary

I'd go further. A properly exposed 1600 will have less noise than an underexposed 400 and perhaps even 200 depending on the amount of under exposure.

ksmattfish · Feb 12, 2009

Big Mike said:
...and hold it at arms length (or at least 24").

I have to admit I was print peepin'. I had it pressed right up against my face.

I can tell when photogs have visited my exhibition because of the greasy nose prints on the glass.

Garbz · Feb 12, 2009

Yes some "photographers" can be like that. Mostly the kids with the 350Ds who call themselves photographers because they take one photo a month and then complain about their equipment.

I found a similar thing and I have gotten into quite a few religious wars with a few people on this forum in the past. I shoot at ISO3200 at times and I have a D200. Even those shots get comments when they turn out well, and I don't mean comments like "dang look at the noise."