 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005A slightly noisy Rebel shot
Not mine. I don't see any data as to what ISO this shot was taken at. http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 > Not mine. I don't see any data as to what > ISO this shot was taken at. > > http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 the exif data says 800, not hard to find ;O), not surprising then. next.... >> Not mine. I don't see any data as to what >> ISO this shot was taken at. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >next.... I'd have to under-expose about 2 stops at ISO 1600 (EI 6400) on my 20D to get noise like that. If that's ISO 800, it was probably grossly under-exposed (or the camera was very hot).  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Not mine. I don't see any data as to what > ISO this shot was taken at. > > http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 (sighhhhh) You'll be a lot less bored when you discover Girls!, trust me. >> Not mine. I don't see any data as to what >> ISO this shot was taken at. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You'll be a lot less bored when you discover Girls!, trust me. Then you must be terribly bored having to respond. -Rich Was there a point you were trying to make? Because it escaped me. > Not mine. I don't see any data as to what > ISO this shot was taken at. > > http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 >Was there a point you were trying to make? Because it escaped me. > >> Not mine. I don't see any data as to what >> ISO this shot was taken at. >> >> http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 That even Canon can produce a noisy shot. -Rich >>Was there a point you were trying to make? Because it escaped me. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That even Canon can produce a noisy shot. > -Rich OMG, tell me it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!! >>Was there a point you were trying to make? Because it escaped me. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That even Canon can produce a noisy shot. > -Rich I'm sure that's true. I own a Canon Rebel, and am far from a skilled photographer. Many of my shots are noisy. A quality tool will not make up for an unskilled user. >>>Was there a point you were trying to make? Because it escaped me. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >photographer. Many of my shots are noisy. A quality tool will not make up >for an unskilled user. Just as they've overstated the noise level on the Olympus E-300, they tend to understate it on the Rebel. But unless you shoot at 1600 all the time, vastly underexpose each image or blow each image up to a huge size, noise should be no problem. Your shooting doesn't magically alter the sensor's physical characteristics relative to a skilled shooter. -Rich >Your shooting >doesn't magically alter the sensor's physical characteristics relative >to a skilled shooter. There is no skill in choosing an optimal f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO? If you don't know exactly what you're doing, it is very easy to under-expose. You need to know what shutter speed you can get away with, what f-stop, etc. Shooting at ISO 1600 instead of 800, with the same f-stop and shutter speed, will give less noise. Most people don't even know that. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Your shooting >>doesn't magically alter the sensor's physical characteristics relative [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >same f-stop and shutter speed, will give less noise. Most people don't >even know that. On which cameras? I've shot three stops under at 50ISO which is like shooting at 400 and I find 400 at the correct exposure more noisy. I'll have to try some more tests. -Rich >>>Your shooting >>>doesn't magically alter the sensor's physical characteristics relative >>>to a skilled shooter. >>There is no skill in choosing an optimal f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO? >>If you don't know exactly what you're doing, it is very easy to >>under-expose. You need to know what shutter speed you can get away >>with, what f-stop, etc. Shooting at ISO 1600 instead of 800, with the >>same f-stop and shutter speed, will give less noise. Most people don't >>even know that. >On which cameras? Canon 10D and 20D (10D doesn't really have analog 1600, though). >I've shot three stops under at 50ISO which is like >shooting at 400 and I find 400 at the correct exposure more noisy. >I'll have to try some more tests. Did you try manual mode, just changing the ISO? EC doesn't always work as expected in auto modes. The RAW converter could be doing something weird, as well. Of course, what I said does not apply when the ISO is "pushed" mathematically, rather than amplified. For example, my 20D has a "3200" mode, but it's just ISO 1600 with an implied -1 EC, and a doubling of the RAW data. Useful mainly for JPEGs, or simplifying flash operation. I've disabled the 3200 on my 20D; when it gets dark, I just under-expose at ISO 1600. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>Your shooting >>>>doesn't magically alter the sensor's physical characteristics relative [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >I've disabled the 3200 on my 20D; when it gets dark, I just under-expose >at ISO 1600. It's probably very similar anyway. The noise in higher ISO shots looks alot like underexposure. Only thing is that saturation and contrast levels are better-maintained when using a high ISO setting as opposed to just pushing (underexposing) a lower ISO. -Rich >y. The noise in higher ISO shots >looks alot like underexposure. Only thing is that saturation and >contrast levels are better-maintained when using a high ISO setting >as opposed to just pushing (underexposing) a lower ISO. Yes, the posterization of under-exposure at low ISOs makes the data swing wider. An tiny difference in the levels recorded in two different pixels (including the noise) at ISO 100 can make the difference 16x as big in the final output as it can at ISO 1600. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >That even Canon can produce a noisy shot. Any camera will produce a noisy shot if you under-expose it. 12-bit RAW capture is not very forgiving for under-exposure, even if the noise itself is low, in analog form. Posterization can greatly increase the contrast of noise. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Anyway, it's all relative. 1. You can't do this with film unless you push the entire roll and even if you do, you'll pay a fortune to get it pushed. 2. We should be thankful that digi affords you that luxury. 3. If the person had a tripod they could have negated the noise. 4. Sometimes noise can add appeal to a shot. Jesus...it really is splitting hairs here. Take photographs and enjoy them. > Not mine. I don't see any data as to what > ISO this shot was taken at. > > http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 > Anyway, it's all relative. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jesus...it really is splitting hairs here. Take photographs and enjoy them. That was kind of my take on this. What noise? An entire thread devoted to noise that I can't even see on my monitor.. and I just got new glasses. The sky is pretty much intact and I can see details in the shadows. The boats and the water all look right. Is it my monitor? It's only 19".. maybe I should get that 22" I've been coveting and then I could more readily find the objectionable noise and flaws that others so readily discern. Or.. am I supposed to be saving these images and then enlarging them till right before they pixilate so I can detect noise? All these discussions of noise and blown highlights that you have to find with a loupe are kind of beyond me. I wish there was more discussion of composition and subject choice so I could participate. Oh well, at my age, I'm kind of used to being ignored. ;o) > > Not mine. I don't see any data as to what > > ISO this shot was taken at. > > > > http://www.pbase.com/enzoferrari650/image/43676857 >That was kind of my take on this. What noise? An entire thread >devoted to noise that I can't even see on my monitor.. and I just got >new glasses. In my experience, noise that isn't at all apparent on a monitor, will show up on dark areas of 8x10 prints, especially after pumping the exposure up a half stop or so. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.