High ISO noise vs No high ISO noise??? Comparison

<p>Here is a crop from the left, finished version.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a crop from near the center, finished version.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the original under-exposed JPEG, resized.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the finished version, resized for inline display.</p><div></div>

<p><a href="/photo/17914243&size=lg"><em><strong>Here </strong></em>is the final version </a>as displayed on Photo.net, shown large.</p>

<p>Please click on it to see how it presents itself for normal viewing.</p>

<p>I don't believe that I changed the ISO off of 100 for the entire shoot, or else I would show how it looks at high ISO.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, thanks for posting the samples. I have seen noise from underexposed areas in ISO 100 images too, but clearly the much higher dynamic range @ ISO 100 helps a lot, as black looks really black.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun. Maybe I should go back and shoot it from the same angle at ISO 6400 above and see how the same one hundred percent crops look at high ISO. Maybe I should try that with the D3s as well.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>when i was shooting concerts with the eos 1d mark 3 on high iso, i would switch to spot meter and really only correct that, rather than the entire frame.<br /> i did this, because in small venues they often use cheap lightning, nowadays even worse, they use led-lights.<br /> so in essence you have a lot of black, and a little bit of light.</p>

<p>the poorer the iso performance, the darker i would go.<br /> there is a line between risking losing detail and haveing proper blacks.<br>

i always try to go for propper blacks.<br /> so with high iso, i always tend to underexpose and edit a s-curve in lightroom. but pushing blacks more.</p>

<p>sometimes i bring in flash to balance stuff</p>

<p>so shun, you wanted some underexposure examples regarding high iso.<br /> there you go :)</p>

<p>this is a band called "Tommygun" from vienna, hardcore punk.</p>

<p>nikon d3 @iso2.5k + sb 910<br /> no noise reduction<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17986701-lg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="638" /></p>

<p>this is a gril on moving staris - out of my ongoing series "nd-street"<br /> d3 @ iso 2k . panning (10 stop nd filter during the day)<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17856007-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<p>nikon d3,85mm @1.8 iso 2.5k<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17986695-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /></p>

<p>parasol caravan<br /> iso 2k @ f2.8, nikon d3<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17979450-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<p>all those shots, besides the girl on the moving staris, are undexposed.<br /> usually i go for -0.3 or -0.7 EV</p>

<p>the shot of parasol caravan is shot at iso 2000, f2.8 (24-70) and underexposed for -2.7 EV</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i did not upload 100% crops of the last two photos and they are somewhat downsized.<br /> you can see noise, you always will, but it is actually looking quite good.</p>

<p>so having a couple of years of experience with udnerexposing high iso, i think i will hardly change it as i <br /> feel it is more important to deliver a photo with athmosphere rather than a perfectly done photo, in terms of exposure, if you will.</p>

<p>also -1EV in high iso might get you back a bit of shutterspeed</p>

<p>that can help too.</p>

<p>i know this is more a practical orientated approach to this discussion, but ive found it to be very useful, helpful in getting this shot..</p>

<p>especially with irratic moving things like cats ducks bids and wild boar.</p>

<p>even up to iso 6.4k you can get back some details in underexposed aereas if it is for about -1EV, a little bit light, local adjustments, but i found it to be most horrible when overexposed.<br /> too much noise.</p>

<p>it gets interesting when photographing people wearing black with a bit of light on them infront of a black background.</p>

<p>that is why i always suggest to go shoot concerts.</p>

<p>and yeah shun, i am talking about concerts like i go to, as you will hardly find that setting at concerts you attend to :)))</p>

<p>high iso, shot well balanced might give you blown highlights way to fast and there is no way back when you went down that road, really.<br>

so id suggest risking abit more blacks is a good thing as those high iso shots always lack contrast anyway.</p>

<p>+edit:</p>

<p>as i am used to film, and started on film i would also say, as someone posted before, that the grain of a film actually looks good.<br /> images today are to clean anyway.</p>

<p>that is why i always carry a holga120fn with me</p>

<p>everything is better when you're feeling dirty afterwards, and that goes for photography too, at least as far as i am concerned :)</p>

<p>jk</p>

<p>Couple observations:<br>

When it comes to noise, it is always a matter of what the artist (photographer) wants. For those of us who shot film, grain was simply an accepted part of the medium when shooting smaller formats. It’s like using a different brush if you were a painter. Digital now allows us to achieve much smoother and less noisy images at much higher iso’s, but sometimes pushing the medium, like we did with film, is part of the vision of the artist. As Norbert alludes to, gritty images sometimes add to the overall effect of the shot. I believe the average amateur shooter is overly concerned with noise. After all, with modern DSLRs you can make large prints shooting at 3200 iso with minimal noise. Seeing noise in a 100 or 200% really doesn’t mean much if you are making an average size print, or reducing it to a jpg for the computer. Blacks will always be noisy at any iso if you try to make them light gray because you are looking at background noise, just like in film you would see the gray of the film base if you didn’t print the black areas as black. As Norbert points out, you have to expose for proper blacks as well as other parts of the dynamic range. With film, shooting a low dynamic range scene with no real blacks or whites one would typically develop the film longer to increase the contrast of the film, giving a deeper black and whiter white. </p>

<p>nikon d3<br>

iso...dnt know...2k? 2.5k? 3.2k?<br>

-2.7 ev</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17994773-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>