hgh iso

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by melinda_thomas|1, May 4, 2009.

  1. Hello,
    I am new to photo.net and new to digital, but have some experience with weddings. I have made a major blunder in shooting a wedding. First one in years and first one with digital. I shot a good amount of the formals in the church with my iso at 3200. I am just sick and really need some help. Post production knowledge is lacking, soanyone that could help me, it would be soo appreciated. Thanks, MT
  2. You're not mentioning what camera you use, whether you shot RAW or JPG, and whether the images were well exposed. Presumably, you're seeing a lot of noise.

    The good news: if you're in a hurry, you're well within the free trial window for tests of products like DXO or Neat Image, etc., to give your best shot at noise reduction on those images. ISO 3200 may be really bad news, or only sort of bad news, depending on the issues you didn't mention.
  3. Are you shooting Nikon or Canon? There's software that enhances quality by reducing noise. Try Noise Ninja Noise Ninja - Download There's other software like noise ninja, but this is the first one that came to me off the top of my head. Some software works better for Canon or for Nikon, such as DXO, I think noise ninja works for both. Do a search for noise reduction software. Good luck. Let us know what you do to solve your problem.
  4. Bob and Matt,
    I am shooting with Nikon,lots of noise and the exposure is decent. I shot RAW and JPG.
  5. What software do you have to work with? You can download a free trial of Capture NX2, and try applying noise reduction in critical areas using the masking brush, so that you don't kill off detail where it must be preserved. These things take some practice. Do try a copy of DXO, too. Definitely work with the RAW files in this case, not the JPGs.

    You may also want to get a pro post-production person in on this one. Someone knows what they're doing, and who's already armed with Noise Ninja, DXO, and all of the other tools, and can make the most of each crucial image.
  6. Matt
    where would I find aperson to do this? I have Capture NX2 but lack the experience to make the most of it.
    thanks, mt
  7. The camera is a D90, shot at f18 @ 1/60th. The image posted looks a bit underexposed. I'd first see how bad the noise is once you pull the exposures up. Then I'd learn how to use a noise reduction program real fast. How were you planning to handle the images, if you are not up on RAW processing? You can try working with the jpegs if you shot large, fine level. Finding a person to work on these is going to be expensive, unless you are planning for your client to pick out ones for enlargements first.
  8. Hi Melinda,
    I just hope that you shot RAW.
    The best escape now is to use a very competent noise reduction software like Noise Ninja. From that photo i see that you probably still need to brighten things up a bit ( that will add more noise).
    Well, if i ran into problems like that, my strategy would be to somehow mask the noise problem.
    A few simple tricks that i normally use to hide the appearance of excessive noise...so that even if there is noise....they look as if noise was intentional. :)
    1. Giving the photos the soft focus look.
    2. converting them to BW and make them look grainy as if they were shot on ISO 400 BW film and printed on high contrast paper. (I would probably make most of the images BW )
    3. Add diffusion(soft focus) + BW for a glamorous 50s look......vignette and sepia and experiment with other tones.
    All the best.
  9. Do the best you can on a copy of one image and print it at album size ... what may look bad on screen may look a whole lot better printed. Try it ... it may amaze you.
  10. What Marc says is true--noise looks far worse on the monitor than when you make a print. However, if the client is to receive all the files as well, they may notice the noise, in which case you can explain it to them or better yet, show them an example of a print at the biggest size they intend to go with.
  11. BW conversion, soft focus etc.
  12. photo:
  13. softfocus
  14. noise reduced in photoshop (brightness level increased in all photos)
  15. Original
  16. I think your original photo will still print OK if you dont enlarge beyond 5x7 or 6x8, but may look like it came from a digital compact camera at ISO 200 or something.
  17. Download Imagenomic noise reduction software. I can't remember how much it was but it's GREAT stuff.
  18. >> shot at f18 @ 1/60th <<
    Woah - the f/18 and still 1/60 should have rung warning bells right there that ISO must be really high.
    Also, you are lucky this is a D90 with the new CMOS sensor. Had this been a D80, you would have been far worse off.
  19. that's some great "nose" reduction you've got going there.
  20. Have you ever heard of Nik Filters for Photoshop? They have a filter called Dfine 2.0. It is meant to reduce noise. I actually just won a copy of it at a seminar. I haven't played with it much, but on one of my photos I did try it on it turned out great. It runs about $99 for the software, but would be worth it if it helped even a little. The photo I am showing doesn't have as much noise as yours does, but it's the 1st image I have showing the Dfine Software! the 1st image shows the noise and the 2nd is with the filter.
  21. Hi I have to wonder why you shot this at "F18".Thats just asking for trouble indoors. If the image is exposed correctly then the noise wouldnt look so bad, however with underexposure, noise can be a real bogey. Try shooting at F4 /5.6 with much lower ISO. Had you changed the ISO to 400 for this shot you would have still had an aperture of around 5.6, more than adequate for this type of shot and the image wouldnt be as "flashy" either. With a little work this could be a nice image. I have "roughed" this image in a couple of minutes with some quick burning,toning and blur to give an example.
  22. Obviously noisy, yes. Now don't beat up yourself over it. Don't complain or make this as an issue to your clients. They want photos that tell a story first, and most likely will not bother with technical stuff. If they do, then address it as dark room, etc. etc. In other words, don't throw gasoline on the fire.
    Some of the above examples posted above are good, and being creative is what this is all about anyway. Otherwise, Uncle Bob's pictures would have sufficed.
  23. Your flash pictures will be less of a problem- well exposed areas will look much better than poorly exposed areas such as dark backgrounds.
  24. Here is one for you. Neat image to remove the noise before any color adjustments. Then I adjusted the color and did some selective bluring of the background then I lightened the background, Resized for web and did a bit of sharpening for web. I would not expect to print this very big on regular photographic paper could do a 5x7 album print 6x9 at a push on a textured paper or canvas it may go a little bigger.
  25. I agree with the above comment, had you shot with a larger aperture you could have reduce the ISO. Plus the backgroud would have been blurred more, drawing more attention to the subjects. I did a couple edits for you using just Photoshop CS3 for ideas of what can be done. The Reduce Noise filter was a big help! I also rotated the photo to level the horizontal surfaces in the background. They were highly distracting for me. I kept one in full color, the other I did a partial Black and White converion. Just ideas...
  26. Color version - Isolated the lighting on subjects more. Also applied a Diffuse Glow filter to make the bride "glow"...
  27. Black and White version - Working in Layers, I applied the BW converion using a Green Filter. Blended the two layers together allowing only a little original color show through. Then applied a Sepia Photo Filter.
  28. Melinda,
    You've already gotten a lot of expert advice. I want to say that the photo you posted doesn't look too bad to me. Not going to win any prizes, perhaps, but hardly a disaster. I'm somewhat surprised that you got a usable photo at all given the settings you've described. I wish the formals from my first wedding had looked this good. I was dealing with strong backlighting from the altar and I didn't meet the challenge very well. Anyway, if this is representative of the results you got, don't beat yourself up.
  29. Here is what I would do. If you believe you are not equipped, skill-wise, to do the PP, then find someone to do it, pay them - even if you wind up taking a loss, and protect the outcome for your client as best you can. If it were me, I'd be honest about the entire thing with them. That says, essentially, look, I screwed up, I did my very best to fix it, your satisfaction matters more to me than my profit. I would not discount the price to them unless they specifically asked for it.
    I've always found that paying for lessons like this ensure their being learned. I've found that the correlation between large sums of money leaving my wallet due to my mistakes and my never repeating said mistakes is a perfect one. The approach I've suggested would also protect the long term reputation I'm expecting is the important thing at risk here.
  30. I use Ninja noise. I always feel it (as well as other noise reduction programs) leaves the face a bit plastic appearing.. so I generate a layer in photoshop, noise reduce and then back off on transparency visually to balance the evil plastic with the good noise reduction...if you send me one RAW file, I will try to see what I can do.. no expert here
  31. Hi I have to wonder why you shot this at "F18".Thats just asking for trouble indoors.​
    Not to mention that shooting with that small of an aperture is going to cause quite a bit of loss in resolution due to diffraction.

    I'm just curious, why F18?
  32. Keith, I'm assuming that the photographer shot this at F18 for the same reason that she shot it at ISO 3200. It sounds like neither was intentional.
  33. Dear Melinda! Why for God's sake do you use flash with such high ISO????? and why f18??????? %)))
  34. I think she made a mistake and shot them at the wrong ISO.
  35. Keith, I'm assuming that the photographer shot this at F18 for the same reason that she shot it at ISO 3200. It sounds like neither was intentional.​
    OK.... I see. So the ISO was accidently set to 3200 (and forgotten about) which made for a smaller aperture to expose correctly (altho it looks a little under-exposed IMO).
    I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I just wanted to point out one of the differences in Digital from Film (I shoot both on a regular basis) and that is diffraction. Some digital sensors become diffraction limited pretty quickly (D3X). Something that someone new to digital might not be aware of.

    Anyways, for anyone new to digital I would suggest picking up a Scott Kelby book or two. If you want to learn more about your camera itself, I would strongly suggest an e-book from Tom Hogan.

    Best of luck to you Melinda.

    P.S. Stuart, good job on the post. Really nice how you brightened it up and still kept it so clean.
  36. Thanks Keith. I should have softened the eyes just a touch more though as they are now just a bit too sparkley. A full size image would be better to work on. The D90 should produce a 12mp image that image is less than 6mp and it has been cropped also as it is no longer a 2:3 ratio. I don't know how much has been cropped away from the image I wonder if Melinda could let us know.
  37. Stuart Moxham - Excellent work!
  38. Here is another.
  39. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I too, like Stuart, believe that the exposures at ISO3200 were a complete mistake.
    The OP mentions that she is experienced with Weddings, but not so much with digital. Also previous comments indicate she is quite used to working with film. This leads me to my point . . .
    After the dust has settled, and these images are rescued, I think it would be prudent to find out why the mistake was made and also investigate why the mistake was exacerbated; both answers will go to ensuring the mistakes do not happen again.
    I offer a couple of guesses to get that thinking process going.
    Brainstorming - Why was the camera set at ISO3200?
    . returning from a long shot from the rear of the Church at High ISO?
    . rushed for time? Using the same lens for both shots - therefore no "trigger" to the brain to reset the ISO?
    . using a kit lens like 18 to 105?
    . brain completely forgot that ISO was flexible with digital, because so used to having film set at one ISO?
    Solutions to consider:
    . small card stuck on back of camera with "Check ISO" written on it;
    . consider prescriptive lens changes between the "set - must have" sessions;
    . use fast primes;
    . use two cameras.
    Brainstorming - Why the image was underexposed, and by so much:
    . not proper understanding of the automatic Flash modes used;
    . incorrect selection of manual overrides used;
    . incorrect selection of manual settings used;
    . equipment failure;
    . poor understanding of flash fill technique.
    Solutions to consider:
    . establish what settings were used.
    . establish if there is full knowledge and application of these techniques;
    . establish if underexposure was peculiar to this set of images only (consider if pressure of time was a factor);
    . establish if Flash Fill techniques are fully understood, in the first inst.
    PS: Stuart Moxham: Excellent / Brilliant. Yes. Bravo.
  40. Stuart wins! Can I send you some files? LOL!
  41. Stuart, your recovery of this sample photo is nothing short of amazing. You're a wizard! The OP should hire you to rescue the rest of her ISO 3200 images.
    I'd like to know what model of Nikon camera the OP used and what exposure mode (P,S,A,M) and pattern she used.
  42. To all,
    I can not thank you enough for the advice and kind words, especially Stuart,Lacey and Peter for taking your time to show me that I could get better results than I was seeing. I am looking for someone to help me or just take the task on themselves as I need the best possible results. William and Joel, yes this was completely unintentional and I'm really not sure why this happened yet. The last choir loft shot i took was at 1/4 5.6 @ 200. I am going over the images to see if i can figure this out. I had been extemely distracted during these shots and it makes it difficult to recall. Stuart you are very skilled and I am amazed at what you did with this image. I downloaded Ninja Noise and did not get very good results. I really need to make these photos acceptable so if you all say they can be, then you have given me some hope , thanks Keith no offense taken and Steven, I am senfing you a RAW file-thanks
  43. I agree that Stuart did a great job, however, I would not zap out so much noise from the images. As said above, noise does not look so bad when printed. If the image is zapped clean of so much noise that the skin begins to look plastic--that is worse, IMHO--and the plastic skin DOES show up in the print. Seems to me a lot of the examples are perilously close. When I have used noise reduction software, I always pull back on the 'recommended' amount just because of this. I would do a test print first and possibly, as you go along, before applying much noise reduction.
    Another possibility, as to why the mistake happened, is that you just mis-read the LCD screen. Those LCD numbers are sometimes mind tripping. William's suggestion re the note on the back of the camera is a good one. I used to do this all the time with my film cameras, where a mistake in settings usually had more dire consequences, since you couldn't see the mistake immediately. It took me a while (coming from film) to use ISO as another exposure factor, and to remember to manipulate it.
  44. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Ha! I still use coloured DOT stickers on the back of my two Mamy 645s: easy to recognize which camera is loaded with what film, when one is in an hurry. Bright RED and that yucky YELLOW.
    If I had to bet, I would wager "rushing without thinking" was a big element of the ISO error.
    I would not go without investigating the Flash Fill / underexposure element too: that could have longer term consequences, IMO.
  45. Another thought occurred to me. When I first used a Nikon D100, long ago, it had what is called auto ISO. By default, it is on. When I photographed a studio type shot with it, with manual settings, I was horrified to see that the camera had upped the ISO to 1600 or something like that (but later), even with manual settings. I couldn't figure out why my shots were so blown out, so I just changed the settings to get a good exposure during the shoot, because my client was sitting there in front of me. Later on, I figured out what was happening. Might want to check that.
  46. The skin on all the "fixes" looks way to manipulated IMO.
    I downloaded the shot, and enlarged it ... and realized it had NR already applied ... perhaps in-camera which is not uncommon when ISO 3200 is used. More wholesale NR doesn't appear to be the answer. Perhaps just getting the exposure correct, then trying a print will work.
    I did a quick exposure adjustment and a good deal of the noise disappeared (some of which is NR artifacts, not noise). Then lifted the shadows a bit and applied a touch of select area NR on just the coat, rather than the whole image. Color balance on higher ISO shots that are poorly exposed is more difficult than with lower ISOs ... so that was tricky and probably would benefit from more thought. Then I sent it to the printer for a 10" on the long side print and it looked fine. I doubt any client would ever notice.
  47. Marc--the client probably won't notice the print, but they would notice the file, and if Melinda gives the client files, they will most likely look at them on the monitor. That's why I said, above, that a sample print and explanation would still be in order. I agree with you about the noise issue--too much plastic skin effect.
  48. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Crikey! Bravo. More depth and separation from the B'ground, too. As I mentioned recently, I am constantly amazed at what I take away. PS is one area where I am a novice - and have admitted that freely - my wedding files go to a women, who is a genius at it. I gotta learn more.

    I reckon melinda has some options . . .

  49. At the end of all this I would like to add that all is not lost. There is post production that can be done. Don't beat yourself up too badly, we all make mistakes. It's how we learn, and how we improve! Keep up the good work.
  50. At the end of all this I would like to add that all is not lost. There is post production that can be done. Don't beat yourself up too badly, we all make mistakes. It's how we learn, and how we improve! Keep up the good work.
  51. I don't quite agree Nadine. With just a bit more selective NR, I doubt any client would see anything on the monitor either. They don't obsessively pixel peep like we do. They are much more interested in what they look like as opposed to what the digital image looks like. In this case the B&G look good, and it's a nice picture.
    Besides, if you provide the digital images at full resolution most clients are looking at them on their un-calibrated laptop monitor anyway. If you provide on screen proofs, they'll be way to small to see any noise issue ... especially if its pretty much selectively fixed without resorting to over-cooked PS techniques.
    If I can correct shooting errors, I don't reveal the details or mistakes to clients and undermine their confidence. The client need not "know how the sausage is made". In my experience, once you start the ball rolling it just leads to questioning other images also. I also do not resort to B&W to hide errors. The client inevitably asks for it in color.
    But that is a personal decision only the shooter can make.
  52. Can anyone reccomend a post production company for me? Someone they have used?
  53. Stuart, the processing looks great. Unfortunately, removing the noise leaves it looking rather plasticy. Try adding some artificial grain to provide a feeling of texture.
  54. Marc--undermining confidence is indeed to be avoided. However, I provide full res images as part of my package, and find that clients do indeed look at them--some of them on their big screen monitors. Some of them also make their own slideshows. I think they would notice the blotchiness, and not saying anything might be even worse in the 'undermining confidence' area. I'd at least have some explanation and sample at the ready. I guess Melinda needs to think through what will work for her, as you said.
    I do agree that a measured amount of noise reduction should be tried--just enough to help with the shadow areas but not enough to affect the skin much.
  55. Yeah the noise reduction does get a bit much on the skin sometimes. I kind of like the effect on an already clean well exposed image sometimes, to create a super clean look. With images like this one here it is very easy to over fix the problem and go too far though. For me in this case I would rather remove the noise than leave it though. However often when fixing images it is better to sleep on them and review them the following day to be sure they are not over processed. There are a lot of options Melinda can take with the images. I think she should try to learn more about post processing not only to fix broken images but so she gains a better understanding of the whole process and gains more control over her finished product.
  56. Here is one with no noise reduction just the density, contrast and colors adjusted a little and the background lightened and blured.
  57. Stuart,

    What I’ve found works rather well for some of these is to apply the noise reduction just like you did, plus the color, etc, adjustments. Then I run the image through one of the color film filters from Nik, just to add a bit of a natural grain look to help with the texture. It’s saved my backside a few times from flash misfires etc where I’ve had to push a few stops in the raw converter.
  58. Hi Melinda,
    You have recived a lot of great advices from a lot of people. Only if your aperture wasnt F18, and ISO 3200, you could have a really good exposure and almost no problem with noise.
    For such photos, its usually a bad idea to use P or Auto mode....you probably used Shutter Priority...which also is not a very good idea in dark places. You just have to do it manually for total control. You will have plenty of time....just stay cool take your time.All you have to do is find a good starting point ...say....1/200 at F2.8 at ISO 800 and your flash in "fill" mode.
    Then adjust accordingly.
    If you want brighter background.....just open the aperture. If thats not possible(if you use a slowerlens)....increase ISO.
    If you are already at ISO 1600 by now, start decreasing the shutter till you get a good exposure and still within a reasonable hand holdable speed.
    If that's also not possible, use a tripod. If there is no tripod around, lean somewhere or lean the camera on something solid.
    There are so many options.
    Some pactice beforehand will help you with this.
    All the best.
  59. Melinda, try the noise ninja or the DXO before hiring someone to fix the images. They offer a free trial. If you aren't happy then look into hiring someone. Go to photo.net, digital darkroom. I have a feeling someone there will help you out for a fee.
  60. Thanks, will do. By the way, I believe Nadine nailed the reason this happened. Auto ISO. Details, details, details...

Share This Page