hgh iso

<p>Hello,<br>

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</p>

<div></div>

<p>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.<br /><br />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.</p>

<p>Are you shooting Nikon or Canon? There's software that enhances quality by reducing noise. Try Noise Ninja <a href="http://noise-ninja.en.softonic.com/">Noise Ninja - Download</a> 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.</p>

<p>Bob and Matt,<br>

I am shooting with Nikon,lots of noise and the exposure is decent. I shot RAW and JPG.</p>

<p>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. <br /><br />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.</p>

<p>Matt<br>

where would I find aperson to do this? I have Capture NX2 but lack the experience to make the most of it.<br>

thanks, mt</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Hi Melinda,<br>

I just hope that you shot RAW.<br>

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).<br>

Well, if i ran into problems like that, my strategy would be to somehow mask the noise problem.<br>

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. :-)<br>

1. Giving the photos the soft focus look.<br>

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 )<br>

3. Add diffusion(soft focus) + BW for a glamorous 50s look......vignette and sepia and experiment with other tones.<br>

All the best.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>BW conversion, soft focus etc.</p>

<p>photo:</p><div></div>

<p>softfocus</p><div></div>

<p>noise reduced in photoshop (brightness level increased in all photos)</p><div></div>

<p>Original</p><div></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Download Imagenomic noise reduction software. I can't remember how much it was but it's GREAT stuff.</p>

<p>>> shot at f18 @ 1/60th <<</p>

<p>Woah - the f/18 and still 1/60 should have rung warning bells right there that ISO must be really high.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>that's some great "nose" reduction you've got going there.</p>

<p>;o)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p><div></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Your flash pictures will be less of a problem- well exposed areas will look much better than poorly exposed areas such as dark backgrounds.</p>

<p>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.</p><div></div>

<p>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... </p>