Pushing high ISO's - is this commmon? I was disappointed...

[uncle bob]

I was married in June and have just received my wedding images. I would

consider myself an advanced photographer, to the point which I have thought

about getting into wedding photography over the years. However, I was

extremely disappointed in the way my wedding was shot (after having the utmost

confidence in the photographer I hired).

 

The photographer was shooting with a fill flash, but for he pushed nearly

EVERYTHING to 3200 (during the reception). What I appear to be left with is a

bunch of files with lots of noise. Is this common practice? Personally, I

would think that I would utilize my flash combined a higher ISO (and by

higher, I mean 400 or 800) to produce a semi-natural light type situation.

Secondly, can these be cleaned up through photoshop magic? I shoot a fair

amount of digital, but I have not yet had the time to properly learn

photoshop.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Matt

[kiva]

I've never pushed to 3200 but I wouldn't hesitate if needed. I know that some use 3200 with great success.

 

I Do hope you can eventually get imsges that please you. Look at them from the viewpoint of a groom and not so much the critical/technical viewpoint of a photographer; this will not be easy but it may be worth an attempt.

 

Matthew, can you post an average "sample" ... not the worse but what you'd consider the average sample of the 3200 iso images that are bugging you.

 

A program called Noise Ninja does a good job with noise and others will have more suggestions.

 

Your post does bring forward a thought that's been bugging me to some degree: I Do wonder why couples that know something about how they want their photographs to look are not more involved creating their wedding enviroment with more creative lighting. The lighting is So Important and a lot can be done (and remain affordable) to enhance light deprived locations if it's planned and thought out ahead of time.

[Jerry_]

Night football, no flash, does OK at ISO 1600, but with a 'el cheap Nikon D50, the ISO 400 setting seems to do better when using a attached speedlight (flash.)

 

 

 

Who hired your photographer?

 

 

 

 

The ISO 3200 images may be cleaned up, but it would depend on how the image was exposed. If each image was not under-exposed a lot, or overexposed too much, Photoshop may get you through to good images.

[savagesax]

Good grief, ASA 640 is the highest I've ever shot with digital and 800 for large format film. Not sure if you can clean these up. There are some programs that reduce noise, but from 3200 is asking a lot. Noise Ninja has a good reputation. http://www.picturecode.com

 

another photofixer

 

http://www.fixerlabs.com/New_Website/pages/noisefixer.htm?gclid=CIa--JbqlYcCFQwQGAodkgS9sw

 

 

Let me knw if you have luck with this software. I'm always very interested. Good luck!

[ni_gentry]

In the short time I've been doing weddings, I've tried a couple different things in poorly lit

rooms. Besides getting people to add more ambient light or setting up your own off-

camera strobes (which I plan to try one of these days), you can crank the ISO for ambient

light, just use flash exposure, or a mix. In my personal opinion, I think just using your

flash alone gives the photos an amateur point-n-shoot feel. Ambient light alone in a dim

reception hall usually just simply doesn't work. So I usually mix and when the room is

dim, it's not unusual for me to be at ISO 1600 and I have gone up to 3200. I shoot with a

5D so the noise really isn't too objectionable. This is mostly for the candids, dancing,

bouquet toss, etc. type of shots. For things like the cake cutting it's usually possible to

position it so that you can bounce off a wall or something for better fill.

<p>

I think it all depends on the situation. And I do try to communicate to the couple that it

would be wise to have reasonable ambient lighting both at the reception and in the church

if possible. The worst is in a really dim church where you're not allowed to use flash. I've

been forced to shoot at 3200 during the ceremony a couple times. In those situations it's

either noise with clear subjects or lower noise with blurry subjects because of the slow

shutter speed.

[uncle bob]

I was the one who hired the photographer, and from what I'd seen of his work I was faily impressed. It may mean that the work I saw was heavily edited post-shoot, I'm not sure. I am going to shy away from posting a shot here, in the off-chance event that my photographer posts here as well.

 

Sounds like I'll have to do some post-processing research. Thanks for the tips the ninja program.

[ellery_chua___singapore]

Matthew

 

How shall I put this ? You saw the guy's porfolio, I assume you spoke with him and communicated what type of photography you want do - or did you say do what ever you think is good; I am cool with it. I get very worried when clients tell me this.... if they are conservative and I decide to be hippy then I am fragged, if they are hip and I go square ultra traditional then I am stone dead.

 

If you did spec the job and it was based on samples shown - and the samples look nothing like the files you got then you really need to speak to your photographer. Please talk to him. Some thing is not right in this case. Comming to us is like asking a second opinion with no notes on the case - we can not advise anything that matters.

 

Different people will shot differently - even the same person may not shoot in the same format always - but the point is always to have a product that can be printed and accepted by the client - we are not engaged to do personal art production - at least not the type where the client seems to be unaware to what he will be getting and will have issues with. This is called being able to hand over the work which is some time a skill more important than closing.

[iskandar_azaman___kuala_lu]

You really should question your photographer whether he purposedly used 3200 in his style or he was experimenting. Ask him to compare it to the shots you saw before the wedding.

 

I personally use ISO800 a lot and sometimes ISO1600. Never really used 3200 much since i am too lazy to access the custom function.

 

With current (Canon) technology ISO800 is very clean especially when printed. But you need to expose properly. ISO1600 is useable and is even better when converted to B&W.

 

The pictures below were ISO1600 shot at 1/15, f2.8 using a 20D and 70-200IS L lens. The third is just a 100% crop. I find the noise acceptable. I was just experimenting to see whether i could actually take a picture with mostly candle light. It's yellowish but i don't mind.<div></div>

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Matt,

 

Just curious, what camera was used to shoot your wedding pics? I've tried most of the noise reduction programs and I think Noiseware is the best. You might want to look at it.

 

As mentioned above, converting to B&W will turn most "noise" into "grain". Also, Nikon noise is very dependant on what program is used to process the image, if your photographer shot Nikon. PS creates horrible noise whereas it is much better in the same image processed with Nikon Capture.

 

It is possible that the photographer accidentally left the camera at 3200ISO. Hate to say it but that is an easy mistake to make in all the rush and excitement of a wedding shoot.

 

Paul

[brandonhamilton]

Before I would jump to any conclusions, I would print one first. Looking at 100% digital crops on your monitor, and looking at an 8x10 print are two different things!

[picturesque]

I wouldn't say it is common to use ISO 3200 at the reception with fill flash. I would ask him if he was after a certain effect. It might be more common during the ceremony with no flash, but otherwise, when using flash, and especially at the reception, I would say most photographers use ISO 400 or 800, with bounced flash as the main source of light with maybe bunches (not all) of images shot either at higher ISO and/or without flash for certain effects. However, Jammey Church, who posts here, uses high ISO with fill flash at weddings, including receptions, but his images are not particularly noisy due to his technique of overexposing and handling the highlights in RAW processing. Underexposure exacerbates noise. Can't really give an opinion on noise reduction software as I haven't had cause to use one yet since the highest ISO I've used is 800 during the ceremony with no flash.

[uncle bob]

Wow, thanks for the great (and speedy) responses. The photographer was shooting with a 5D.

 

I converted a few of the images to b&w, and the "noise" turned into "grain", which looks okay.

 

My main focus for posting was to find out if this is something I should be concerned about, ie, something I need to talk to the photographer about. From what everyone said, I'll definitely bring it up with him.

 

My next step is to learn all I can about RAW, and take a photoshop course. I feel my film knowledge is good, and my digital knowledge is very limited.

 

Again, thank you for the input.

[will king]

Matthew, I recently shot a wedding where flash was prohibited and I had to use ISO 3200. They came out better than I thought they would. Noise Ninja and Neat Image are okay for noise, however, I find they sometimes leave an unnatural look. What I do is add a glaussian blur with a layer mask and apply only to areas that really show noise.

[michaelging]

A Canon 5D does a better job on high ASA's than any camera I have seen . I use a Canon 1D Mk11n which is also a camera that will do high a asa, without a lot of noise in the photo. I do think that shooting 3200 with a flash is suspect.