michael foy Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 So I did some tests with and without flash. And was shooting iso 400 1/250 5.6 on a D1X with SB800. I really need to get a handle on what causes noise. I'm thinking the iso 400 played a small part. I could have lowered the iso easily enough. I'm leaning toward underexposure being the main cause of my noise. Would love to hear opinions on what I might have been doing wrong. Right now I believe I metered incorrectly. I believe that had I metered for the skin I would have greatly reduced noise. In the image the skin is dark and that is creating my noise yes? No flash image attached.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael foy Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Nuts. Forgot to mention this is the full size of the image with the sides cropped off. No stretching etc was done. Actually not one single bit of post processing on these images. No in camera sharpening. No curves adjust. No processing. Attachment here is the flashed image TTL BL -2 flash comp. Same other settings from first post. My concern here again is noise. Even with the flash I'm seeing quite a bit. I guess my thought was that noise would be reduced when a flash is used to get the exposure up?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
errol young Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Looks like a white ballance problem, I am assuming digital. He is in the shade. Try setting it for shade. Errol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_leck Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Partial answer: both images are underexposed. Underexposure results in more noise as there is more noise in darker tones. This will be more obvious when trying to fix an underexposed image but pushing the noisy areas up in value. The shot with fill is better, but probably could use another 1/2 stop of fill. It doesn't look all that noisy to me. I'd start with straight TTL (no BL) and -1 EV fill. [Getting the flash off of the camera is another topic.] The color balance looks a little cyan to me (I'm just eyeballing it). Cyan is not a good skin color -- better to err to the red side. Are you using auto-WB? If so, try daylight or flash WB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Also, at least to me, looks a little out of focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Underexposed, yes, and all the light on your subject is also heavily filtered through green leaves. It's like you have a green filter on your lens. Do a custom WB, use flash properly, or get out from under the green... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petra_s. Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I used to have the same problem at times with my Nikon, don't have it anymore since I switched to Cannon in the same places and same conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Don't think it is a Nikon problem and I feel like the others that it is underexposed about 1 stop or more and soft. I'm not saying that Canon is better or Nikon is better. In fact my photo partner uses Canon gear and meters everything. Based on the shade it looks like pretty dark. We often use a hand held meter in situations like this because both Canon and Nikon systems can be fooled. If you have a hand held meter, meter off of the brighter side of the face. Then check it using a fill flash, probably have to increase about a 1/2 stop on TTL. Hope this helps. Also, was this shot in RAW? The latitude is greater in RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bain1 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Overall underexposure. If you look at the shadows the fill ratio looks about right; increasing the fill will make them more obvious. As someone mentioned, custom white balance is definitely needed, too. The improved colour might be ALL that's needed, but I suspect a half stop overall should do it. Meter off the palm of your hand and add a stop and see how that compares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nstock Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Are you shooting RAW or Jpg? If you are shooting Jpg's and then adjusting them, you will get more nosie than you will if you shoot RAW and then adjust etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael foy Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 Thanks for all the answers. And yes this was shot RAW with auto WB. All the suggestions helped and lead me to believe that it is indeed mostly an underexposure problem for the noise. I am a little disconcerted about the camera makers claim of latitude when shooting raw. I should have the latitude to easily correct the exposure, but I think it will still look noisy even if I lighten it up. Does this sound true? Hypothesis: that once you have noise it won't go away.Chris I think you were saying this too? I will work on the post process and see how much I can improve the flashed image. I will try and post it later this week to see if the noise is less obvious. Chris what was the thought process to determine to use TTL over BL? Tom elaborate on your suggestion to use flash properly please as your advise would be appreciated? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 <i>I am a little disconcerted about the camera makers claim of latitude when shooting raw</i>"... You shouldn't be. A negative or trans with this degree of exposure error would be just as bad, or worse. Learn how to use the spot meter in your D1x. Learn how to use Custom WB. As for proper use of the flash for this type of photo... get your flash off the camera and into some kind of modifier, even if it's just a little 30" umbrella. See www.strobist.blogspot.com for comprehensive info about how to accomplish this... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_leck Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Once you have noise, it won't go away by itself. When one tries to repair an underexposed image, it usually means that the inherent noise becomes more visible in the process. There are a number of plug-ins that can be used to reduce noise after the fact. As to 'BL,' AFAIK it adds a variable, and unknown (~-0.7 EV), amount of flash compensation into the mix. For various reasons -- including portraits, repeatability, and using flash as key -- turn off BL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Sometimes as a Master of the Obvious my statement is that a D1X and at ISO 400 is not known as a low noise sensor. If you want "low" noise in a Nikon at ISO 400 or faster you need to upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think27 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 3008 pixels in height is waaaaay to big a file for this forum.. Please reduce the image size next time and post only one image with a link to your PN folder where we can see more examples. Thanks. - Moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 What Mary said (and she's on dial up!)... the attached crop of your photo would have been sufficient, as it is still at 100%... t<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan mcgill - trm photo st Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Michael, If you have PS apply auto contrast, shadows and highlights (25 on shadow 5 on highlight), auto levels, USM (80, 2.0, 10), Photo filter (Cooling filter 80 at 10%), then Photo filter (Warming filter 85 at 25%). The image is slightly out of focus. Ryan<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael foy Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Well there is a lot of good info here. I went ahead and reworked the raw. Have adjusted the curves. Added 1/3 stop exposure. And sharpened. I don't notice much reduction in the noise. I agree the eyes/face must be slightly out of focus. Model was walking between camera and prop fence between shots and the focus was on manual so there was some variation on distance for subject to camera each time he posed. Maybe 1 to 4 inches. Enough to be out of focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael foy Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 The one attached here is another in the same test series. It had one full extra stop of light dialed in to the flash. My thought was that when I reviewed it I would see less noise. Since it was not under exposed. But honestly I don't see much of a reduction in noise. I guess then iso 400 may be more of a factor in the noise than I thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael foy Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Mary I swear I will learn and use folders in the future:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtreinik Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Only to repeat what has been said: I think the biggest problem is too blue/cyan white balance and a slight (1/2 stop) underexposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Have you tried making the image a little warmer.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_noble Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Well it needed to be converted to sRGB for web viewing then ran skintune on it. less than 1 minute<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_noble Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Hmm, the white background makes it look too dark. I work with a black background in PS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now