only 1000 ISO - what am I doing wrong?

[smarksphotography]

<p>I am not used to using high ISO settings (anything above 400) but I have been reading a lot about how great newer cameras are with higher settings so this weekend I took some shots using a setting of 1000 but the results where about what I expected - not great. So, I suspect I am doing something wrong. <br>

Here's what I did:<br>

using 5d MII, 70-200 f.8 L IS (tripod mounted) <br>

shot photo at f2.8 200<br>

iso 1000 <br>

import raw file using Adobe CS 4 Bridge<br>

I did some minor color adjustments. <br>

I also tried Canon's DPP program but got worse results. <br>

I have posted the original raw file here:<br>

http://www.thewinterway.com/iso-question/<br>

along with the specific camera settings. <br>

Any thoughts on how to process photos taken at higher ISOs appreciated. </p>

<p>Thanks in advance. </p>

[phule]

<p>Your image doesn't have "a lot of noise" in my opinion.</p>

<p>However, your image looks underexposed. Raising the exposure on an underexposed image will result in more noise. </p>

<p> </p>

[sattler123]

<p>Your shot is severely under exposed - that's what creates the noise. Learn to expose to the right of the histogram and the noise will be way better. Doa search on "Expsoing to the right".</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>You call that *lots of noise* dam, you should see any Nikon at 400iso below the D3 model : )..you are in the minor league here with that noise.</p>

<p>A simple luminance / color noise reduction of 30-50 in Ligthroom will certainly get ride of it...without getting ride of the details.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>oh and by the way, when you post image, make it 700pix wide, jpeg sRGB and 8bit..its easier and lighter to see your image.</p>

<p>heres your noisy version.</p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>my denoised version using Ligthroom 30-30 luminance and color noise removal.</p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>and one revised version with noise removal, sharper, brighter and a bit more saturation.</p>

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

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Spencer you might experiment with fill flash for this type of subject. These are both typical of my hummingbird photos - fill flash from 580ex diffused with expo lite disc, iso200, 1/250th at f4</p>

<p>Low iso, not a terribly fast shutter, but it can still be aesthetically pleasing.You would get even better backgrounds with your 2.8</p>

<p>Top female green hermit (Phaethornis guy), bottom female stripe-tailed (Eupherusa eximia) both Monteverde, Costa Rica<br>

<img src="http://www.wildnorthwest.org/hummers.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks for the helpful answers and the amazing shots of the humming birds.<br>

The first and the second shots of the Cardinal look the same to me. What am I missing? The third shot definitely looks better. <br>

If I had the exposure set correctly and ended up with more noise, would that type of noise be more easily eliminated? If not, I don't see how even higher ISO setting could be that useful accept for things like concerts and real darkness. But, I must be missing something since the ability to set high ISO values are features that are often touted or at least emphasized with new cameras. <br>

I typically shoot Aperture Priority and let the camera figure out the shutter speed and other settings (well, not the ISO and focus points) so I am wondering why I ended up with an underexposure image. (Too trusting in the camera's ability to get exposure right?)<br>

I will do that google search, but should also start bracketing the exposure settings too? <br>

Thanks again, Spencer</p>

 

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Yeah, definitely underexposed. See here Nikon D700, ISO 3600:<br>

<a title="20090510-0239 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" title="20090510-0239 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3524349958_752d4a201a.jpg" alt="20090510-0239" width="500" height="333" /> </a><br>

Processed only in Lightroom. NR settings: Luminance 0, Color 25.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>If not, I don't see how even higher ISO setting could be that useful accept for things like concerts and real darkness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>High iso is there to allow you to achieve the aperture/shutter speed you desire, when your desired settings are too restrictive for the amount of light available at a given iso. You typically always strive for the lowest possible iso given the situation, unless you want noise for some reason.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I typically shoot Aperture Priority and let the camera figure out the shutter speed and other settings</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aperture priority is good, but you should always be choosing a specific aperture based on your desired depth of field and your knowledge of how your lens performs at different apertures. You should always be choosing a specific shutter speed to capture motion the way you want when that's an issue, and at least be aware of the shutter speed to get a sharp capture based on the focal length you're using and how well stabilized the camera is. Choose these first and if the light is too low to do what you want, then you start increasing the iso to accommodate your requirements (or choose a larger aperture if possible). If you have a tripod and there's no motion in the scene, things are simple. From there it becomes a more and more delicate balancing act.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>should I also start bracketing the exposure settings too?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What the other posters are stressing is that underexposing means you have to then rescue the exposure in software, and doing so creates/reveals noise vs. properly exposing in the first place (or overexposing a bit). Even at low iso, brightening underexposed shots in software creates/reveals a lot of noise. I say creates/reveals because I'm not sure what the right term would be technically, but what everyone is telling you is very true. Do this test. Shoot a scene in raw on the tripod at 400 iso. Get the exposure perfect. Then underexpose it by 2 stops. Bring them both into your software and process the normal one as is, then for the other increase the exposure 2 stops. They're now the same exposure more or less, but you should see a degradation in quality for the one, sometimes it's slight and sometimes pretty drastic, depending on the image.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Spencer, what metering mode did you use? The camera may have been tricked by the white wall in the background. If you were ambusing birds as they came to the feeder, I would recommend shooting in manual exposure and firing off some test shots before the birds arrive to make sure you are exposing for the birds, not the background (be it dark or bright).</p>

<p>The shot you posted is about 2 stops underexposed. If that's what the camera was telling you, then you could have set EV +2, which in Av would have meant a shutter speed of 1/250, probably too slow for this bird in flight, but fine for the bird when sitting on the feeder.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks, the last bits where extremely helpful. I think the white wall messed things up. I should have done some test shots and been more careful. The photo at ISO 3600 is what I expected. (I just have to work at it more). <br>

When I shoot AV, I am aware of the shutter speeds as well, but since I was shooting pretty open I knew there wasn't much I could do about that accept upping the ISO which is how I ended up with this question. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Spencer, not sure what options you have on your Canon for auto ISO, but you might consider (if this is possible on your camera) fixing aperture and shutter speed, and letting the camera automatically decide what ISO it needs. You might still have to set an EV comp to taste, but at least it lets you concentrate on shooting and not on setting the damn camera up :-)</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Or you might decide what ISO, what aperture and speed and shoot..making sure your focus is good only : )</p>

 

[patricklavoie]

<p>Oh, by the way..nice images Brett..bird are not my things, but i can appreciate good images : )</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>I knew there wasn't much I could do about that accept upping the ISO which is how I ended up with this question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is flash - diffused flash/fill flash can work wonders<br /> Thanks Patrick</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Yeah, I keep forgetting the I can use a flash outside. When I started taking these shots I was far away from the feeder, but I ended up getting pretty close, close enough that a flash could have helped I think. </p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Diffused fill flash is a revelation when you first start getting good results. It's downright miraculous for plants. flowers, insects, butterflies, etc. I've been doing extensive field work in tropical rainforests for years now, and on some jobs 75% of everything I shoot is with diffused fill flash. You can take harsh midday tropical light in dense forest, and make a flower look like it was shot in studio, and it gives you beautiful, radiant colors. Try setting the camera to tv, and diffusing the flash with something, a piece of typing paper or a white margarine lid if you don't have a store bought diffuser. Put the camera on a tripod and use the mirror lock-up and self-timer.<br>

These are all flashed. The frog was in total darkness.</p><div></div>

[smarksphotography]

<p>These are amazing and inspiring shots thanks for taking the time to share them along with the comments.<br>

I also checked out your site: great stuff. <br>

I think I might go to the local butterfly emporium this weekend and see what I can do. I only have the 550ex Speedlite. I assume in a open area (like a butterfly emporium or bird house) bounce flash wouldn't work well, so I'd point the flash directly at the subject and use the diffuser? (Given your description of a diffuser sounds like most of them are created equal?)<br>

Thanks again. </p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>550ex is plenty fine. There are several approaches. Even the on camera flash can produce great results.<br /> 1. For in camera flash - hand hold the diffuser in front of the flash. Moving it farther and closer from the flash changes the level of diffusion.<br /> 2. For external flash mounted on the camera - same<br /> 3. For external flash with a cord - Move the flash to where you want. This requires some sort of store bought diffuser that affixes to the flash. If you have the camera on a tripod though you can still hold the flash in one hand and the diffuser in the other.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given your description of a diffuser sounds like most of them are created equal?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there's actually a lot of variation in performance. Should be ample past discussion on here to read about that. I use the lite disc from photoflex (not really it's intended use), as it has a large surface area and can be angled precisely. I hand hold it in front of the flash. It's just what I'm used to. They're cheap too - $15 - <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358610-REG/Impact_R1322_Reflector_Disc_White.html">link</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>so I'd point the flash directly at the subject and use the diffuser?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use the cord with the flash so it can angled somewhat, but a lot of shots wind up being more or less straight on. They key in any case is to achieve good fill flash (use TV mode as your starting point), balance between the subject and background. Read a good primer somewhere on fill flash first.<br /> <br /> When you have a subject you like, be sure to get on the tripod and take a few shots with no flash, full flash, fill flash, and diffused fill flash so you can see the difference later. You'll be amazed at what your careful control of light can create. At first you will find stationary subjects much eaier to deal with, but once you're comfortable with and understand the technique, moving subjects are definitely doable. Good luck! Post some results.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks, I will definitely give what you suggest a try and post some results. Although, I suspect I'll have a little difficulty getting the butterflies to stay still for all those test shots! But I get the idea, once I get skilled with the technique, I'll be able to deploy it quickly. </p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Flowers and stationary insects and reptiles/amphibians are good starter subjects. Birds and butterflies are bit more difficult. For the butterflies it is possible to do the whole thing rapidly - no tripod and no self-timer and mirror lock-up. Just that the more careful technique will usually yield the best image quality. But for on the fly quick work like moving butterflies just hold the camera in one hand and if you're using a diffuser that doesn't actually attach to the flash, you can cradle the bottom of the lens and hold the diffuser above the lens at the same time with your other hand. Be sure to have the camera strap around your neck. As far as diffusers, I should say that I have a bunch, including the Gary Fong and most of the other popular models that fit on the flash, and I've never had as good a result with those as I have hand holding the lite disc. Not to say that you wouldn't have great results with one of the typical models that attach to the flash.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>Here's an ISO 3200 shot from my 50D in very low light. Your 5D2 can do much better.</p><div></div>

[smarksphotography]

<p>So today I got try some of the tips from this thread. I didn't venture as high as 3200 ISO, but did try using a flash outside and pushing the ISO to 800. Here are some results. </p><div></div>