Help me stop taking pictures like this...

[ryan_troop]

<p>So.. Im shooting with an A100. I got SOME great photos, but I got a lot more that look like this.</p>

<p>Tons of noise, tons of grain... This sample used noise ninja, and at 100% it is still just totally unacceptable. Am I doing something wrong with NN? Bad focusing? I cant quite figure it out...</p>

<p>Originally shot RAW. F/2.8 (max 1.4), ISO 1600, 50mm (I think that makes it 75mm Equiv?) Spot metering, DMA focus, Shutter Priority (but shot Manual mode)</p>

<p>Any hints, tips, and suggestions are greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Ryan</p>

<p> </p>

[ryan_troop]

<p>Yarp.. image didnt post...</p><div></div>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5894078"><em>Ryan Troop</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 22, 2010; 12:03 p.m.</em><br>

<em>So.. Im shooting with an A100. I got SOME great photos, but I got a lot more that look like this.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That look like.... what?<br>

Link to or post a few so we can see what's going on.<br>

While you're at it, ISO 1600 is like the fuzztone setting for cameras like this (I'm gessing that you mean a Sony A 100).<br>

Back the ISO down to something like ISO 200 for starters.</p>

<p>Bill P.

<p><em></em></p>

<em></em></p>

[william l. palminteri]

<p>Oh, there we go.....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[ryan_troop]

<p>Yeah, the gym was a bit dark.. I got a few good shots at ISO 800, and a VERY few at ISO 400. Anything lower and I was shooting at slower than 1/120, which was.. just bad.</p>

<p>Is there nothing I can do about the "fuzz" at 1600?</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5894078"><em>Ryan Troop</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 22, 2010; 12:12 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Is there nothing I can do about the "fuzz" at 1600?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt there is much that you can do at that ISO.<br>

Without any proper lighting, these problems arise.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[phule]

<p>The solution is easy: unless you're making wall-sized prints, stop looking at 100% views. They're not telling you anything.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Don't underexpose the image--you'll get better noise results with a little more exposure; I assume that back wall & the gymnasts hands should be white. Of course, increasing exposure even 1/3 stop will bear some cost--it will have to mean wider aperture or slower shutter speed, either of which can be detrimental in some other way. Certainly shooting with ISO 200 will wreck this photo because of the reduced shutter speed...but you might be able to try f/2 and ISO 800 with the same shutter speed but nailing the focus becomes harder...or just maybe ISO 800 + f/2.8 + 1/200 shutter might be OK if the subject is not moving fast but is instead pausing as he handstands on the bar?</p>

[ryan_troop]

<p>I certainly like that response Rob - maybe I need to ask for a few pointers on photoshop and how to determine what is the best size for the photos I take...<br>

I gets confusing when people post 100% crops and such and I get junky photos at that scale.. makes me feel somewhat silly :(<br>

I know it's a lot to ask, and I have done my research the best I can.. but if Im looking to even make 8x10 prints - what are the minimum res (height, width px count) and PPI (DPI)? I hear 200 DPI is minimum for print, but I cant find a scale anywhere to show what width x height mesurements are needed for printing sizes.<br>

I guess this is my limitation from not being properly education about my hobby...</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5894078"><em>Ryan Troop</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 22, 2010; 12:23 p.m.</em><br /><em>I certainly like that response Rob - maybe I need to ask for a few pointers on photoshop and how to determine what is the best size for the photos I take...<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd rather not have the noise in the first place than deal with workarounds after the fact.<br />What happens when, a year from now, you want that wall-sised print?</p>

<p>Bill P.<em> </em>

<p><em></em></p>

</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>When faced with the issue of getting a picture at ISO 1600 and getting no picture at all, where's the problem? Just embrace noise in the first place.<br>

The real problem, more than noise, IMHO, with your shot is that it is underexposed because the light metering wants to see the white background as an 18% gray. Since the background dominates the scene, this will lead to underexposure of the picture. It's just like shooting in snow, you have to open up from what the meter/camera says to get white to be white.<br>

Here is a very quick and dirty stepping up of the exposure in ACR, with some shadow increase, etc.</p><div></div>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065"><em>JDM von Weinberg</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 22, 2010; 01:02 p.m.</em><br>

<em>When faced with the issue of getting a picture at ISO 1600 and getting no picture at all, where's the problem? Just embrace noise in the first place.<br />The real problem, more than noise, IMHO, with your shot is that it is underexposed because the light metering wants to see the white background as an 18% gray.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, I'd rather not embrace the noise if possible, and I'd also do some test bracketing to get around that 18 percent problem you point out.<br>

Nice fix, BTW.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>try using f2.5 or something closer to your max to let more light in, max out the iso if you have to. Gym lighting is almost always bad, I shoot at 1600 or 3200 (my max) and yes it is grainy but acceptable for 4x6's and 5x7's.</p>

[ellery]

<p>I am no expert, but if you are shooting only available light, there is only so much you can do in camera - just gotta deal with the high ISO and grain - advice given so far seems really good - overexpose preferable to under - then do post processing. Also you can do B/W's with noisier photos and they look pretty nice (depending on the image). I do not have specific noise software, but would love to learn more about noise processing - I learned a bit here - take care.</p>

[ron_steedman]

<p>If you want to reduce your ISO you have to add light, open your aperture wider, or reduce your shutter speed--push the limits and see what happens. If those aren't possible, as Rob says, a little noise is often much less intrusive in a print than pixel-peeping in Photoshop would have you believe. As a test, I printed several ISO 1250 photos last year without NeatImage, and at 5x7 the noise wasn't discernible.</p>

<p>(Note: Noise in high-ISO <em>underexposures</em> on the other hand is more likely to be visible.)</p>

[myworkshop]

<p>Indoor sports are tough to shoot due to the poor lighting. My guess is that your camera, (Sony A100), at iso 1600 will produce noise under any condition though. Your best bet with that camera is to use a slow speed like iso 200, a fast aperture like f/2.8, and a clip-on-flash that will go into the hot-shoe of your camera. This is probably your best bet. Stick with spot metering or better yet go manual. </p>

[ryan_troop]

<p>Gymnastics (and probably 85% of other indoor sports) = no flash, period.<br>

Need new camera body: /agree<br>

Need 85mm lens or better: /agree<br>

Was hoping that I could find a few tips from the "pros" (Im assuming you are), to help allieviate some of the frustration that comes with taking pictures like that.<br>

On the other hand, I took some beautiful pictures as well.</p><div></div>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"JDM, I'd rather not embrace the noise if possible . . ."</p>

<p>Do you have budget to buy a Nikon D700? Shooting indoor basketball is what drove me to open my wallet.</p>

[paf iii]

<p>Hello Ryan,<br>

You seem to be doing the best you can. Indoor sports are a very difficult to shoot due to lack of light and flash being prohibited.I just upgraded to a A700 from a A100 for the same reason. with the A100 which is a great camera it is almost impossible to shoot above ISO 800. Shooting with the 50mm wide open leaves little room for error due to the extreme limited depth of field. shooting RAW and good post processing is about your only option.</p>

[asafrye]

<p>not only is flash typically not allowed, depending on how close you can get to the subject versus your lens focal length, flash typically doesn't afford any significant benefits due to the rapid light fall off; there's really not much you can do other than use the fastest lens you can stand to carry (esp. if it's a long focal length). . .and upgrade to a camera body with low noise performance at higher iso, especially if you intend to freeze action with faster shutter speeds.</p>