Comments on: dealing with high-ISO noise

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 07 May 2011 23:34:50 +0000

I’ve never had alot of interest in weddings or portraits, but I do most of my work in concert photography where flash is seldom if ever allowed. So pumping up the ISO is just part of the game and the stage lighting will determine just how far I have to go. While I realize there are those purists that go off the dial when they see any noise, I’m not going to fret it, one run through Ninja and some sharpening keeps the fans happy and ultimately its their opinion that matters most to me.

Good article.

By: Joseph William Photography

Joseph William Photography — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:13:27 +0000

I love your photo. I agree using the flash would have ruined the image. I am a proponent of using Auto-ISO setting and letting the camera make the image usable. Of course, this doesn’t always make for a usable photo, but in most cases it is acceptable.

By: Martian

Martian — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:17:17 +0000

Last week I took some pictures with a D300 at very high ISOs and was very surprised with the result. I used ACR to remove some of the noise. http://www.jameer.co.uk/zoo/

I tried the same on a D70, but it was a disaster.

By: Lanz

Lanz — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:28:31 +0000

Neil, this is one of the highlights in your workshop. It’s “aaah,Now I get it!”. I always skeptical on using high ISO even though my camera able to do that.I always concern on the noise but somehow it make sense to focus on creating the impact on the image. When printing the high ISO picture I can see difference between glossy and matte finish. The grainy texture of the matte prints ‘hide’ the noise better than glossy. What would you recommend on printing method of this kind of picture?

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:40:10 +0000

Good post… and excellent points. Often times I think people become more obsessed with the pixels and the noise in the image that the actual quality of light and subject of the photo. “Perfect” noise does not ensure a gorgeous image or one with impact.

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:05:37 +0000

Chad, I didn’t try for that. It just happened to be how bright the light outside was at the time. And with early evening on a rainy day, the light levels never were bright.

Neil vN

By: chad

chad — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:48:43 +0000

How did you keep the light on the outside of the car exposed properly with those settings?

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:18:30 +0000

Thorsten explained it clearly. :)
Auto ISO just brings one more variable into play again .. which is exactly what I was trying to avoid by using manual exposure mode on my camera.

Neil vN

By: Thorsten

Thorsten — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:34:58 +0000

When you think about it, Auto-ISO is no different to one or other of the two auto-exposure modes, Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority. In order to get correct exposure, there are three variables to work with – Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. With any of the auto modes, we determine two of the variables whilst the camera determines the third.

We all know that if you photograph a scene containing predominantly black or predominantly white using Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority, then we’re going to get an overexposed or underexposed image respectively. That’s because we are leaving the camera’s built in meter take control of the final exposure and it thinks everything should be 18% grey and will expose accordingly. I can’t see this being any different using Auto-ISO. It’s still the same meter and it’s still trying to produce an exposure for 18% grey only instead of varying either the shutter speed or the aperture, it is now varying the ISO.

That’s a rather long winded explanation as to why fully manual exposure control, where the photographer determines the working ISO, is the only way to go, IMHO.

- Thorsten.

By: Gus

Gus — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:38:18 +0000

God question Steve, I think Auto ISO its the way to go now days.
Please Mr Neil what its your point of view

Thank You