Is ISO 1600 useless

[timmyquest]

I really need my flash :-\

If i had it i wouldnt have gotten such grainy pics tonight

http://www.antiwall.com/bball0_RT16.jpg

[DNHayashida]

At 1600 ISO a little bit of an underexposure will show a lot of grainyness. A well exposed shot at 1600 isn't too bad, especially after you print it. Noise shows up more on the screen And if it still bothers you, you can clean it up with something like NeatImage or Noise Ninja. Have you ever seen an ISO 400 picture from a P&S like a G2 or G3? That's what I call useless.
Darryl Hayashida

[sjprg]

You image cleans up very nicely with Neat Image and Focus Magic
Paul

[DaveG]

I really need my flash :-\

If i had it i wouldnt have gotten such grainy pics tonight

http://www.antiwall.com/bball0_RT16.jpg

First off you used too slow a shutterspeed if your intent was to freeze the basketball. Perhaps the light levels were too low in the gym, or your lens was too slow; but it MUST be sharp. The idea of pushing film or capture is to trade off grain/noisiness for sharpness. No more and no less. If this shot was razor sharp you'd be surprised at how much noise you would be willing to accept.

[ilya]

Some grain removed with Fred's ISOx ~

You can remove all the grain, at cost of some detail

As Dave says, if you're trading grain for speed, then you shouldn't stop half way.



http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2623415&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[scottbergerphoto]

I think you miss the point of ISO 1600. It's not there to get beautiful pictures. It's there so you can get a shot of something that you otherwise wouldn't be able to get. Flash is often not possible because of the situation or the distance. Most pictures in the newspaper are not images of beauty. They capture a moment. Most people will never forget the picture of the young Vietnamese girl running from her village burned with napalm. Nobody noticed how grainy it was.
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto.....

Your ISO 1600 shot looks fantastic for a shot taken at ISO 1600,.. and in fact,. it is a good shot on it's own

Film grain was and still is a fact of life. The truth is that the 10D/Drebel grain/noise level is amazing compared to any point and shoot digital OR film @ 1600.

It got you the shot!

[PaulB]

timmyquest you're sure a prolific poster - only joined 27th. December last and after just a month you've posted what, 287 times or so?
Really though if I may be so bold as to offer some advice, without any intention of giving offence.
Please think before you post sometimes as you do tend to be rather 'in your face' and confrontational.
It may be that you intend to spark a debate but from my personal standpoint sometimes your way of doing it does get a little wearing.
All the best.

[timmyquest]

timmyquest you're sure a prolific poster - only joined 27th. December last and after just a month you've posted what, 287 times or so?
Really though if I may be so bold as to offer some advice, without any intention of giving offence.
Please think before you post sometimes as you do tend to be rather 'in your face' and confrontational.
It may be that you intend to spark a debate but from my personal standpoint sometimes your way of doing it does get a little wearing.
All the best.

I'm pretty much going to ignore that but CyberDyneSystems is posting at a rate of 415 a month, ila at 91 a month and i'm posting at a rate of 144 a month, you dont seem to care about that though. :roll:

Thanks for the input guys i've never heard of those programs i'll surely have to look into them.

I get what your saying about 1600 ISO scott, it's actually a darn good point.

I think i really ought to just invest in some better lenses (obviously) and a 550EX and i'll be able to shoot at much faster shutter speeds.

Anything faster then 1/125 was just way too dark. It was a learning expereience i guess i'll just have to accept it as such.

[Guillermo Freige]

ISO 1600 pictures, when carefully postprocessed, can render wonderful pictures. I've used ISO 800-1600 in a dance shot, and printed many of them at 4x6 in a dye-transfer photoprinter, and the resulting prints are much better than scanned ISO 400 pro film ones (Supra 400) using the same printer and workflow.

This is an example taken at ISO 1600 using a 50/1.8. Cleaned with NeatImage

http://gfreige.homelinux.org/gallery/photos/normal/DR_2808.jpg

[Sherman]

Hi folks!
I think ISO is great - take a look at this picture.

[/img]http://www.visuelweb.dk/boksegalla.jpg



More picture here:
http://bo.joergensen3.person.emu.dk/boksegalla/

[neil_r]

timmyquest you're sure a prolific poster - only joined 27th. December last and after just a month you've posted what, 287 times or so?
Really though if I may be so bold as to offer some advice, without any intention of giving offence.
Please think before you post sometimes as you do tend to be rather 'in your face' and confrontational.
It may be that you intend to spark a debate but from my personal standpoint sometimes your way of doing it does get a little wearing.
All the best.

I'm pretty much going to ignore that but CyberDyneSystems is posting at a rate of 415 a month, ila at 91 a month and i'm posting at a rate of 144 a month, you dont seem to care about that though. :roll:

Thanks for the input guys i've never heard of those programs i'll surely have to look into them.

I.


The thing is he may have a point, To create a topic and call it “ISO 1600 is useless” and then for you to post, in the same thread that you have never heard of programs that can clean up noise proves two things:-

1. You were not qualified to create a thread with that title, as by your own admission you don’t know enough.

2. You post more than you read, as the topic of noise is covered very often on the forum.

I think it is great that over the last year many people have joined the forum who are, to say the least, vigorous posters. But as my mother used to say, sometimes it is better to use the ears rather than the mouth.

Pip pip

Neil

[neil_r]

Guillermo,

Fabulous, not even a tiny bit on the useless side. :lol:

[Derek Smith]

1. It's not grain, its noise.
2. At ISO 1600 the noise is much less than the grain you would have on an ISO 1600 film.
3. As already stated, even at ISO 1600 virtually all the noise can be filtered out in post processing, I use Noise Ninja - its great.
4. Your going to need some hell of a flash for that job and in many places you would get kicked out for distracting (blinding) the players.
5. You have picked up a few dust bunnies, visible in the dark stip at the top of the picture.

[CyberDyneSystems]

We do still use the term "grain" pretty much interchangably with noise,. sometimes people actually take the time to say "digital grain"... but in the end,. we all know what either term means when applied to a digital photo.

In fact one of the former "best" PS Plugins for reducing "noise" was called "Grain Surgery" It ,. as well as many other apps refer to "noise" as "Grain"

Heck,. Adobe still calls them "speckles" :roll: :lol:


//hang in there Timmy,.. we all get kicked around a little here at first for some reason :)

[Cordell]

timmyquest you're sure a prolific poster - only joined 27th. December last and after just a month you've posted what, 287 times or so?
Really though if I may be so bold as to offer some advice, without any intention of giving offence.
Please think before you post sometimes as you do tend to be rather 'in your face' and confrontational.
It may be that you intend to spark a debate but from my personal standpoint sometimes your way of doing it does get a little wearing.
All the best.

I'm pretty much going to ignore that but CyberDyneSystems is posting at a rate of 415 a month, ila at 91 a month and i'm posting at a rate of 144 a month, you dont seem to care about that though. :roll:

Thanks for the input guys i've never heard of those programs i'll surely have to look into them.

I get what your saying about 1600 ISO scott, it's actually a darn good point.

I think i really ought to just invest in some better lenses (obviously) and a 550EX and i'll be able to shoot at much faster shutter speeds.

Anything faster then 1/125 was just way too dark. It was a learning expereience i guess i'll just have to accept it as such.

Timmy, I have to add a little to what PaulB and neil_r are saying. Just slowdown with the type of post (comment/subject wise) until you do a search on this forum or others about the subject. In this case noise, computer, image, digital camera, etc. With a little searching and reading you will find soooooo much good information and advice here and other places. I don't think either of them are trying to insult. Just give a little push in the right direction. Peace my man!

[GenEOS]

I really need my flash :-\

If i had it i wouldnt have gotten such grainy pics tonight

http://www.antiwall.com/bball0_RT16.jpg
Is this a crop of the original image? If so, I wouldn't mind seeing the rest of the shot. If it is not, why in the world would you pick the ball going into the hoop as the suject of the shot?

Everything but the ball is sharp in this shot, but you CAN tell it is a basketball. Most the disrortion around the ball will dissappear when printed on newsprint anyways.

I have had some really horrible, digi-grained photos look absolutely stunning in print. They don't print great 8x10's, but it gets the job done....and parents stil buy copies of them....

What lens where you using? What's the exposure. Where you shooting from the stands down onto the court? If not, sometimes you can gain a stop by shooting from there. You get more reflected light that way. Also, if shooting from there, why not use your strobe? It's acceptable, unless you are told not to before the game..

[timmyquest]

If it is not, why in the world would you pick the ball going into the hoop as the suject of the shot?

What type of question is that?

I took it because it was the end of the game and i thought it would be a cool picture...mainly, because i could...

I really cant understand why you'd even ask that...truely.

[GenEOS]

If it is not, why in the world would you pick the ball going into the hoop as the suject of the shot?

What type of question is that?

I took it because it was the end of the game and i thought it would be a cool picture...mainly, because i could...

I really cant understand why you'd even ask that...truely.

Sorry if I hurt your feeling dude. I did not mean to question your professionalism. I thought you wanted some advice on solving your problems. I'll bow out of this thread.

[timmyquest]

If it is not, why in the world would you pick the ball going into the hoop as the suject of the shot?

What type of question is that?

I took it because it was the end of the game and i thought it would be a cool picture...mainly, because i could...

I really cant understand why you'd even ask that...truely.

Sorry if I hurt your feeling dude. I did not mean to question your professionalism. I thought you wanted some advice on solving your problems. I'll bow out of this thread.

I'm just wondering where the question came from.

I wasnt even taking the pictures for anyone but myself.

I didnt mean to come of as a prick..truely.

[Sherman]

Interesting tred. I love my 300D and think that ISO 1600 is very useful - and I can`t see any problem with grain.
At least not on this picture:

What do you think?

http://www.visuelweb.dk/boksegalla.jpg

Best Regards
Sherman

ISO 800-1600 pictures here
http://bo.joergensen3.person.emu.dk/boksegalla/

[timmyquest]

This is an example taken at ISO 1600 using a 50/1.8. Cleaned with NeatImage

A great photo i must say, but your also using a lens with a 1.8 f stop.

I'm not as blessed to have a 1.8 300mm lens :-P

[Guillermo Freige]

Noise has nothing to do with lens max.aperture. And the light conditions in the dance show were much worse than traditional gym light. But, I've posted it just to show you can use ISO 1600 very well. In fact i've posted in the share photos thead a couple more, and the second one was processed using C1Rebel, without any additional noise reduction, and using a custom WB and it holds very well, despite the huge WB correction (the original one was processed using BreezeBrowser + NeatImage). Take a look at them.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24420

[timmyquest]

Noise has nothing to do with lens max.aperture.


I figure more light-faster shutter-less noise...

You still prove your point.

[PaulB]

"I figure more light-faster shutter-less noise..."

This proves that rather than posting rash statements you do need to post asking for help and advice - you have a lot to learn , as do all of us.

[timmyquest]

fuget abat et

[iwatkins]

At 1600 ISO a little bit of an underexposure will show a lot of grainyness. A well exposed shot at 1600 isn't too bad, especially after you print it. Noise shows up more on the screen And if it still bothers you, you can clean it up with something like NeatImage or Noise Ninja. Have you ever seen an ISO 400 picture from a P&S like a G2 or G3? That's what I call useless.
Darryl Hayashida

You guys are really starting to P*** me off.

I made the thread to learn, not to be called a moron.

Well, I don't see anywhere where anybody has called you a moron.

Darryl has posted useful information, but you quote the post Darryl has made and then say that you are being p***ed off.

WTF, if you cannot learn from useful information posted on your behalf, then I believe there is no hope for you.

There again, maybe if you read the thread again and digest the snippets of information given, you may learn something that will benefit your photography.

Up to you.

Cheers

Ian

[timmyquest]

i already did, which is why i dont understand why i'm getting all the:

This proves that rather than posting rash statements you do need to post asking for help and advice - you have a lot to learn , as do all of us.

I think this picture proves that this thread was useful to me

http://www.antiwall.com/basket.jpg

[DNHayashida]

At 1600 ISO a little bit of an underexposure will show a lot of grainyness. A well exposed shot at 1600 isn't too bad, especially after you print it. Noise shows up more on the screen And if it still bothers you, you can clean it up with something like NeatImage or Noise Ninja. Have you ever seen an ISO 400 picture from a P&S like a G2 or G3? That's what I call useless.
Darryl Hayashida

You guys are really starting to P*** me off.

I made the thread to learn, not to be called a moron.

I am truly sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to help. I shall refrain from posting anything else in your threads.
Darryl Hayashida

[timmyquest]

At 1600 ISO a little bit of an underexposure will show a lot of grainyness. A well exposed shot at 1600 isn't too bad, especially after you print it. Noise shows up more on the screen And if it still bothers you, you can clean it up with something like NeatImage or Noise Ninja. Have you ever seen an ISO 400 picture from a P&S like a G2 or G3? That's what I call useless.
Darryl Hayashida

You guys are really starting to P*** me off.

I made the thread to learn, not to be called a moron.

I am truly sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to help. I shall refrain from posting anything else in your threads.
Darryl Hayashida

That was a mis quote :cry: :cry: :cry:

[robertwgross]

That was a mis quote

How do you figure that?

---Bob Gross---

[Chrisc]

A few weeks ago I was forced to shoot at 800ISO for a day due to low cloud, sleet, rain and mist. Having never really ventured above 400 before I was fearing the worst until I began printing.

Using an Epson 1290 I printed several of the shots and although there is a drastic difference between shots correctly exposed and those slightly off, sveral printed sharp with only a litle noise.

The higher ISO seems to lack the tolerances of the slower speeds?

Re-sized

http://www.warplane.co.uk/firepower/lf12121212.jpg


http://www.warplane.co.uk/firepower/lf12121212212.jpg

[iwatkins]

Chris,

Truely excellent shots. I only noticed the noise there because we are in a thread talking about noise. It doesn't detract from the images one bit.

Were these taken in the Lakes (or possibly north Wales) ? I ask as I recognise the landscape in the first shot, but can't place it.

If I have my ID's right, I think you should entitled the first shot: "C130J, coming at yer !!" :D

Cheers

Ian

[ssim]

I really wasn't goin to jump into this one but wthe heck....

What you will find, in time, on here Timmy is that a poster will get summarily thumped if they have not done their research. Many of the steady contributors do tire of answering the same question. It is human nature that we will post a question before we have done our own research hoping that someone esle will do it for us.

I believe where you ran into trouble on this one is when you alluded to the fact that you didn't know anything about the noise reduction programs, Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc. It appears that you spend a great deal of time on this board and these programs have been discussed at great lengths over the past few months. In addition you started to show your frustrations with the feedback that you were getting.

Now onto your image. I quite honestly don't mind the motion of the basketball as everything else is not that bad. Yes, the overall noise was bothersome but I took a copy of your shot and ran it through Neat Image and it came out quite a bit better.

I would suggest to you to live and learn in this thread and let it die.

[ssim]

Damn Chris so that are awesome shots. What were you riding in?

[Chrisc]

Damn Chris so that are awesome shots. What were you riding in?

Sadly not riding in anything, the planes fly low enough in that area to climb a reasonably large hill (Mountain?) and wait for them coming past.

I've just realised the top pic is not actually the sharpest of that particular aircraft.

[Alexis427]

I use ISO1600 all the time

It's a bit noisy, but sometimes the grany look is nice, we even used to like it on film :)



Here's a few pics from Pawel Jocz expo, most of them @ 1600ISO
http://underwaterpics.org/list.php?exhibition=16.

the pics are raw from C1, only resized with PSP and uploaded to EE with no processing at all

Alex

[Morden]

Very nice pictures, Chrisc. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Amazing photos Chris!

If I am remebering correctly,. it's been ages since you posted some of your war birds here! Nice to see some more :)

[Guillermo Freige]

chris:
Yes, you can do much less shadow recovering in ISO 800/1600 than in lower ISO speeds. ISO 100 allows almost an infinite shadow recovery (easily 2-3 stops, at least in RAW) but as you increase ISO, this headroom start to shrink.
Also I've noticed noise increases as luminance decreases much more than in digicam CCD sensors (as the one in my S50), and even at ISO 1600 there is almost no noise in highlights. So if you are shooting at higher ISO settings, try to expose as close to highlight clipping as possible.

[timmyquest]

That was a mis quote

How do you figure that?

---Bob Gross---

Because i quoted the wrong person :lol:

[Ballen Photo]

A few weeks ago I was forced to shoot at 800ISO for a day due to low cloud, sleet, rain and mist. Having never really ventured above 400 before I was fearing the worst until I began printing.

Using an Epson 1290 I printed several of the shots and although there is a drastic difference between shots correctly exposed and those slightly off, sveral printed sharp with only a litle noise.

The higher ISO seems to lack the tolerances of the slower speeds?


Chris, Echoing the same sentiments as some of the others, these aircraft photos are AWESOME! Keep em coming please.
.........Bruce

[photography By Evangelos]

Not sure why any one can say ISO 1600 is useless at all? I use it all the time and love it! Here are some Pix.

Help how do I post Pix?

[garethhhhh]

Evangelos wrote:

Help how do I post Pix?

All you have to do is:
1) Click on the "Img" button
2) Type in the location of you picture eg. "http://www.someweb.com/pictures/somepicture.jpg"
3) Then close the image tags by pressing the "Img" button again.
4) Click preview to make sure it works

And Submit when your'e happy with the result

EDIT: pics must be smaller than 800 pixels in width & hight. If you get stuck just move the mouse cursor over the "Img" button & it will show you the correct format you need to use

Can't wait to see them
Have Fun!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: