20D & ISO 3200 - smitten by quality

[DeeplyDigital]

I am impressed - this is the small BW JPEG that comes free
with the RAW file

20D & 50mm f1,4
f 3,5
1/100 sec
ISO 3200


in camera settings are 0 or standard
with no post processing done


http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/stella1.jpg

100% crop
http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/stella2.jpg[/img]

[Andy_T]

I am impressed

So am I :shock:

Best regards,
Andy

[abel]

ive been getting more into concert photography and man i sure could use that kinda of performance at iso 1600 much less at 3200

wow

[drisley]

Helloooooo, why isn't that photo in the Beer Photo Contest #18 in the Share Photos forum? :roll:
Hurry up!

I havent tried shooting ISO3200 yet, but ISO1600 printed at 5x7 is clean as a whistle.

[DeeplyDigital]

Helloooooo, why isn't that photo in the Beer Photo Contest #18 in the Share Photos forum? :roll:
Hurry up!

I havent tried shooting ISO3200 yet, but ISO1600 printed at 5x7 is clean as a whistle.

Because it isn't that kind of photo ... just a beer in one hand a camera in the other...

Ah well sure why not, is there a prize...?

-

[mdude85]

quite impressive -- one pass through NeatImage and you'd think it was taken at ISO100.

[evilenglishman]

I havent tried shooting ISO3200 yet

I have and my images didn't come out that clean even with studio flash and L glass :(

[DeeplyDigital]

I have and my images didn't come out that clean even with studio flash and L glass :(

I have a few other nice shots from a few nights ago, again with just a lamp in the corner,
no overhead lights.

Can it be that it has to be dark enough to make ISO 3200 effective?

Must try NeatImage...
-

[drisley]

Helloooooo, why isn't that photo in the Beer Photo Contest #18 in the Share Photos forum? :roll:
Hurry up!
I havent tried shooting ISO3200 yet, but ISO1600 printed at 5x7 is clean as a whistle.
Because it isn't that kind of photo ... just a beer in one hand a camera in the other...
Ah well sure why not, is there a prize...?
-
Hey, it's still a kewl photo! :shock:
I think it could do well in the contest.
Hey, isn't drinking and "shooting" against the law! :wink:

[DeeplyDigital]

Hey, isn't drinking and "shooting" against the law! :wink:

Those laws apply to girls? :oops:

[drisley]

Hey, isn't drinking and "shooting" against the law! :wink:

Those laws apply to girls? :oops:

Oh, um, uh, yes, yes, you are right. Move along miss.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I wonder if there is some reason that the small jpeg maybe has less noise than the RAW file?

Did you compare?

Were you shooting in "B&W" while in RAW mode? ths the RAW will still have the color info... but the jeg is B&W?

I'll have to try it....
The photo does look amazing for ISO 3200. :shock:

[DeeplyDigital]

Yes - RAW and smallest BW JPEG.
The RAW has all the usual/ colour information.
This serious FUN.

Some noise reduction must occur in the camera,
the JPEG still is really smooth at 200% compared
to the RAW at 66%.
The RAW does well with some work in PS.

I will try this with a larger JPEG, as there is some
kind of honesty in the photo that I really like.


-
waiting for a NeatImage Version for Mac

[mjordan]

I guess that this prove that after one beer, even those jpegs start to look good.

:lol:

Mike

[DeeplyDigital]

I guess that this prove that after one beer, even those jpegs start to look good.

:lol:

Mike

Mike, this one's for you
(after another beer) a JPEG called Henri
iso3200
http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/henri.jpg

J.
-
person with posable dachshund

[phili1]

I think you got a special camera, a picture that sharp and ISO 3200, wow.

[drisley]

Very nice picture and dog indeed!

[timmyquest]

i'm usually not a stickler like this.

But you got any full sized images we can see

[DeeplyDigital]

i'm usually not a stickler like this.

But you got any full sized images we can see

Full size is too large or maybe it is too early...?
Tried to print, one ink tank empty - hope it's not going to be one
of those days... I think it would print very well

Here you go -

Two unaltered 100% crops from the RAW file, converted with PS
72 dpi 8bit JPEG
872kb www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/PSraw72dpicrop.jpg

and - 300dpi, 16bit tif
3,8MB www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/300dpi16bitcrop.tif


I have plenty of unsharp photos and posted this as an example of 3200.
The small JPEGS, although smoothed a bit in the camera (I assume)
might do very well for contact sheets etc.

The dog is so hard to get although he likes to pose. The last time I got
action shots (trying to imitate Richard) Henri had to go to the vet the
next day...

J.
-

[RoB_m]

i get worse noise in ISo 50 with my A80 :]

[DeeplyDigital]

i get worse noise in ISo 50 with my A80 :]

This was one of those lucky shots, it isn't always going to be that good .

Are you the person on your avatar?

J.
___________________________
some who don't wander are lost

[evilenglishman]

This topic really interests me.

I would appriciate anyones thoughts on why images from my 20D look like the example below - shot at 100 ISO

link to a full sized jpeg (http://www.electricvenus.com/dump/IMG_0487.JPG)
Processed in canon's raw converter

This isn't the norm, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. Exposure seems to be all over the place and my exif says "exposure bias value: -1/3" - which I haven't set at all :?

[DeeplyDigital]

.......why images from my 20D look like the example below - shot at 100 ISO

:?

Which lens did you use?

-

[evilenglishman]

17-40 L @ F4
1/500th

[DeeplyDigital]

17-40 L @ F4
1/500th

I opened your file in EOS Viewer Utility and saw the details.
Your focus point is around the top button. That's where the image
looks ok. Apart from the focus point sthg like f8 or higher might have
helped. Too much light seems to cause noise, too.

Unless you are going to print a poster from this photo, you can try the following (assuming you use PS) -
Filters - add noise - 1% -
Filters - Gaussian Blur - 1 px
Filters - USM - somewhere between 400 - 500 %

Try it, I got this tip from the PS Bible, sometimes it works well
and a print might come out not too bad at all...

Julia
-

[DeeplyDigital]

17-40 L @ F4
1/500th

I opened your file in EOS Viewer Utility and saw the details.
Your focus point is around the top button. That's where the image
looks ok. Apart from the focus point sthg like f8 or higher might have
helped. Too much light seems to cause noise, too.

Unless you are going to print a poster from this photo, you can try the following (assuming you use PS) -
Filters - add noise - 1% -
Filters - Gaussian Blur - 1 px
Filters - USM - somewhere between 400 - 500 %

Try it, I got this tip from the PS Bible, sometimes it works well
and a print might come out not too bad at all...

Julia
-

[phili1]

To Evilenglishman: What exactly are you complaining about. I checked your shot in adobe and it is as sharp as a tack. I can't figure out how you shot at 1/500 sec F4 from window light. Did you do post processing on it. Ccheck your bias again it says ) in my exif.

Weather you use film or Sensor when you shoot low light you will get a grainy effect from blow ups on shadow unless you expose for the shadow, what you are seeing is not noise it is ussually caused by proper exposure of the high lights and trying to compensate in Photoshop. What you have to remember no matter how good a Cameras is in controling noise the picture itseelf has to right exposure wise.

I put your picture in Adobe and brought it to pixels and it looks super to me.

[evilenglishman]

To Evilenglishman: What exactly are you complaining about. I checked your shot in adobe and it is as sharp as a tack. I can't figure out how you shot at 1/500 sec F4 from window light. Did you do post processing on it. Ccheck your bias again it says ) in my exif.

Weather you use film or Sensor when you shoot low light you will get a grainy effect from blow ups on shadow unless you expose for the shadow, what you are seeing is not noise it is ussually caused by proper exposure of the high lights and trying to compensate in Photoshop. What you have to remember no matter how good a Cameras is in controling noise the picture itseelf has to right exposure wise.

I put your picture in Adobe and brought it to pixels and it looks super to me.

What I'm complaining about is the noise/grain all down the left side.
This image isn't "blown-up" it is 100%.
The highlights arent properly exposed as they are blown. At 100 ISO there souldn't be noise like this - even if the area is black.

The exif says the following:

Shooting Mode: Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ): 1/500
Av( Aperture Value ): 4.0
Exposure Compensation: -1/3
ISO Speed: 100
Lens: 17.0 - 40.0 mm


It isn't sharp as a tack. I had sharpened this to medium-high in the eos converter.
Below is an example from a D60/17-40 that has had no sharpening done to it. Look at it and tell me the first image i posted is sharp.
D60 & 17-40L warning! contains boobies (http://www.electricvenus.com/dump/taylor.jpg)

[phili1]

I down loaded both pictures and looked at it from your stand point and here is my evaluation.

You can't compare both pictures. Taylor was shot with a flash and mom was shot with ambient light. Falsh will give you smoother skin tones.

Second you are preceiving the dark area as noise and I do not see it as that. What I see is the inability of the sensor to record the drastic exposure difference between Moms skin and the black of the abis. This is a problem anyone will have with either film or digital. To me noise is like tiny little rain drops and I do not see that in this picture. What I see is a blotchy area but only when I bring it to almost pixel defeinition.

As far as having to sharpen it, well you can only sharpen something that is already sharp, I know other wise my flying bird pictures would be better.

All I can tell you is that the 20 D is very selective with lenses maybe it does not like your 17 to 40 but I have had allot of guys on this site switch from this lens to the Tamron because of sharpness.

I find that nine out of ten times I blame my Camera it is me that moved other wise how come one time I got a sharp one and this weekend I was dissapointed in them.

Window light is not a forgiving light, its a nice picture and on my calibrated monitor it looks good to me.