20D at 1600 ISO - Just love it

[xtrpureguts]

Basketball is underway. Anyone who has shot without a flash in a highschool gym knows all the problems. Just wanted to share this shot from tonight. Home team was up by 30 so I amused myself by shooting the ball going thru the basket. I was pretty happy with the result. Taken from behind the far baseline at ISO 1600, Av 3.2, at 1/250 with my recently acquired 300mm f2.8 IS. I've also had a lot of success at ISO 3200. This basketball season will be a lot more enjoyable than last year.

http://Pure-Action-Sports.smugmug.com/photos/11901213-L.jpg%20%20%20%20

[tumb]

Good shot! I took a few pictures at my daughter's game the other night and got much more noise than that, how did you process that?

[xtrpureguts]

how did you process that?

No special processing. File viewer utility to Photoshop elements. Adjusted levels and USM.....Don

[drisley]

Nice shot, and NICE LENS! don't you find it a little too long for basketball?
BTW, I'm surprised you didnt have any problem using EVU to develop the raw image at ISO1600.
I (and others) have found it often produces extreme "blotchiness" at ISO1600+

[xtrpureguts]

drisley,
With the 1.6 factor on the 20D the 300mm lens is a bit long for basketball. However, my daughter has 5 games this weekend. So with a new toy and a big lead by half-time I broke it out for the second half. Following is an almost full frame shot of a defender at the far foul-line.
http://Pure-Action-Sports.smugmug.com/photos/11900860-L.jpg%20%20%20%20

So far I have only been shooting large fine JPG. Have not played with RAW yet. I've been at this for about a year shooting local sports. I really enjoy taking pictures, and have learned a lot from this forum.....Don

[Hellashot]

I don't have a 20D but from the posts I've read over the months since it came out it seems there are differences reported in quality at high ISO. Could there be a quality issue with the sensor? Similar to that of the old Intel chip production where they tested the chip and if it did well it was sold as one model and if it did poorly it sold as a lower model.

Some people have posted great shots at ISO1600 and other comment that they wouldn't even consider using the setting because of how bad it turns out.

[drisley]

Beauty picture Xtr.
That is my DREAM LENS! I think if I had that lens, my collection would be complete! As you mentioned, it was a 3D quality, something the 135F2L is noted for too, and that lens has spoiled me.
As far as ISO goes, I think many people are underexposing shots to get better framerates, then compensating exposure later in software, which will result in alot of noise. You have to make sure you get the exposure correct at high ISO's, and you will get great results.
I used to hear people complain about this problem with the 300D/10D, but I never had any problem with ISO800 or ISO1600 on my 300D. I made sure to get a proper exposure, or slightly overexpose.
I got clean images with my 300D, and now my 20D. Am I just lucky and getting good sensors? I don't think so. I'm 99% sure it's user error and/or unrealistic expectations.
Here is a full size ISO800 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)image from the 300D, straight out of C1 Raw.
Here is another ISO800 full size crop (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg). Again no noise reduction.

I find the noise on the 20D is about the same as the 300D, however it is different. There is less luminance noise, and slightly more colour noise.
This results in a much more natural grain with the 20D IMHO.

Somebody here performed a direct comparison between the 300D and 20D, and indeed, the noise appears less noticable on the 20D image, especially in the shadows. However, as mentioned both are great ISO performers.

Additionally, the amount of noise that shows up when viewing on your monitor at 100% isn't what counts. What counts is the resized web output, and the final printed product. Even the noisiest images I've printed at 8x10 show very little noise.

[JoeTampa]

1600? 1600? HAH! I find ISO *3200* to be quite usable on the 20D.

With the 10D, I shot ISO 800 as the high end, 1600 when I really had to (knowing that noise would be all over) and never shot 3200 - what was the point?

Now, ISO 3200 is a legitimate shooting setting. I never really believed Canon's claims of noise reduction before I actually bought the 20D - but I'm a definate believer now.

[pcasciola]

Those are great shots, really excellent quality, but I have to think the 300mm (480mm effective) is just too long in most cases for indoor basketball. Anything closer than half court is going to be a head shot. I'm trying to decide between 200 f/1.8, 135 f/2L or a 70-200 f/2.8L, which I think would be a little better suited to basketball to compensate for the 1.6x factor. Too bad Canon doesn't make a focal reducer to compensate for the 1.6x factor like Celestron and Meade make for their telescopes.

That's a great lens though. Definitely on my wish list. Good luck with it.

[pcasciola]

Oh yeah, another thing I forgot to mention. I'm impressed that with that 300mm staring her in the face, your daughter still focused on the player in front of her. Even with my 300mm f/4L I notice in a lot of shots the kids are looking right at the camera rather than paying attention to the game. They must all be future L lens junkies like us. :lol: :lol:

[drisley]

Yup, I really wish Canon made the large L lenses in black.
That is one reason why I sold my 70-200F4L and bought the 135F2L.

[pcasciola]

Yup, I really wish Canon made the large L lenses in black.
That is one reason why I sold my 70-200F4L and bought the 135F2L.

Oh, come on, we know this is not true. You sold the 70-200 because you couldn't stand the idea of owning a non-prime lens. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[xtrpureguts]

Here is a full size ISO800 image from the 300D, straight out of C1 Raw.
drisley....I've seen that posted before. Awesome shot. Next phase of my learning will be to leverage the software out there for post-processing. C1 will be on my list.

I have to think the 300mm (480mm effective) is just too long in most cases for indoor basketball.
pcasciola...Must agree. I use my 70-200 f2.8 IS 85 percent of the time. But, I got a number of unique shots of girls on defense with the 300mm that you will normaly miss.

1600? 1600? HAH! I find ISO *3200* to be quite usable on the 20D.
Joe...3200 is acceptable. This was from last night with my 70-200 at ISO 3200
http://Pure-Action-Sports.smugmug.com/photos/11967559-L.jpg%20

[Adam Hicks]

Great shots and what an amazing lens! I gotta start SAVING!

Maybe it's a good thing I'm on a cruise ship headed to some tropical islands, cause this internet access is too expensive (per minute) for me to shop around for the right deal on that 300 2.8 :) Damn I want one.

[Anders Östberg]

I never go over ISO 800 with the 10D, ISO 1600 is quite good with the 1D Mark II provided you don't underexpose. From some examples I've seen the noise in correctly exposed 20D shots is even better than the 1D Mark II. Very impressive...

[evilenglishman]

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D. For web stuff its acceptable but not for magazine prints.

[drisley]

I've printed ISO1600 shots at 8x10, and there is no noticable noise.
And that is on the 20D.
If you have a look at the 100% ISO800 shot I posted above from the 300D, I dont see any noise at all. I dont see how any would show in print.

[blinking8s]

we are so picky about what we see on the screen vs the printer though...haha

[FlyingPete]

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D. For web stuff its acceptable but not for magazine prints.

What are your main issues with the high ISO shots? Have you tried noise removal software?

I will be doing some shooting early next year on my 20D, and it will be reproduced in a magazine. Due to the lighting conditions, I am looking at shooting at 1600, it would be nice to know of any issues before I have them!

[pcasciola]

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D. For web stuff its acceptable but not for magazine prints.
I will be doing some shooting early next year on my 20D, and it will be reproduced in a magazine. Due to the lighting conditions, I am looking at shooting at 1600, it would be nice to know of any issues before I have them!

Don't even worry about it, especially if you are looking at ISO 1600. The 20D rivals the 1D Mk II in high ISO noise levels. At ISO 400 and 800 the 1D Mk II is light years ahead (well maybe 2 years with the rate that digital camera tech is moving), but at ISO 1600 and 3200, the 20D in P2 mode has lower noise than the 1D Mk II, and has less noise than the 10D at everything above ISO 400 (again in P2 mode, which is the same mode as the 10D's default setting).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif

Here's the entire review, on the noise level page (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/150443/0#1217530)

[pcasciola]

xtrpureguts,

Every shot you've posted here is incredible. The 300mm f/2.8L along with the 70-200mm is an awesome setup!!! I thought you shot the entire game with just the 300mm, which could be a little long. I even found my 300mm f/4L a little long at times for football with the 1.6x crop.

I'm impressed with all these shots you posted. These were all no flash, too? That's amazing. What type of lighting does the gym have?

[defordphoto]

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D. For web stuff its acceptable but not for magazine prints.

I have to agree with EE. These photos, as awesome as they look—resized—on a screen, it's the print that makes the money. I'd sure like to see one of these photos full size and with zero processing.

But, I guess I could always "duplicate" the results with my own 20D eh? ;)

[drisley]

Actually, what you see at full size does not represent what you see in print.
In fact Canon states that exactly (but I can't remember where I read this).
They say that to represent an 8x10 print, you should view an image onscreen from a 20D or 1DMKII at approx 33% I believe. Even the noisiest 20D image sized down to 33% will show no noise onscreen.

Btw, todays DSLR's have MUCH less noise than their film counterparts.
This is especially true of the 20D and 1DMKII which have the lowest noise profiles of any DSLR's to date. And Sports Illustrated has been shooting film at high ISO and using these images in their magazines, including on their covers for years! In fact, they now use the 1D and 1DMkII and they love how noise free the images are at high ISO, and they say it shows as their cover shots are crystal clear now compared to the days of film.

If it's good enough for the cover of SI, and think the noise levels are probably almost good enough for us :wink:

And RFM, that ISO800 image I posted above from the 300D is full size, and with zero processing. Why would you think it's not good enough for print? In fact, if anything, print shows less noise than you see onscreen.

[donlavange]

I agree! These shots with no flash are wonderful. So what is the recommendation for the second lens after the 20D arrives with the 17-85?

And what is the street price??

[defordphoto]

And RFM, that ISO800 image I posted above from the 300D is full size, and with zero processing. Why would you think it's not good enough for print? In fact, if anything, print shows less noise than you see onscreen.

Nothing I said in my post was related to your Drebel photos.

[tumb]

As stated above, the key is not to underexpose. After reading this post I realized that I am usually more likely to underexpose, so I tried both ways, it makes a big difference. I am learning a lot here, thanks...

[pcasciola]

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D. For web stuff its acceptable but not for magazine prints.

I have to agree with EE. These photos, as awesome as they look—resized—on a screen, it's the print that makes the money. I'd sure like to see one of these photos full size and with zero processing.

But, I guess I could always "duplicate" the results with my own 20D eh? ;)

Jim, are you also implying that the 1D Mk II high ISO images are not good enough for print?

I'm not looking to start another 20D vs 1D Mk II argument here, just curious as what you consider a low enough noise level for print, because the 20D is proven to have the same or less noise than a 1D Mk II at ISO 1600 and above.

[defordphoto]

Jim, are you also implying that the 1D Mk II high ISO images are not good enough for print?

I'm not looking to start another 20D vs 1D Mk II argument here, just curious as what you consider a low enough noise level for print, because the 20D is proven to have the same or less noise than a 1D Mk II at ISO 1600 and above.

I am not, have not and will not imply anything other than the facts I stated above. While there seems to be less "noise" on the 20D than any other Canon dSLR, it seems to come at the expense of some detail. While the jury is still out on this, I am still evaluating the results for my own use for my sports shooting for next season.

I am not a pixel-peeper. I shoot real-life. No rulers, etc. I like what I see in xtrpureguts' photos, but would like to play with a totally unadulterated version.

And yes, I can create my own 20D v. 1D MKII comparisons, but I just don't have the time.

I'm hoping you guys will hash all this out for me! ;)

[pcasciola]

Like I said, I'm not looking to start an argument, just to learn a little. I'm wondering if there is a particular noise level that is considered "good enough for print". Even though the 20D and 1D Mk II have relatively low noise levels at ISO 1600 and above, both may not be considered good enough for magazine print.

I just thought since you said you agreed with EE, and his statement was

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D

that no high ISO dSLR noise level is currently usable, and just wanted to see what your opinion was on a usable noise level, that's all.

[defordphoto]

I should have cut out the 400 ISO reference. 800 should be okay, but I have not used my 20D enough to offer an opinion. On the photos posted above there is significant noise in the background. Probably would not work for a glossy mag, but maybe for newsprint. Obviously they shine on the web. They are awesome photos and I am very impressed. That's why I'd like to see originals.

However, I can't and won't draw a line in the sand for acceptable ISO. So much depends on the subject, where it's being printed, etc. There are too many variables to say ISO 400/800 is okay, but 1600 is not. I regularly use several increments above between 400 and 800 on my MKII and have had no issues, or complaints from customers.

There are also several software packages that claim miracles (I've seen a few) for noise removal. A couple work well (don't ask as I do not use them) most do not.

[xtrpureguts]

First off, we won the 8th grade title going 5-0 in the Thanksgiving Tournament.
Second, thanks for the positive feedback. Got my Rebel last year for Christmas and have been working hard at following all your advice. My main point for initiating this post was to share my happiness with the results at high ISO from the 20D. To my untrained eye, the results are much better than I was getting in the same gyms earlier this year with the 300D. I post my shots on the web for the kids and parents. I print off my favorites and give them to the kids at the season ending dinners. Anyway, there's not to much pressure or complains when you are doing it for free.

I like what I see in xtrpureguts' photos, but would like to play with a totally unadulterated version.
RFM...Following are links to full size images. They were imported to my PC with the file viewer utility that came with the camera. These are pre crop, level, and USM adjustments.........Don
Image 2 - 1600 ISO
http://Pure-Action-Sports.smugmug.com/photos/11996803-O.jpg
Image 3 - 3200 ISO
http://Pure-Action-Sports.smugmug.com/photos/11996802-O.jpg

[kawter2]

can someone tell me what "p2" mode is..

thanks in advance

[pcasciola]

can someone tell me what "p2" mode is..

thanks in advance

P2 is Parameter 2, one of the default parameter sets on the 20D.

Parameter sets allow you to define and select custom levels of contrast/sharpness/saturation and color tone. Parameter 1 and Parameter 2 are the 20D presets and are commonly refered to as P1 and P2. There is also a B&W set and 3 other sets that you can customize yourself.

I typically use P2 (I believe this is the default), which has all the levels at 0, and I do all my post processing adjustments in Photoshop.

[defordphoto]

RFM...Following are links to full size images. They were imported to my PC with the file viewer utility that came with the camera. These are pre crop, level, and USM adjustments.........Don

Excellent. Thanks. I'll comment tomorrow evening.

[FlyingPete]

Well, the fastest film I have shot at has been 800ASA, the noise was visable even in 6x4's. From my experience the 20D blows this away, in my opinion at high ISO, the 20D is truly a film killer (at 35mm that is, lets leave medium and large format out of this, my Kodak box browny is capable of exceptional shots in the right conditions, however you are working with over four time the area of film!)

What is magazine quality? For sports I expect that a certain degree of noise is acceptable, but for other publishcations nothing short of 50ASA Velvia will do.

Anyway xtrpureguts shots would be very at home in any good sports mag, they are better quality than most I have seen in local publications! 10 out of 10!

[Canuck]

I don't find the quality of ISO 400 and upwards usable on the 20D. For web stuff its acceptable but not for magazine prints.

I have to agree with EE. These photos, as awesome as they look—resized—on a screen, it's the print that makes the money. I'd sure like to see one of these photos full size and with zero processing.

But, I guess I could always "duplicate" the results with my own 20D eh? ;)

Jim,
I was thinkng the exact same thing, you could do your own test...you have both cameras. :)

[Anders Östberg]

Why zero processing? You use all the tricks at your disposal, no?

[drisley]

And RFM, that ISO800 image I posted above from the 300D is full size, and with zero processing. Why would you think it's not good enough for print? In fact, if anything, print shows less noise than you see onscreen.

Nothing I said in my post was related to your Drebel photos.

You said you'd sure like to see "one of these" photos full size with zero processing, so yes your post was related to the Drebel photos (or if it wasnt, you didnt say that).

[drisley]

I should have cut out the 400 ISO reference. 800 should be okay, but I have not used my 20D enough to offer an opinion. On the photos posted above there is significant noise in the background. Probably would not work for a glossy mag, but maybe for newsprint.

So I guess the cover of Sports Illustrated doesnt qualify as a glossy mag, huh?
In fact, SI has been putting high ISO images from the old "noisy" 1D on the cover of their magazine. And before that they were using even noisier film.
The Sports Illustrated cover from last year's Super Bowl was in fact a shot taken at high ISO from the old 1D.
Saying there is too much noise for a magazine cover is pure nonsense

[Steven M. Anthony]

I just shot a bunch of photos on my 10D at ISO 1600 (RAW). Once you pull them through PS CS Camera Raw--with it's noise reduction capabilities--there is no problem printing 8X10s. No visible noise at all. I am very excited about this as when using PaintShop Pro (which has only moderate capabilities to handle noise after conversion), I had always resisted shooting at anything over ISO 200.

[drisley]

Sports Illustrated Digital Workflow (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821)

"For years [with film], we've been fighting a battle between sharpness and grain, especially in low-light shots. You try to sharpen and you just end up building more graininess. I'm amazed at the quality we're getting in low-light shots off our digital files. We're running [low-light pictures] up to two-page size that we could never have done before. Sometimes [digital] looks like it's underwater, a little bit too smooth. A strobed basketball game on a Hasselblad has a sharp line and a punch that digital doesn't have. But we don't have grain anymore. In really poorly lit situations, the ability to make a clean picture far outweighs the downside."

[tumb]

If I may, here's a 3200 shot after some "cleanup". Straight from the camera this was really ugly.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/mdwsr/AshleyFoyilSmall.jpg

Edit: I suppose it might be more valuable if I also include the original. Cropped and resized 60% from raw:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/mdwsr/AshleyFoyilSmRaw.jpg

[drisley]

That looks like the classic case of underexposure of a high ISO image, resulting in more noise than there should be.
Although, for ISO3200 it's not bad. And, that noise probably won't show up in print.
I have quite a few ISO3200 shots that look almost as clean as the ISO1600 shots posted above.

This picture was taken at ISO3200 and has NO noise reduction.
And despite what some think, it's NOT the 100% image that counts, it is in fact the final output, ie, the web output or the final print. This image printed at 8x10 is super clean.

http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/volley11122004/MG_3876.jpg

[tumb]

That looks like the classic case of underexposure of a high ISO image, resulting in more noise than there should be....snip

That's exactly right, at that point I was intentionally underexposing 1/3 to 2/3 stop, mainly to get my shutter speed as high as I could. I'm glad this thread came up, my daughter has a game tonight and I'm going to shoot some at normal exposure and see how they come out.

[drisley]

I was intentionally underexposing 1/3 to 2/3 stop, mainly to get my shutter speed as high as I could.
Ah yes. I think this is exactly what most people who complain about ISO noise are doing. They underexpose to get as high a shutter speed as possible. This is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want a clean image.
However, if you are more concerned about stopping the action, and the lighting is very low (it must be if you need to underexpose at ISO3200), then there is nothing wrong with that method. As you show Tumb, with today's excellent noise reduction software, even these underexposed shots can look excellent!
I think certain types of lighting, like some gymnasium lighting similar to your pictures above, tend to make the noise look more visible. Improper white balance can do this too.

[evilenglishman]

And despite what some think, it's NOT the 100% image that counts, it is in fact the final output, ie, the web output or the final print. This image printed at 8x10 is super clean.


That isn't true. What if the image needs to be cropped and/or enlarged - as is quite often the case?
Noisy pixels become bigger along with everything else.

Images taken over ISO 200 take on a dirty appearance.

This can be made to work for some images including sports etc, but not for fashion/glamour etc - unless its deliberately done and part of the quality of the final image.

[drisley]

And despite what some think, it's NOT the 100% image that counts, it is in fact the final output, ie, the web output or the final print. This image printed at 8x10 is super clean.


That isn't true. What if the image needs to be cropped and/or enlarged - as is quite often the case?
Noisy pixels become bigger along with everything else.

Images taken over ISO 200 take on a dirty appearance.

This can be made to work for some images including sports etc, but not for fashion/glamour etc - unless its deliberately done and part of the quality of the final image.

Actually, this is quote from Canon, so I would say it IS true.
They say that when you work on an image in editing (photoshop), you should not be looking at the 100% image with a 1DMKII, or 20D, but rather at the 25%-33% image to get a true idea what the image will look like in a large print. I read this on Canon's website, or a manual for their software just recently. I have to find it again.
If you crop an image, it's still not the 100% size viewed on your monitor that matters.
You say images above ISO200 take on a dirty appearance. I dont buy it.
Have a look at the 100% ISO800 image I posted above from the Drebel.
You can crop that all you want an there would still be no noise in print. There may be artifacting from lack of resolution, but that is about it.
I've heavily cropped and printed some ISO1600 hockey pictures I took this fall, and even at 8x10 there is no noticable noise.
Again, these DSLR's have MUCH less noise than their equivalent film counterparts. So what the heck have photographers been doing with prints above ISO200 all these years? Throwing them out?

[drisley]

To help put this to rest...
HERE IS AN IMAGE (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/print1600.jpg) that I scanned from a 5x7 matte print.
This image was taken with the 20D in raw ISO1600, converted, cropped about 66%, saved as a JPG, and sent off to the photo lab. NO NOISE REDUCTION.
This image was scanned at 300DPI and then resized to represent a 200% enlargement, 10x14. My scanner does not do this print justice. The real print is much nicer!
Do you see any noise? I dont see any noise. Just some fluff from my dirty scanner :lol:

[evilenglishman]

Of course that image is going to look better than the original as you have effectively scaled it to almost half size and then had it printed.

You have then scanned the 'good' print, in which the noise isn't so visible.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I think his point was that the "un-noise-reduced" shot was printed with no noticable noise...


I know my Sony 707 has a noise-reduction feature for long exposures: If, say, you take a 20 second exposure, after the image capture, the camera takes another 20 "image" without opening the shutter. Then any noise recorded from "image #2--and that is all that CAN be recorded in image #2) is subtracted from Image #1.

I wonder if the 20D does something like that.

[drisley]

Of course that image is going to look better than the original as you have effectively scaled it to almost half size and then had it printed.

You have then scanned the 'good' print, in which the noise isn't so visible.
?
I don't understand ?
That is an ISO1600 image printed at 5x7" and it shows no noise.
It's as simple as that. There was no scaling or other nonsense.
That IS the original! If I printed that at 8x10, which i have done with other ISO1600 prints, they show no noise either! And that is ALL that counts, the final output, which is the resized web output, and the final print.
Viewing an image at 100% in photoshop is not final output, and is good for nothing except pixel peeping.
I've shown that web sized images dont show noise, and now I've shown that the printed output shows no noise either. I'm not sure what else people want!?
But, if you want to see another 100% crop, here you go.
ISO1600, No Noise Reduction (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/iso1600_hockey.jpg).
I still don't see enough noise to ruin any sized print. :roll:

[evilenglishman]

?
I don't understand ?
That is an ISO1600 image printed at 5x7" and it shows no noise.
It's as simple as that. There was no scaling or other nonsense.

sorry my misuderstanding - I thought you had scaled a full image to fit a 5x7 print (roughtly 65%) as a 20D image is almost double the size of a 5x7 print.

If it works for you then its great, but the magazines I shoot for have said a definate no to anything above iso 200

[drisley]

EE, sorry I guess I wasn't clear.
I cropped 66% off the original image before I printed to get closer focus on the player, and to get proper proportions for 5x7.
Boy, those magazines are very picky IMHO... especially if Sports Illustrated can use high ISO images from the old, noisy 4Mpixel Canon 1D for their covers.
They do know you are using a Canon DSLR, and not just a point and shoot digicam, right? :wink: :lol:
Then again, what is acceptable for sports may not be acceptable for other types of print I guess.

BTW, sorry if I sounded a little snooty in the above posts. This holiday shopping stress is driving me nuts! :lol:

[Molydood]

There are also several software packages that claim miracles (I've seen a few) for noise removal. A couple work well (don't ask as I do not use them) most do not.

noise ninja is very impressive, it works very well indeed.

Martin

[drisley]

There are also several software packages that claim miracles (I've seen a few) for noise removal. A couple work well (don't ask as I do not use them) most do not.
noise ninja is very impressive, it works very well indeed.
Martin
I totally agree. Noise Ninja is my favourite!
It works so well at preserving detail, I see no reason not to use it.
I find I only need to use Ninja on ISO1600+ images that I accidentally underexposed.
Also, at the Raw level, the luminence and colour noise suppression in Adobe Camera Raw 2.3 work very well too.
I like using a luminance of 10, and colour suppression of 15 in ACR2.3 for higher ISO images. I find the default colour suppression of 25 isn't really needed, and increasing the luminance suppression seems to reduce noise the most without affecting detail.

[tumb]

Okay, these are not cleaned up, but I want to post to prove drisley's earler point. Both images are 1600:

Shot 1 overexposed 2/3 (resized only, very little noise):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/mdwsr/SalinaKans.jpg

Shot 2 underexposed 1/3, then brightened and resized in PS (you think this was a foul?):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/mdwsr/SalinaKans1.jpg

Note the noticably higher noise in shot 2, especially in the red doors in the background.

[defordphoto]

After further review and seeing/playing with xtrpureguts' photos first hand, the 20D freaking rocks. However, post processing at higher ISO's presents some challenges not usually present to the majority of us that shoot on the 100-800 zone.

I rarely shoot high ISO and that's why I joined this thread, to learn, which is progressing quite nicely. Sharing processing info for end results is what forums are all about.

xtrpureguts' photos clean up extremely easily while retaining enough information for staying sharp enough for both print and web display. I did some simple tweaks in PSCS to clean up some of the minor noise, USM'd and some other tweaks I use regularly and the 8x10 print on the Epson 2200 was quite impressive.

Magazine quality at this level is a breeze.

[evilenglishman]

Boy, those magazines are very picky IMHO... especially if Sports Illustrated can use high ISO images from the old, noisy 4Mpixel Canon 1D for their covers.
They do know you are using a Canon DSLR, and not just a point and shoot digicam, right? :wink: :lol:
Then again, what is acceptable for sports may not be acceptable for other types of print I guess.


For sports type photos higher iso noise may be acceptible because of so much varience of texture in an image. Grass etc.
I'm sure sports illustrated have used an occasional high iso image but I'll also bet it isn't the norm.

For fashion, beauty and glamour it isn't acceptable. Under extreme situations you can get away with ISO 200 but there is no way you can take it further. With a 1Ds you can, because of the file size you can scale an image down which supresses the noise to a certain extent.

You can also get away with high iso if the noise is a deliberate feature.

Do you think sports illustrated would use a high iso image on their swimsuit issue cover?