gymnastics practice, iso 3200

[jdando]

Trying to get ready for the upcoming season and shot a practice. I tried ISO 3200 to get a decent shutter speed, but I am dissapointed with the results compared to what others have posted.

I did not do a custom white balance so the colors are off. Suggestions for shooting and post processing needed!

#1 No noise reduction

#2 Noiseware noise reduction

EXIF should be intact

[JEFF 1D]

Hey Jeremy
well Gymnastics is hard to start off with. what camera do you have? there is no way you can get a good clean shot at 3200, you need a 70-200 2.8 L lens at least..
What Gym are you with? I am in the area and have shot this a few times.
Let me know..

[Borderfox]

A lot of that noise wont show up when you print or resize them though

[GBRandy]

Originally Posted by JEFF 1D

There is no way you can get a good clean shot at 3200

Well, that's not really true. There are numerous examples on the sports pages of clean ISO 3200 images. Of course an MKIII would help It just takes some pretty insane technique and PP to get there.

Jeremy...you have your PM response. ...and shooting with someone else is always a good thing. Especially when tackling the harder venues. Take him up on the offer.

ISO 3200:


ISO 3200:

[jklinksi]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems that he wouldn't necessarily need to be shooting at 3200. Even in the darkest of dungeons, at f/1.6, you should have no problem getting the action stopped using a 1600 ISO. I generally shoot for a SS around 640 and that usually gets it pretty crispy with not so much noise. I hate noise, and I hate PP even worse! So, I'm working on learning the 'crazy insane' technique that GBRandy speaks of. Best of luck, and keep shooting and posting! You're making all of us better!

Jklinksi

[GBRandy]

Originally Posted by jklinksi

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems that he wouldn't necessarily need to be shooting at 3200. Even in the darkest of dungeons, at f/1.6, you should have no problem getting the action stopped using a 1600 ISO. I generally shoot for a SS around 640 and that usually gets it pretty crispy with not so much noise. I hate noise, and I hate PP even worse! So, I'm working on learning the 'crazy insane' technique that GBRandy speaks of. Best of luck, and keep shooting and posting! You're making all of us better!

Jklinksi

I have been in gyms where ISO 3200 at f1.2 is 1/400. Ick. I try and keep a min of 1/400 with 1/640 preferred of I can get there. Some gyms I just skip shooting certain events.

The biggest problem is at f1.2, or even f1.6, the DOF is so shallow, the number of keepers is pretty low.

Crazy insane PP = this:

I shoot all RAW and overexpose by 1/3 stop.
I bring the shots into DPP and sort by ISO.
I next run the Canon noise reduction based on the ISO and export as Jpgs
I import the Jpgs to Aperture & cull.
I adjust WB on each event as they are usually held in different rooms.
If necessary, I add noise ninja profiles I have built for that specific gym / room or build a new one for ISO 1600 & ISO 3200.
Sharpen & crop
Post to the web or print.

See....easy. And I have forgotten how many different recipes I have tried over the years to get to this one. I am surethere is a better technique out there...I am still learning and looking.

BTW. There are numnerous reaosns to shoot RAW.....the most important is the fact that I can now go back to level 4 - 6 and apply this conversion technique to images I took years ago when I had even less of a clue on what I was doing.

[jklinksi]

GBRandy,

Why not skip the first 3 steps and import directly into aperture and then sort? I think it does all of that for you and it's really easy to create multiple versions based on your RAW. I find it's the best way of organizing my pix too. I'm not trying to "step" to the crazy insane method! But I thought that might take some of the crazy insanity out of it!!!

[GBRandy]

Originally Posted by jklinksi

GBRandy,

Why not skip the first 3 steps and import directly into aperture and then sort? I think it does all of that for you and it's really easy to create multiple versions based on your RAW. I find it's the best way of organizing my pix too. I'm not trying to "step" to the crazy insane method! But I thought that might take some of the crazy insanity out of it!!!

Well, I have gone through and dropped into Aperture first...sorted and culled. Then delete files...then delete previews....then go to my first step and start again....

It does remove the unwanted base raw files and as a result will not create unneeded Jpgs or sidecar files....saves space, but a pain in the butt too

Edit...I just re-read your note....are you suggesting I just shoot jpg's then?

[jklinksi]

Edit...I just re-read your note....are you suggesting I just shoot jpg's then?[/quote]

I'm pretty crazy... but not THAT CRAZY!!! I would never shoot in JPG unless I had to (which is unfortunately my current situation)!!!

I guess I didn't realize that Aperture got rid of the RAW files. I thought it just kept them in the background and based all of your working images off of the original. Then when you export it turns them into JPGS, TIFFS, etc. That would be important to know I guess!

I find the sorting and deleting thing very easy on Aperture. When I am importing I start flying through them and rating them. I can almost keep up with them as they import! I use the / for marking the rejects and then when I'm finished I just go empty the reject folder. Empty my trash can and then I've just freed up lots of space on the ol' computer. I'm always interested in finding better, more efficient ways to improve work flow so I would be happy to hear any suggestions. My bro works at Apple HQ so I sort of made Aperture work for myself because it was dirt cheap!

jklinksi

[GBRandy]

Aperture does not get rid of RAW files...I explained myself very poorly. Sorry about that.

In fact one of the key advantages of Aperture and Lighrtoom is the fact that they do not really "touch" your RAW files, the create a "sidecar" file with your edits and overlay them on top of the RAW file. Delete the edits and no change is ever done to the Image file...excellent stuff.

The file directories on my method create a lot of files....I keep the hard RAW files in a separate directory. These are edited for Canon Noise and then exported as JPG's to a separate directory...that directory is then imported into Aperture...so in effect I am not bringing my gymnastics files into Aperture as RAW....follow?

I do however, use Aperture for RAW conversion on other images...just not the high ISO ones....

[jklinksi]

Aaah! I think I'm finally getting it! My apologies if we're hijacking, but I was trying to figure out where the benefit was and I think I get it. The noise filter in Aperture is not so hot and in order to get the noise filtered adequately you go through another program before getting to Aperture. If I'm wrong just kick me and tell me to let it go!

I recently did some work with NN and was fairly disappointed in how 'fake' the pictures ended up looking. Plastic limbs and the such. I was sufficiently impressed enough with Aperture 2's improvements in the noise department that I didn't end up purchasing NN (even though you can use it inside aperture). God I'm starting to sound like my brother the pitchman!!! Someboday stop my plugging!

JKlinksi

[GBRandy]

Yes....you are correct. DPP does a very good first cut. I do this on the computer because I can reverse the effect if something is out of synch...letting the camera do it commits you to the result on the spot.

Apertures noise removal is awful....and that includes version #2.

NN needs to be dialed way down or you get the barbie doll plastic everything look. It is why I have specific profiles for each location....it takes a long time to get the NN setting in a place where it makes the background right without destroying the details in the gymnast. I have the plug in for Aperture this year and it is pretty sweet.

For the record...and you can tell your brother this......Mac's are WAY overrated.

[jdando]

Originally Posted by jklinksi

...My apologies if we're hijacking, but I was trying to figure out where the benefit was and I think I get it. .....JKlinksi

Nope, not a hijack. It is interesting to learn how others post process. I think that is probably 50% of making a decent image at these difficult conditions.

Looking forward I am thinking of increasing my fstop to 2-2.8, lowering shutter speed to 1/500 and keeping ISO at 3200. I will keep you posted with the results.

[jklinksi]

For the record...and you can tell your brother this......Mac's are WAY overrated.[/quote]

I tell him that nearly everyday! But it's far more polite than the words that I spew forth when using a Windows PC!!!

My iMac nearly got chucked out the back door 2 nights ago when it didn't feel like running ANY program!

I've never really given DPP a chance... I'll have to look into that!

jdando- I'd be very interested in how that turns out, please do keep us posted.

[bwolford]

My work flow is similar to Randy's. I start with DPP to adjust the raw files without destroying the original. I also apply it's noise reduction, but the results are usually less than spectacular. I use Neat Image, instead of NN. I rarely get the quality of image Randy is showing at 3200, even at 1600. I must be missing something.

Oh, I know what it is, skills. I'd be curious to see what someone could do with one of my 1600 images. Any takers? I'd just like to know, with detail, how you cleaned it up.