50D - 640 ISO not acceptable at all (sample images provided)

I often see people say that they use 800 ISO, or 1600 ISO, or even higher, on their 1.6 crop sensor Canon DSLRs. They always say how noise is not a problem. Once here on POTN, when I said I do not shoot over 400 ISO, people challenged me on that, and one guy even told me I need to "step out of my comfort zone", and that I would be pleasantly surprised with the (excellent) results at higher ISOs.

Well, I just downloaded a bunch of images I took of Whitetail Deer back in November. I found that there were a day's worth of images I took at 640 ISO. Yikes! I must have accidentally switched it up from 400 ISO without realizing I had done so. I thought, "well, this is my chance to see how it will perform at higher ISO".

Unfortunately, what I found was a disaster. The images are ok at first glance, or when not looking at them closely. But, before I submit images for sale to publications, I need to view them at full size to make sure that what I am submitting will visually hold up to the high IQ standards that many publishers and stock houses have. What I saw was not pretty

In fact, the noise grain was so bad that I will not be able to sell any of the images from that day. Using a bit higher ISO (albeit inadvertently) turned out to be a horrible mistake on my part!

The times one needs higher ISO is when there is not enough light to shoot something in an ideal way. And, my 640 ISO images reveal that the times when I needed the high ISO the most were exactly the times when the grain was the worst. Sure, one can shoot to the right and get away with higher ISO. But if you have enough shutter speed to shoot to the right, then you don't need the ISO, so going that route is kind of pointless.

Attached is one of the 640 ISO images. First, the full image, then a 100% crop. I find the grain to be atrocious. In fact, the grain kept the sensor from being able to sharply resolve all of the hairs around the deer's eye. So, because the detail was never properly resolved, cleaning up the grain with noise reduction is not viable, because I still wouldn't have each and every hair sharply resolved. Basically, a useless image that could have been a keeper if I had shot it at 400 ISO instead.

Here is an example of what a similarly framed image is supposed to look like when cropped to 100%. Shot, of course, at 400 ISO.

That first shot looks underexposed to me.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15577412
I often see people say that they use 800 ISO, or 1600 ISO, or even higher, on their 1.6 crop sensor Canon DSLRs. They always say how noise is not a problem. Once here on POTN, when I said I do not shoot over 400 ISO, people challenged me on that, and one guy even told me I need to "step out of my comfort zone", and that I would be pleasantly surprised with the (excellent) results at higher ISOs.

Unfortunately, what I found was a disaster.

the reason people say noise is not a problem with ISO 1600 on a crop because ...... they don't underexpose !


XSi (450D)

ISO 1600

That looks like chroma noise mostly.
Quick, download a trial of Capture One 7 and reprocess them, it does a bang up job of NR, and I do hope that you shot Raw. That shot is totally salvageable.

Did you have to increase the exposure at all in post processing? Even with my 40D, I'm not at all shy about using up to ISO 1600. Granted, going that high does require some degree of noise reduction in post, but assuming I expose properly, the images are still very usable even at full resolution. Obviously, you want to use the lowest ISO possible to get a properly exposed shot with the shutter speed and aperturer you require. For wildlife photography, I'd certainly see that putting you up above 400 ISO on a fairly regular basis with most of the wildlife activity occuring around dawn/dusk. I'd definitely try a few more experiments to see if you can get to the root cause of the problem. Just relegating yourself to 400 ISO doesn't seem like a very good solution in your particular situation. As Kolor-Pikker said, the image is pretty salvageable with some chroma noise reduction, but as you said, it's already a tad soft, and noise reduction is only going to make that worse. Of course, depending on how large this will be printed, that may not be noticable at all.

It looks like you tried to pull the shadows too much? I always try to expose to the right by ~+2/3 stop which reduces noise greatly.

If you don't nail exposure there is going to be noise even on a 1dx.

If it is especially under exposed, I'd try to output a Raw with zero NR or sharpening enabled, do a NR pass in Photoshop using something like Neat Image or Dfine, and then adjust the exposure level, and finally sharpen. With careful processing, you wouldn't believe what is possible to save with minimal image degradation.

If you don't believe me, send me a Raw, and I'll show you a magic trick.

How large were you planning to print these? It's unlikely the noise will be visible unless you're printing it several feet wide.

Wow im so glad i stumbled accross this! I didnt know about overexposing to limit noise when shooting with high iso..i cant wait to try!

JoYork wrote in post #15579136
How large were you planning to print these? It's unlikely the noise will be visible unless you're printing it several feet wide.

I have no intentions of printing these. Rather, I market my images to publishers. Therefore, the images must withstand very close scrutiny. If someone else's deer photo is cleaner than mine, they get the sale, and I lose out.

This isn't just about me and what I am pleased with. I need to make a living off this stuff. I really do believe gear can make a difference - friends of mine shoot with 1D mark 4s and with 1Dx bodies. They can shoot at 1600 ISO, underexpose by 2/3 of a stop or a full stop, and still get a nice clean file. I can't.

By the way, the folks I sell my images to have strict rules in their submission guidelines that say that nose reduction is not allowed. They want unedited files. So cleaning it up with NR is not an option. Plus, just cleaning it up won't magically put good sharp hair detail there - the noise grain "stole" that, and if it is not captured in the first place, there is no way to put it there.

IslandCrow wrote in post #15578873
Did you have to increase the exposure at all in post processing?

Unfortunately, I am not allowed to pull the exposure, if I plan on submitting the images. Many publisher's submission guidelines clearly state that they will only accept unedited files. That means no photoshop, no exposure adjustments, no noise reduction . . . no fixing. It's got to be excellent right out of the camera, and for me, the 50D is really struggling in this department when it comes to low-light work.

I just grow tired of reading all the comments on this forum about high ISOs giving "great" results on 1.6 crop sensor cameras. Well, they don't give me the results I must have for my needs.

In good light they might produce acceptable results . . . but if there's good light, you don't need high ISO - so what's the point.

If you can expose to the right they might give decent results . . . but if you expose to the right, then either shutter speed or aperture is going to suffer. So again, what is the point? The reason one uses high ISO is because they desperately need to maintain a high shutter speed, and are usually already at their widest aperture.

If one is able to use noise reduction in post processing, maybe high ISO can give good results . . . but some of us are not permitted to use any noise reduction, as per submission guidelines.

If shooting in controlled conditions, maybe high ISO can produce results . . . but some of us shoot outdoors using only ambient light. We can't be dragging lighting equipment around with us. The wild animals we photograph are spooky enough as it is - try to take an extra second or two to set up a light, and you've missed the shot.

High ISO will not work for every photographer's needs. Some of us need to eek an income out of image sales, and cannot afford the latest and greatest camera body. For us who fit this category, high ISO is not acceptable. There isn't always an acceptable work-around.

I think you need to just start over exposing slightly, controlling for blown highlights in your subject. Then you can reduce exposure in post and claim that you haven't done any pixel editing.

This guy does some amazing stuff with a 50D at 1600 ISO: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=13808624#po​st13808624

I think when you are not shooting with the latest and greatest, you need to take some extra care to get comparable results.

^^^
Yeah, sports are easy to shoot at higher ISO, because the subjects are not covered with extremely fine detail. I used to shoot some basketball and football for the local newspaper, and it was no problem to shoot at high ISOs and use NR to clean things up.

But with wildlife, it's different. I think it is the extremely fine hair and feather detail that suffers most when going over 400 ISO. The things I shoot are made up entirely of extremely fine detail - that's what makes it tougher to get away with high ISO when shooting hair-covered mammals and feather-covered birds.

I've shot alongside some of the world's best wildlife photographers, and they have said that they've tried Canon's 1.6 crop bodies, but just could not accept the noise grain. If these bodies are not good enough for them, and they are who I am competing against for image sales, can you at least understand my frustration with the ISO issue?

I do appreciate the people who are trying to help by offering suggestions - but I didn't start this thread with the hopes of finding a solution. I just wanted to make the point that sometimes, the equipment simply isn't good enough for certain situations, and there are no solutions, other than to get a much more expensive body

S.Johnsen wrote in post #15579253
Wow im so glad i stumbled accross this! I didnt know about overexposing to limit noise when shooting with high iso..i cant wait to try!

Yeah, nice tip, I suppose.

But, cranking up the ISO is usually my last resort in getting proper exposure. If I'm increasing the ISO then I've probably maxed out aperature and shutter settings already. So, I can't overexpose so easily.