high ISO for poor lighting

gives me heartburn. its not TERRIBLE but with my 5d3, shooting hockey i run wide open a f2.8, 1/800ss and 3200 ISO. id LIKE to cut the ISO though...

i put in some noise reduction and a touch of sharpening already and they dont look horrible for how their used but im wondering...

could i shoot with a lower ISO with the resultant underexposure (keeping the SS/f. the same) and then pull up the exposure and shadows in post without having manifest noise...

Your likely to get more noise but run a few experiments and judge for yourself. Generally you'll get better results shooting at a higher ISO, over exposing a bit and then pull it back.

gjl711 wrote in post #18976086
Your likely to get more noise but run a few experiments and judge for yourself. Generally you'll get better results shooting at a higher ISO, over exposing a bit and then pull it back.

+1 on what he said.
I've tried that with the shadow detail on landscapes with my 5D3 as well as huge group portraits where the light fell off on the edges and I just ended up introducing noise in the muddy areas. But you might hit on the right combo so I wouldn't discourage your efforts.

Ltdave wrote in post #18976042
could i shoot with a lower ISO with the resultant underexposure (keeping the SS/f. the same) and then pull up the exposure and shadows in post without having manifest noise...

You could, but the noise would be worse.

You are shooting RAW, aren't you?

We all have different ideas about what level of noise is acceptable, but I find my 5D3 produces good images at much higher ISO than you're using, though it did take me a while to figure out what ACR settings work best for MY eye.

Ltdave wrote in post #18976042
gives me heartburn. its not TERRIBLE but with my 5d3, shooting hockey i run wide open a f2.8, 1/800ss and 3200 ISO. id LIKE to cut the ISO though...

i put in some noise reduction and a touch of sharpening already and they dont look horrible for how their used but im wondering...

could i shoot with a lower ISO with the resultant underexposure (keeping the SS/f. the same) and then pull up the exposure and shadows in post without having manifest noise...

<Emphasis added.>

Stop that!

You're shooting indoor sports. Lighting sucks. With the 5DMkIII I was shooting night time soccer at f/5.6 with roughly the same exposure value, maybe a half stop less (1/500s and ISO 12,800). It did fine! Now with the 5DMkIV I'm shooting f/5.6, 1/1000s, and ISO 32,000. Is there noise? Sure. Am I freezing great action? You bet!

You're going to get noise when you shoot indoor or night time sports. It's inevitable. The better the action, the less others would care about any noise.

Here's an option. Shoot jpeg. I'm serious. While RAW vs jpeg is a religion in itself, pros who must get photos out *now* don't have time to post process. In-camera processing can be quite good, assuming you're hitting your exposure correctly. I had a couple week long events where I shot during the day and night with the MkIII and uploaded the next morning. Shooting jpeg was the only way to get it done in time, and the photos were fine.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18976224
You are shooting RAW, aren't you?

We all have different ideas about what level of noise is acceptable, but I find my 5D3 produces good images at much higher ISO than you're using, though it did take me a while to figure out what ACR settings work best for MY eye.

yeah, shooting RAW. i used to shoot jpeg but i just had all manner of other issues with my 7D so had to let that one go to a guy who was going to be outdoors in bright sunlight most of the time. the 5d3 does have good images, maybe i need to stop looking at them at 1:1 in LR?

mathogre wrote in post #18976226
<Emphasis added.>

Stop that!

You're shooting indoor sports. Lighting sucks. With the 5DMkIII I was shooting night time soccer at f/5.6 with roughly the same exposure value, maybe a half stop less (1/500s and ISO 12,800). It did fine! Now with the 5DMkIV I'm shooting f/5.6, 1/1000s, and ISO 32,000. Is there noise? Sure. Am I freezing great action? You bet!

You're going to get noise when you shoot indoor or night time sports. It's inevitable. The better the action, the less others would care about any noise.

Here's an option. Shoot jpeg. I'm serious. While RAW vs jpeg is a religion in itself, pros who must get photos out *now* don't have time to post process. In-camera processing can be quite good, assuming you're hitting your exposure correctly. I had a couple week long events where I shot during the day and night with the MkIII and uploaded the next morning. Shooting jpeg was the only way to get it done in time, and the photos were fine.

yeah, and ive been doing it for better part of a decade...

most of my football ends up being 1/800 f2.8 and 12,800 (is that right? or is it 12,600? regardless...) and deal with it...

for what is expected, i could get away with jpeg, off color, blurred motion shots and still be golden. i like to have the ability to fix (more than just marginally) shadows and blacks to clean things up...

thanks for the responses!

Just remember that Canon changed their jpg engine in the cameras at some point to be much better. The 7d was on the old engine.

I'll take high ISO over slower shutter speeds any day. Getting the shot is primary. You can fix noise but you can't fix blurry.

I was maxed out on this game. 7D in 2009, I think. F4 lens, ISO 12,800 and I was getting only 1/500 or less. Motion blur in the feet and hands. Some said that added to the effect but it wasn't what I wanted. I learned the meaning of a fast lens that night.

The original 7d or the 7d mk II?

What PP software do you use?

tmwhitm wrote in post #18976423
The original 7d or the 7d mk II?

Original 7D.

tmwhitm wrote in post #18976424
What PP software do you use?

PS. I wasn't using LR back then but it is the same thing. There are a few AI noise reduction plug-in/stand alone software out there these days that may help you.

First file is no NR. 2nd. You apply chrominance or colour noise unit the blotchiness goes away. No need to apply anymore when that is achieved as yo can start to alter colour.

Then you apply Luminance to get rid of the noise followed by careful capture and export sharpening. I may have applied some creative or local sharpening around the face. All work tougher and you have it balance them all. As you can see Luminance NR decreases sharpening. It will never be a poster but 8 by 10's were fine.

digital paradise wrote in post #18976432
Then you apply Luminance to get rid of the noise followed by careful capture and export sharpening. I may have applied some creative or local sharpening around the face. All work tougher and you have it balance them all. As you can see Luminance NR decreases sharpening. It will never be a poster but 8 by 10's were fine.

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=189​76432&i=i85042213
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

VERY nicely processed. Patience and knowledge can go a long way in low light.