A question to those who think ISO800 and higher is "too noisey"

...haven't you owned a P&S before??

A few years ago when I thought it would be cool to buy a fancy camera I bough a Sony H5 superzoom. I beleive it was advertised to go up to ISO1000. I tried using it in low light (it has that steady shot built in) but trying to shoot and anything higher then ISO400 was disgusting! I realize there are a handful of P&S now that are "usable" at ISO800 but most just plain suck.

So when I traded the Sony in and got my Rebel Xti and started shooting at ISO1600 I thought "holy crap, this is incredible!" Yet there are so many people that pixel peep and say 'I don't like to shoot higher then ISO800" or whatever... What's the deal?

You know, it's too bad that someone hasn't invented noise reduction software. Just think - all you'd need to do is to run the program, and it would eliminate the noise in an image. Someone could even make the software so it runs as a plug-in for an image processing program. It might even be free for a basic version! If only noise reduction software existed, then no one would have to complain about image noise again.

You want to see noisy? Take a roll of T-Max 400, push it two stops, and process it in Rodinal. My Mark III at 6400 is clean as a whistle in comparison.

It all comes down to personal preferences. Shooting hockey in arenas lit worse than a medieval dungeon means I'm constantly at 3200 ISO. I learn to accept and/or deal with the noise because I have no choice. And coming from film, I can really appreciate just how clean the newer digital sensors are in comparison. In other words, I have no problem with the noise (and, if I do... well, just see DC's post above).

Regardless, there are still some who want to see squeaky clean images and because of that they're not inclined to shoot above 400 or 800 ISO. That's their choice. After all, it all comes down to personal preference.

It will look great compared to 5-year out of date high speed color film!

My 5D2's ISO1600 is the new ISO100 when it comes off the tripod.

Some people obsess over noise, some people obsess over sharpness, and both groups seem to only look at images at 100% pixel view (or even higher magnification). Any relatively-recent DSLR should be able to provide very clean images at ISO 800 and quite possibly higher if properly exposed. Relatively-clean doesn't mean perfect, but certainly usable. I'm probably in a minority these days because I actually like a little fine-grain noise in an image - it looks more "film-like" that way.

Its all a matter of what you find acceptable. Coming from a P&S you are getting better results than you've had before and you like it. For people who shoot landscapes locked onto a tripod at iso 50 the noise at 800 is unacceptable. I fall in the middle, i love that the noise is low compared to the grain I used to get working with film, but I still find the high iso performance of the dslr's I've tried to be kind of mediorce thus far.

In the days of film, people rarely got 20x enlargements from their 135 format camera, as 16x was generally considered to be the practical limit due to IQ limitations and grain magnification. Now people pixel peep at 100% (or more!) and complain about noise, not realizing that 100% crop view can really be equivalent to looking at a 60x enlargement from 12-18" away. 'Because I can' does not translate to 'what is correct to do'

Hey, I remember the first high ISO images I recorded with my 5D, amd the excitement I fealt about the capabilities of my new camera has not worn off. I can only imagine how much better the mkII is.

The graininess of a film image was something we were all used to, and although large format and better grades of film were available, the vast majority of us bought kodak 35mm and lived with graininess at 800 and higher. We are a much larger group now (all photographers) and the vast majority of us are using p and s cameras or crop sensor DSLR's in green box mode and are just fine with some loss of sharpness at higher ISO's, just like before.

maybe I am the wrong person to respond to this question cause I don't think anything better than a rebel g shooting ISO 800 with a push is anywhere near unacceptable.

Brikwall wrote in post #9516725
You want to see noisy? Take a roll of T-Max 400, push it two stops, and process it in Rodinal.

I've never pushed it, but T-Max 400 has rather nasty grain with normal development if you look at a 100% crop of a scan:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You're expecting us to believe that the photos above are from black and white TMax 400 ?!

Resolution and IQ matters a lot for non-photogs.

Even if the photog thinks its okay, once it gets passed to designers or pagination,
these little pixel peeping details needs to be considered. Of course its probably not going
to print on photo paper @ 240dpi, just because the photo isn't everything, type is.

When you put a photo @ 300dpi beside type @ 300dpi, you'll really noticed imperfections
in the IQ, just because type is so very clean and sharp.

ISO800 from a rebel looks pretty crappy in a standard 300dpi print product, that's for sure.

---

Despite what photogs think, for a standard print product @ 11x17 without cropping
you would need 16.83MP, every little pixel counts.

Not newspapers though, 200dpi is enough for that.

channel_49 wrote in post #9519219
Resolution and IQ matters a lot for non-photogs.

Even if the photog thinks its okay, once it gets passed to designers or pagination,
these little pixel peeping details needs to be considered. Of course its probably not going
to print on photo paper @ 240dpi, just because the photo isn't everything, type is.

When you put a photo @ 300dpi beside type @ 300dpi, you'll really noticed imperfections
in the IQ, just because type is so very clean and sharp.

ISO800 from a rebel looks pretty crappy in a standard 300dpi print product, that's for sure.

---

Despite what photogs think, for a standard print product @ 11x17 without cropping
you would need 16.83MP, every little pixel counts.

From what I've seen, few of the people obsessing about noise are producing images for professional publication, or if they are it's not obvious from their posts.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #9517357
It will look great compared to 5-year out of date high speed color film!

Think I have some of that lying around here somewhere - Fuji 1600 IIRC.

number six wrote in post #9519036
I've never pushed it, but T-Max 400 has rather nasty grain with normal development if you look at a 100% crop of a scan:

T-Max 100 is grainy on both the negative and a small print, never mind T-Max 400, and never mind a 1200 dpi to 4000 dpi scan (which will increase and accentuate the grain on even the least grainy of films). I've got 120-size Ilford 3200 that I'd swear has cleaner negs than 35mm T-Max 400.

Wilt wrote in post #9519185
You're expecting us to believe that the photos above are from black and white TMax 400 ?!

If they are, it sure has changed in the past few years! Maybe it's Kodak Royal Gold he's thinking about - that crap was pretty grainy.

channel_49 wrote in post #9519209
ISO800 from a rebel looks pretty crappy in a standard 300dpi print product, that's for sure.

I've printed ISO 1600 shots from a Rebel XT at 8x10 (regularly) and 11x14 (occasionally) without any issues. There are a number of ways to deal with the noise - I refer once again to DC's post above for one option - if you so desire. And let's not forget the fact that what you see on screen as a 100% crop is not entirely representative of what you get in the final print. That's why I judge the output based on Photoshop's "View Print Size" rather than "View Actual Size."

Anyway, in the end, it all still comes back to personal preference and how each of us determines/perceives acceptable quality in higher ISO images. As I said before, because I started with film, and because I regularly shoot at ISO 3200, I'm not as bothered by noise/grain as others might be. That's just me.

Brikwall wrote in post #9519482
I've printed ISO 1600 shots from a Rebel XT at 8x10 (regularly) and 11x14 (occasionally) without any issues. There are a number of ways to deal with the noise - I refer once again to DC's post above for one option - if you so desire. And let's not forget the fact that what you see on screen as a 100% crop is not entirely representative of what you get in the final print. That's why I judge the output based on Photoshop's "View Print Size" rather than "View Actual Size."

Anyway, in the end, it all still comes back to personal preference and how each of us determines/perceives acceptable quality in higher ISO images. As I said before, because I started with film, and because I regularly shoot at ISO 3200, I'm not as bothered by noise/grain as others might be. That's just me.

Well, I'm a designer, I print stuff literally 24/7, for me and most other
designers, it is certainly unacceptable even @ 800 ISO. Personal preference yes, but
client demands and requirements as well.

10.1MP without noise at all printing @ 11x14, is certain totally
unacceptable by professional printing standards.