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

Personal preference does, of course, include whatever industry standards and client demands that must also be met.

Just out of curiousity, what are you referring to when you say "professional printing standards?" What type of product/market or you designing for? And are you referring to "in general" or "ideal" situations when you say that 10.1MP without noise printing at 11x14 is "totally unacceptable."

I'm not trying to argue or to discount what you've written - I'm neither a designer nor do I work in the printing industry. However, I do find a blanket statement that "10.1MP without noise at all printing @ 11x14, is certain totally unacceptable by professional printing standards" to be a bit of a stretch. I think "less than ideal" might be more realistic.

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

Oops. Kodak Max 400. Or maybe it was Royal Gold. Sorry!

I took the Nikon F and the 300D on a ride to do some comparison shots. No contest.

-js

number six wrote in post #9519958
Oops. Kodak Max 400. Or maybe it was Royal Gold. Sorry!

Besides, T Max grain is not so apparent!

stsva wrote in post #9517484
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.

I obsess over lousy lighting and crappy composition. Shot at ISO 3200-6400 with my 5DmkII yesterday in a dim auditorium. Photos (on the monitor) looks good to me Let's see if I have the guts to print them.

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. 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.

Ding, ding, ding!!! I am coming to think that most of the squawking about noise in high-ISO images comes from those who've never had the pleasure of shooting on old-fashioned film. Back in "the day" I shot too many rolls of pushed Tri-X to even estimate today. The grain was a fact of life, period. And there was no NR solution to post-process it away. You just had to live with it, or not shoot at all. Most of the time, I'd say 2-stop pushed Tri-X was every bit as "bad" (or "noisy") as my G10 is at 800-1600 ISO. At least now I have the option of trying to PP the noise away.

I feel bad for the people who limit themselves on ISO (versus taking the shot). I printed an ISO 12,800 shot on my t1i (which is pretty horrible on-screen) into a 5x7 and it looked GREAT.

I push the ISO to whatever I need to get the shot. Sure, it may be noisy but its better then no image at all, any day. With noise removal software now, I can clean it up so well it gives me peace of mind.

I think the people who limit themselves that much are just crazy pixel-peepers... Normally, most noise doesn't show up on prints, nor that noticeable once resized for the web.

Brikwall wrote in post #9519935
Personal preference does, of course, include whatever industry standards and client demands that must also be met.

Just out of curiousity, what are you referring to when you say "professional printing standards?" What type of product/market or you designing for? And are you referring to "in general" or "ideal" situations when you say that 10.1MP without noise printing at 11x14 is "totally unacceptable."

I'm not trying to argue or to discount what you've written - I'm neither a designer nor do I work in the printing industry. However, I do find a blanket statement that "10.1MP without noise at all printing @ 11x14, is certain totally unacceptable by professional printing standards" to be a bit of a stretch. I think "less than ideal" might be more realistic.

Meaning simple, if I were to put that in any print product, by product I mean
commercial product that sells by mass, not a family coffee table book, it would be
required to 300dpi, that is simply the minimum you would print at for any commercial
product. Industry standard you can call it. Of course it doesn't entitle things like large
posters, since those aren't meant to be viewed up close.

Good examples would be books, magazines, packaging, etc.

Printing 11x14 @ 300dpi would then require close to 14MP, before trimming, if you were
to use an original image smaller than that, you would have to interpolate it. Interpolation
is really something to be avoided, and only done when there is absolutely no other choice.
Even the best interpolation can be caught by a good eye.

Anyways, personal preference is for personal work. Commercial work needs to follow
the technical specs of the client and most importantly the printer. Even smaller non-press
printers who print for individuals have 300dpi requirements, just because at 300dpi,
the human eye cannot see any image imperfections.

By general I mean print in general, it is a standard and requirement, only if there's
no other choice you would go with a smaller image and interpolate, but that only happens
in newspapers. Magazine and books have choices since the deadline isn't the next day,
they'll just choose another photo.

channel_49- you have valid points about noise and PROFESSIONAL printing, however most people that I read saying "I never go past ISO400" have Rebels or 50ds and are hobbyists. Not saying that Rebels are worse (I can't tell any IQ difference from it and my 30D) but a "professional" would likely be using a 1D series or 5D minimum. There are many, many wedding photogs shooting with xxD cameras and pushing the ISOs to their limits, so why would the average person care so much? (I think they are not exposing properly, or do not know how to handle the noise with software). Personally I am not too fussy and at ISO800-1600 using the tools in LR is good enough for me. I have not ventured into ISO3200+ territory much yet because I have been limited with ISO1600 on the XTi for the most part. As long as I have adequate detail in my images, I am happy.

channel_49 wrote in post #9520233
Meaning simple, if I were to put that in any print product, by product I mean commercial product that sells by mass, not a family coffee table book, it would be required to 300dpi, that is simply the minimum you would print at for any commercial product. Industry standard you can call it. Of course it doesn't entitle things like large posters, since those aren't meant to be viewed up close.

Good examples would be books, magazines, packaging, etc.

< Snip >

By general I mean print in general, it is a standard and requirement, only if there's
no other choice you would go with a smaller image and interpolate, but that only happens in newspapers. Magazine and books have choices since the deadline isn't the next day, they'll just choose another photo.

Okay, I can understand most of that. Especially the 300 dpi requirement. No problem. I can understand certain standards, and I can understand attempting to meet those standards whenever practicable.

But I can't accept that whatever doesn't meet those standards simply doesn't get printed because it falls short of the "ideal." So while I understand designers or printers or certain clients "requesting" low ISO, high MP shots at 300 dpi, I know there are times when you have to accept much lower standards (less MP and high ISO) because, if not, you simply wouldn't have any images in the first place.

I was just troubled by what appeared to be a "this way or the highway" type of statement that I knew wouldn't always fly in reality. There are a lot of grey areas where ideals and set standards just don't work. That's one reason why we have high ISO films and sensor capabilities - because ISO 50 doesn't always cut it. Sometimes it's more important just to get the shot even if it's not squeaky clean and picture perfect (pardon the pun), and even if the designers and printers find it a little less than ideal.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

Brikwall wrote in post #9521516
Okay, I can understand most of that. Especially the 300 dpi requirement. No problem. I can understand certain standards, and I can understand attempting to meet those standards whenever practicable.

But I can't accept that whatever doesn't meet those standards simply doesn't get printed because it falls short of the "ideal." So while I understand designers or printers or certain clients "requesting" low ISO, high MP shots at 300 dpi, I know there are times when you have to accept much lower standards (less MP and high ISO) because, if not, you simply wouldn't have any images in the first place.

I was just troubled by what appeared to be a "this way or the highway" type of statement that I knew wouldn't always fly in reality. There are a lot of grey areas where ideals and set standards just don't work. That's one reason why we have high ISO films and sensor capabilities - because ISO 50 doesn't always cut it. Sometimes it's more important just to get the shot even if it's not squeaky clean and picture perfect (pardon the pun), and even if the designers and printers find it a little less than ideal.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

Well, lets use a practical example. An art director won't use a shot that's less than
the quality of another shot. If there's no other choice, there's always the option to reshoot.
Basically, design is kind of an elitist and perfection type of profession, you know what
a common phrase a lot of designers call "bad design"... that's advertising, not design.

When I print a photo with not "optimal" quality, you know what the art director says?
"Why is this photo so bad quality".

I'm just saying, even aside from quality, when a shot is "not good" to the art director,
they will just not use it, I've seen it happen all the time. Sure, there are designers
who aren't elitists, but by definition that would make them not good designers, because
good design requires a very critical mind, to a point where you will always be critical
of your own work, its never good enough, and never will be.

You know designers nit pick about spaces between two letters right? We call that
kerning. If it not the right distance, it won't look as good, and legible.

---

But like what other two people pointed out, this is all professional design
standards. Doesn't quite apply to non-design work anyways.

Chairman approves of this message.

Invertalon wrote in post #9520215
I feel bad for the people who limit themselves on ISO (versus taking the shot). I printed an ISO 12,800 shot on my t1i (which is pretty horrible on-screen) into a 5x7 and it looked GREAT.

I push the ISO to whatever I need to get the shot. Sure, it may be noisy but its better then no image at all, any day. With noise removal software now, I can clean it up so well it gives me peace of mind.

I think the people who limit themselves that much are just crazy pixel-peepers... Normally, most noise doesn't show up on prints, nor that noticeable once resized for the web.

oaktree wrote in post #9520101
I obsess over lousy lighting and crappy composition.* * *

From where I sit, that's a GOOD obsession!

channel_49 wrote in post #9524893
Well, lets use a practical example. An art director won't use a shot that's less than
the quality of another shot. If there's no other choice, there's always the option to reshoot.
Basically, design is kind of an elitist and perfection type of profession, you know what
a common phrase a lot of designers call "bad design"... that's advertising, not design.

When I print a photo with not "optimal" quality, you know what the art director says?
"Why is this photo so bad quality".

I'm just saying, even aside from quality, when a shot is "not good" to the art director,
they will just not use it, I've seen it happen all the time. Sure, there are designers
who aren't elitists, but by definition that would make them not good designers, because
good design requires a very critical mind, to a point where you will always be critical
of your own work, its never good enough, and never will be.

You know designers nit pick about spaces between two letters right? We call that
kerning. If it not the right distance, it won't look as good, and legible.

---

But like what other two people pointed out, this is all professional design
standards. Doesn't quite apply to non-design work anyways.

I second everything channel_49 is saying. As a former creative director at a small advertising shop, I can say with utmost certainty that I would never put an image in front of a client that looked even remotely noisey, even if I considered it 100% acceptable for my personal use. The standards are just that much higher when you're talking about commercial print applications.

I think what the OP is getting at is hobbyists obsessing over noise, not professionals comissioned to do an advertising shoot. The pro (most likely) would be using a 1series body or a 45mp medium format back.

There are obviously different standards for print, wedding client, and personal use.

PMCphotography wrote in post #9527225
I think what the OP is getting at is hobbyists obsessing over noise, not professionals comissioned to do an advertising shoot. The pro (most likely) would be using a 1series body or a 45mp medium format back.

There are obviously different standards for print, wedding client, and personal use.

I'm perfectly aware of what the OP was getting at... my response was directed towards the discussion between brikwall and channel_49 about "professional standards". But yes, you're exactly right...different strokes for different folks/jobs/clients.