Frustrated...

monchee10

Ok, so Friday night I was on assignment covering the local high school football game, and when I uploaded the photos I was disappointed. The photo below is an example. The noise is out of control, and I am seeking advice on what I can do to reduce the amount of noise in my images.



I am shooting with a D200, a borrowed 80-200 f2.8.

Camera settings; ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/200

Exposure, sharpness, and noise adjustment in PSE 6.0

cecilc

monchee10 wrote:

... and I am seeking advice on what I can do to reduce the amount of noise in my images.

This is just my opinion, but there's really only one thing you can do .... (well, short of getting a body that'll shoot at ISO 6400 or something!).

And that's to get your ISO down to an acceptable level that will reduce the noise in your images .... Now, when you do that, your exposures will be even darker than they are now - so you'll need to use a flash to compensate for that ...





(As a side note: I know these images have a bit of red-eye in them ... I was using these same images in another thread on another forum to illustrate that red-eye exists and how to deal with it ... so pardon the red-eye in these shots)

Now, I know many people don't like to use flash for football ... and it's a personal call on whether you use a flash or not. BUT .... if you're trying to 1) reduce noise; 2) get better exposures; 3) get colors to look less "muddy"; 4) reduce shadows from helmets .... etc. then you might consider the use of flash to do that ....

So, my first suggestion to you to reduce the noise in your image would be to incorporate the use of a flash at your games - it will allow you to shoot at a lower ISO and a faster shutter speed than 1/200.

Best of luck with that, though ... I know it's tricky ....

Edit: I should also give some specs on the above shots:
- Shot in RAW
- Manual mode
- ISO 800
- f3.2
- 1/250
- 550EX flash on ETTL (on a bracket with an off-shoe cord)
- Flash exposure compensation set to +2/3 (in camera - not on the flash)

ian408

There are a variety of tools you can use to clean the image up. But as Cecil suggests, you may need to go the flash route.

Sledhed

I have to agree with Cecil too, the best way to lower the amount of noise it to use a flash.

donek

Here's a little advice that will help you with these images. Go to:
http://www.imagenomic.com/nwsa.aspx
and download the free community edition. Use the night scene setting and see if you are more happy with things. Noiseware blows PS out of the water in my opinion.

If things are that dark, flash will become your solution with the D200.

donek

I did a little curves adjustment and used noiseware on your photo. With the original it will be a lot better. As for curves, I just set a black and white point and then increased the brightness.

johng

I agree about the flash. Besides the D200 not being very good at high ISOs, the shot is very underexposed. That contributes a great deal. Drop to ISO 800 and add an external flash (preferably with battery).

monchee10

Thanks for the advice from everyone. I'll have to check with the school to be sure I can use flash.

As for the shots being underexposed, I was desperate to stay around 1/200 and 1/250 to stop some of the action, and try (miserably) to make up for it in post. Meh, oh well. Perhaps I'll give noiseware a shot too. Hmmm...

One other question...
Should the flash be shoe mounted, hand held or what?

tomauto

this should help you out a lot. it did for me

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/3737879_CcRKz

monchee10

Thanks Tom, great link. I'll see if I can try that tonight at the game.

tomauto wrote:

this should help you out a lot. it did for me

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/3737879_CcRKz

Paulcao

If you're looking for something to save photos, you may want to try noise ninja for photoshop.

monchee10

Paulcao wrote:

If you're looking for something to save photos, you may want to try noise ninja for photoshop.

Thanks Paul. I'll have to run this one by my CFO (aka the wife) for approval.

Unless of course, they offer a free trial... Google here I come...

tomauto

Thanks Tom, great link. I'll see if I can try that tonight at the game.

No problem man, I will too be trying out that setup for the first time tonight. I have been doing the technique but I have been just hand holding the flash. This should end up being much easier!! I am pumped up! Good luck with everything.

monchee10

Cool, we'll have to post em up.

tomauto wrote:

No problem man, I will too be trying out that setup for the first time tonight. I have been doing the technique but I have been just hand holding the flash. This should end up being much easier!! I am pumped up! Good luck with everything.

tomauto

Should I post in here or start my own thread.

KED

monchee10 wrote:

Ok, so Friday night I was on assignment covering the local high school football game, and when I uploaded the photos I was disappointed. The photo below is an example. The noise is out of control, and I am seeking advice on what I can do to reduce the amount of noise in my images.



I am shooting with a D200, a borrowed 80-200 f2.8.

Camera settings; ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/200

Exposure, sharpness, and noise adjustment in PSE 6.0

Well the SportsShooter guys will sneer (in a friendly way) that I would have the nerve to add input here, but here's my 2 cents: (1) high school football (or for that matter any other sport that I have encountered) cannot, at least in the absence of flash, be shot at 200 without insane motion blur; in my (relatively limited) experience, 500 is the minimum; (2) your shot appears to me to be backfocused, for whatever that tells you; and (3) most importantly, someone up above in this thread pointed you to Imagenomic, which would in turn lead you to Noiseware, which in my opinion cannot be lived without in conjunction with night shooting, no matter what your camera's ISO capabilities.

Night football is really hard!

cmkultradome

cecilc wrote:

This is just my opinion, but there's really only one thing you can do .... (well, short of getting a body that'll shoot at ISO 6400 or something!).

And that's to get your ISO down to an acceptable level that will reduce the noise in your images .... Now, when you do that, your exposures will be even darker than they are now - so you'll need to use a flash to compensate for that ...

quote]

I am having the same problem as Joe only its hockey shooting thru glass in dimly lit ice rinks and gymnastics shooting in dimly lit gyms. I'm not allowed to use flash in either situation. I have to set the ISO to 1600 to get a decent exposure but then I get a ton of noise. I'm shooting with a Canon Rebel xTi that has a max ISO of 1600. Everyone's always talking about the glass, my question is if I used the same lens I'm shooting with now (nothing fancy Canon 70-300mm IS, although I have rented the 70-200mm 2.8 and still had quite a bit of noise ) but shot with a different body (say a 40D or the new 50D that has a higher max ISO) would those bodies make me have less noise (even if I still shot at 1600)? I hope that makes sense. Thanks

Stephanie

Joe-didn't want to hijack your thread, but I think we are having the same issues.

johng

Stephanie - the amount of noise is independent of the lens used. The key components are the camera in question and whether or not your exposure was accurate. By accurate I mean properly exposing for faces. The more under-exposed the shot the more noise will come out when you correct the exposure in post processing. Now, the 70-300 is really WAY too slow for gymnastics and hockey. For gymnastics with only ISO 1600 available you should be using a 1.8 or 2.0 lens. The 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 are the least expensive options available (50mm 1.8 just doesn't have enough reach for gymnastics). That will enable you to get a decent shutter speed around 1/400 for ISO 1600. With less motion blur and a properly exposed shot the noise will be less. You'll still need to use noise reduction software (noiseware, neatimage, noise ninja) - no avoiding that.

Having said that, sure the newer bodies have better high ISO performance. Even the XSi would be an improvement. The 50d promises to be a great improvement. The 5dmkII of course looks to be in another league but that's a big jump in price. I think it's safe to say the 50d would offer a 2 stop improvement in ISO over the XTi (i.e. ISO 3200 with results similar to 800 on your XTi).

KMCC

KED wrote:

Well the SportsShooter guys will sneer (in a friendly way) that I would have the nerve to add input here, but here's my 2 cents: (1) high school football (or for that matter any other sport that I have encountered) cannot, at least in the absence of flash, be shot at 200 without insane motion blur; in my (relatively limited) experience, 500 is the minimum; (2) your shot appears to me to be backfocused, for whatever that tells you; and (3) most importantly, someone up above in this thread pointed you to Imagenomic, which would in turn lead you to Noiseware, which in my opinion cannot be lived without in conjunction with night shooting, no matter what your camera's ISO capabilities.

Rather than sneer, I agree with the points that KED has made.

I prefer to shoot all sports without a flash; just a personal preference thing.

That being the case, shooting at night (or in poorly lit gymnasiums) will be an exercise in futility without a fast lens (f/2.8) and, in my case, without my good friend, Noiseware.

Here's two random examples from recent football games at two different stadiums; the point being that you're always at the mercy of the stadium lights. (There seems to be only two types of high school stadium lighting: poor and worse.)

[Click on photos to review EXIF]

KED

KMCC wrote:

Rather than sneer, I agree with the points that KED has made.

Thanks for being merciful on me Kent! #1 is an amazingly good exposure without flash (and at 400 no less -- maybe Georgia HS players are slower than up here in Greenwich Connecticut -- NOT ). I am actually going to try flash (RWells style) for my next night football shoot, holding my breath and keeping expectations low. But if it works for football, it'll work for lax come springtime . . .

droberts

Have to agree with KMCC...usually a flash at night sports is ineffective due to the distance you are from the "action". A fast lens and ballanced settings between your aperature, shutter speed and lowering your ISO are the best way to go. The 2.8 as he said is a good choice, but pricey if your not doing this to make money. As far as "sport photography" you can save a little money for a better lens by not getting the IS version.

johng

droberts wrote:

Have to agree with KMCC...usually a flash at night sports is ineffective due to the distance you are from the "action"..

I'm going to disagree with this. Just do the math. Today's flashes will reach 50 yards of coverage - more than enough. Distance isn't an issue if you're after quality shots. Now, if you're trying to shoot action 40-50 yards away with a 200mm lens you're not going to get many quality shots anyway. There are absolutely downsides to flash use - no question about it. Recycle times, different look, etc. But with a good flash, reach isn't a problem. I use a 120-300 2.8 lens for football. My flash has as much reach as the lens does. Now if you don't like the other aspects it makes sense to shoot only available light.

KMCC

My preference for shooting with available light is totally based on what John refers to as the "different look" of sports photographs taken with a flash. It's purely a personal preference. I guess you could say its a style-thing.

I wasn't trying to imply that the use of a flash is ineffective for taking sports shots.

There's nothing wrong with using a flash and, as John points out, today's flashes (even mine) will certainly do the job.

monchee10

Ok Im back...

So last Friday I was unable to use my flash, boosted ISO to Hi-.07 and the results were still crappy. It's too bad I'll have to invest in software to get the job done, but I guess it comes with the territory.

This Friday is home coming, and I am going to try and use my flash.

Anyone have suggestions on a make shift clamp for attaching my flash to my mono-pod?

KMCC

monchee10 wrote:

So last Friday I was unable to use my flash, boosted ISO to Hi-.07 and the results were still crappy. It's too bad I'll have to invest in software to get the job done, but I guess it comes with the territory.

With increased ISO will come increased noise (digital artifacts). It's just the nature of the sensors used in today's digital cameras.

If it's noise that's causing your angst, you can reduce the ISO (which means shoot with a flash at night games) or you can shoot at a high ISO and post-process all of the shots with a noise reduction software package (i.e., Noiseware or Noise Ninja).

Or you can switch to nature photography, but I never saw a sunset that comes close to a linebacker breaking through the line at full speed and sacking the quarterback!

bandgeekndb

Good luck with this!

monchee10 wrote:

Ok Im back...

So last Friday I was unable to use my flash, boosted ISO to Hi-.07 and the results were still crappy. It's too bad I'll have to invest in software to get the job done, but I guess it comes with the territory.

This Friday is home coming, and I am going to try and use my flash.

Anyone have suggestions on a make shift clamp for attaching my flash to my mono-pod?

Check out this post: http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=928078&postcount=10

Long story short (if you don't want to read the whole thread) is this:

rockcanyonphotos wrote:

1) Hose clamp (thin metal loop that adjusts its size with a set screw) the type you would use to hold a radiator hose on with.

2) L-bracket (about 3" long per side with multiple holes in it to mount your flash)


Place the L-bracket where you want to mount the flash on your monopod and then tighten it down with the hose clamp...might want to use 2 clamps)

Attach your flash chord to the L-bracket, mount your flash and ... ta, da!!

Hope this helps!

jonh68

So last Friday I was unable to use my flash, boosted ISO to Hi-.07 and the results were still crappy. It's too bad I'll have to invest in software to get the job done, but I guess it comes with the territory.

Software will help. When shooting high ISO, it is more important than ever to look at the histogram to see if the exposure is correct. Proper exposure will go a long way in helping noise issues. I will not eliminate it, but it will help.

KED

monchee10 wrote:

Ok Im back...

So last Friday I was unable to use my flash, boosted ISO to Hi-.07 and the results were still crappy. It's too bad I'll have to invest in software to get the job done, but I guess it comes with the territory.

This Friday is home coming, and I am going to try and use my flash.

Anyone have suggestions on a make shift clamp for attaching my flash to my mono-pod?

Check out the Tutorials section of Dgrin and look for one by Randy Wells on just this topic. I'm trying it out myself one week from right now.

cecilc

droberts wrote:

...usually a flash at night sports is ineffective due to the distance you are from the "action". A fast lens and ballanced settings between your aperature, shutter speed and lowering your ISO are the best way to go.

johng wrote:

I'm going to disagree with this.

Yea ... I'm going to disagree with that top statement, too ...

Those two shots that I posted on the first page of this thread were taken with a 400 f2.8 at f3.2; 1/250; ISO 800; FEC set at +2/3; with a 550EX flash set to ETTL. There was no way that I was over-shooting the flash with those shots, and the players in the shot were either at midfield or the far hash mark ....

"A fast lens and ballanced settings between your aperature, shutter speed and lowering your ISO are the best way to go." Normally, I'd go along with this reasoning, except where high school night football goes .... You can get a fast lens (my 400 is a 2.8) and you can "balance" your settings as much as you can. But at high school stadiums under the lights, I don't believe that you can lower your ISO without being severly underexposed. Most fields that I shoot at meter (ambient) at ISO 1600; f2.8; 1/250 - and that's at the brightest spot on the field. You can't lower your ISO and maintain a proper exposure ....

And this is the spot where the decision to use flash or shoot ambient comes into play .... I've shot games both ways: with flash and without flash. For me, I find that I get better color; can shoot with that lower ISO; and can avoid harsh shadows by using flash. But that's just me - I know many people avoid using flash for football like they'd avoid poking themselves with a sharp stick ....