ISO questions...

Candid Arts

Hey guys (and gals), I'm curious as to what the limit is that people are using for the high end of the ISO. Canon is claiming that the higher ISO speeds with noise reduction turned on are getting better and less visible. I own the new 50D, and did a shoot a while back at night with 1000 ISO, and HOLY NOISE BATMAN! Now I'm kinda of a video enthusiast and am very lucky with HDTV's and the like, and can spot out the pixels even on a 1080p video signal, am I just seeing things other people don't? But my room mate sees it too. Because of this I try to never go above ISO 500 or so. I have yet to understand why Canon would extend the ISO range up to, what is it 25,000, when there is a ridiculous amount of noise at 1000 now granted those night shots I had High ISO Noise Reduction turned off, but I have since done some testing with different variables including: ISO ranges from 100, 320, 600, 1000, all the way up to the highest the camera offers, and then repeated each test with High ISO Noise Reduction turned on. As I did notice quite a bit of a difference, there was still a shit ton of noise.

So I guess my question is what are you guys using as your top limit for your ISO? And what is good software for editing noise out without degrading the picture in other ways and still have a sharp, clean, and clear shot?

ziggy53

I do not use or recommend the use of "between" ISO settings. There is some evidence that the between ISO settings are worse than they should be.

If you use ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 that should provide better results than the ISOs like 1000.

I find that Canon ISOs are awefully good from ISO 100 to ISO 400. ISO 800 is very usable on many/most Canon cameras, especially the newer models with "High ISO Noise Reduction" turned on. ISO 1600 can work on many images, especially those with simpler subjects and without any cropping.

ISO 3200 is reserved for those instances when nothing else will do, although the 1D/1Ds/5D cameras do a pretty good job of ISO 3200 and many of those images are perfectly usable.

Best results from RAW files and careful processing of "properly exposed" images in all cases.

swintonphoto

It should also be stated that noise is MUCH more apparent when viewed on digital screens than in print. My own non-scientific tests showed that my 1600 iso prints look like my 400 iso images on the computer screen.

ivar

swintonphoto wrote:

It should also be stated that noise is MUCH more apparent when viewed on digital screens than in print. My own non-scientific tests showed that my 1600 iso prints look like my 400 iso images on the computer screen.

It also depends on how much you personally care about the noise; I shoot up to 1600 on a 30d (in camera noise reduction always off), and rarely apply noise-reduction in post. I'm happy with the results.

pathfinder

It is important to keep in mind that images on your LCD are not visuallized in the same manner when they are printed on paper..

Noise is usually MUCH less apparent on paper, as are sharpening artifacts as well. Indeed at one time the recommended amount of sharpening for output on an inkjet printer was "too much" or "crunchy looking" on the monitor. Nowadays, Lightroom2 does the output sharpening behind closed doors and we don't see it until ink hits paper.

I agree that ISO 1600 is eminently useable in the Canon DSLRs. I do use in camera noise reduction if I am shooting after dark with extensive areas of blackness, such as star trails. Indoors, with better lighting, I do not use in camera noise reduction as it is not necessary for my standards for my images.

Here is an image shot at ISO 1600 with in camera noise reduction on - 1DsMkll

Here is an image from a 40D shot at ISO 1600 without in camera noise reduction

And another 40D image

It is very important to keep in mind that the noise is in the lower quarter tones, the darkest ( most under exposed ) parts of the images. Shooting at ISO 1600, you definitely do not want to under expose your shots at all. If you do, noise will become much more apparent.

For de-noising, I use Noiseware - it rocks!

Tee Why

For me, I don't like to go above ISO 800 due to noise but will if I really need to.

If the shot is not exposed well and you make adjustment, this will introduce noise. More you correct and higher the ISO the more noise you get.


As for noise reduction, all noise reduction comes at the price of losing detail/resolution.

Canon's own DPP is very good at noise reduction and I'd first start off with that. There are noise reduction programs available to buy as well like noise ninja and such, but I'd play around with the noise reduction settings in DPP first.

Good luck.

angevin1

[quote=So I guess my question is what are you guys using as your top limit for your ISO? And what is good software for editing noise out without degrading the picture in other ways and still have a sharp, clean, and clear shot?[/quote]

Good Q&A session.

1. As others stated: watch for proper exposure.
2. Also stated prints seem better than LCD's and the like.

3. What I rarely see stated is adjusting your color saturation in camera to reduce noise. I had read many times that my new Nikon D300 had usable photos up to ISO 1600. But what I found, right outta the box was lots of noise at that ISO range. This particular offering from Nikon has adjustable bar graphs for saturation, hue and the like. I just simply chose the 'normal' saturation setting, set Saturation at -1 bar and voila, much much less noise, so much less that I immediately went to ISO 2000 and explored how to increase and decrease the visable noise with lighting.

4. I use Noiseware pro.

cheers, tom

BigAl

In a live classroom, you can't use a flash, so ISO 1600 is a saviour:
Dr Moji

In the wild, you also can't always use flash:
Spotted Eagle Owl


Unlike Ziggy, I use all the in-between ISOs too

ISO 1250 + flash:
Whitebrowed Coucal

ISO 1000 + flash:
Cape Robin

ISO 640:
Elephant

ISO 320:
Masked Weaver

I don't use the in-camera noise reduction as I've found it produces artifacts.