Why so much noise shooting ISO 500??

sunnyabc · February 9, 2010

Hello. This is my first posting and I do suppose this will fall into the stupid question category BUT.. I was shooting a kids talent show this weekend. No flash allowed but I felt GOOD as I was shooting. The stage was very dark but the subjects well lit. I was at f2.8 / 160 spot metering. When I uploaded into Photoshop Elements it was dark with a lot of noise. What did I do wrong? My focal length was 200mm. Maybe that was too far? Thanks for ANY help you can give as I get to have another shot this weekend and would love to have better results!

Qarik · February 9, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

Hello. This is my first posting and I do suppose this will fall into the stupid question category BUT.. I was shooting a kids talent show this weekend. No flash allowed but I felt GOOD as I was shooting. The stage was very dark but the subjects well lit. I was at f2.8 / 160 spot metering. When I uploaded into Photoshop Elements it was dark with a lot of noise. What did I do wrong? My focal length was 200mm. Maybe that was too far? Thanks for ANY help you can give as I get to have another shot this weekend and would love to have better results!

btw what camera body were you shooting with? also can you post a larger size of the photo? presently I don't see much noise.

two things..

1) if you are going to get noise it is going to be in the darker areas. depending on your camera body it may simply be unavoidable

2) there is some evidence that shooting "in between" iso values may cause additional noise. Stick to 100,200,400,800,1600 when you can

pathfinder · February 9, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

Hello. This is my first posting and I do suppose this will fall into the stupid question category BUT.. I was shooting a kids talent show this weekend. No flash allowed but I felt GOOD as I was shooting. The stage was very dark but the subjects well lit. I was at f2.8 / 160 spot metering. When I uploaded into Photoshop Elements it was dark with a lot of noise. What did I do wrong? My focal length was 200mm. Maybe that was too far? Thanks for ANY help you can give as I get to have another shot this weekend and would love to have better results!

If you used spot metering - what - precisely - did you meter off of? A white shirt perhaps? Or a black podium? Someone's face, maybe?

If you use a spot meter, on anything other than a mid tone grey, you exposure will not be correct. If you metered off a white shirt, or a face, you would probably be under exposed, and under exposure strongly contributes to noise.

Did your histogram reach the far side of the histogram on your camera? Those white shirts should have a spike on the far right of the histogram, or you were under exposed.

I do agree, as Quarik suggested, that there is some evidence that noise is worse with ISOs that are not even values of 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

With most modern DSLRs ISO 500 is not to bad or pretty good in terms of noise. I do not see terrible noise in the small images posted either.

Was this shot in RAW? Or were these images captured as jpgs? Jpgs have very little tolerance for under exposure or incorrect exposure. Maybe 1/3 of a stop either way.

SamirD · February 11, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

My focal length was 200mm. Maybe that was too far?

It depends. Most zoom lenses won't be 2.8 when at full tele. If it's a zoom lens, look at the range of aperture, it's probably more like a 2.8-4.0 or 2.8-5.6 or something like that. And that would explain why things were darker than you expected.

I've used a Canon L series 70-200 2.8 on a 50D and the resulting dof was so shallow that the background would be pretty gone. Judging by the picture, the dof doesn't look 2.8. But it depends on the camera though too. My Panasonic dmc-fz20 is 2.8 even at 432mm, but won't have any noticeable dof shallowing. But it's no slr either.

sunnyabc · February 11, 2010

Qarik wrote:

btw what camera body were you shooting with? also can you post a larger size of the photo? presently I don't see much noise.

two things..

1) if you are going to get noise it is going to be in the darker areas. depending on your camera body it may simply be unavoidable

2) there is some evidence that shooting "in between" iso values may cause additional noise. Stick to 100,200,400,800,1600 when you can

Thanks Daniel! I have a Nikon D90. I shot another kids theater performance last night using ISO 1600/2000 with better results. I think part of my problem last weekend may have been in PP Elements. I had to lighten AND crop many of the shots and I think maybe that made the noise worse?

Scott_Quier · February 11, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

Thanks Daniel! I have a Nikon D90. I shot another kids theater performance last night using ISO 1600/2000 with better results. I think part of my problem last weekend may have been in PP Elements. I had to lighten AND crop many of the shots and I think maybe that made the noise worse?

Yup -that's what happened. If the shot was under-exposed and you pushed it (lightened it) in post - that will cause noise to become more noticeable. Then, when you cropped, you made the grain of the noise that much larger. Pretty much a double whammy!

It's always(?) a better idea to boost your ISO and get a "correctly" exposed shot in-camera than to under-expose in camera and then push the exposure in post. So, shooting at the higher ISO last night was the right idea!

though you will always (?) get less noise if you stick with the full-stop ISOs (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200) then if you use a fractional ISO such as 2000.

sunnyabc · February 11, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

If you used spot metering - what - precisely - did you meter off of? A white shirt perhaps? Or a black podium? Someone's face, maybe?

If you use a spot meter, on anything other than a mid tone grey, you exposure will not be correct. If you metered off a white shirt, or a face, you would probably be under exposed, and under exposure strongly contributes to noise.

Did your histogram reach the far side of the histogram on your camera? Those white shirts should have a spike on the far right of the histogram, or you were under exposed.

I do agree, as Quarik suggested, that there is some evidence that noise is worse with ISOs that are not even values of 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

With most modern DSLRs ISO 500 is not to bad or pretty good in terms of noise. I do not see terrible noise in the small images posted either.

Was this shot in RAW? Or were these images captured as jpgs? Jpgs have very little tolerance for under exposure or incorrect exposure. Maybe 1/3 of a stop either way.

Thanks Pathfinder! I was spot metering on that tiny dot of a person from my position at the very back of the auditorium... I think you are right that I was metering off the wrong spot resulting in underexposure. Also, I think I may have made matters worse in Elements because I lightened AND cropped most of the images. I moved closer last night to shoot another play and increased my ISO to 1600 with less noise. I guess I didn't understand that a higher ISO could yield less noise. I shot some images in RAW last night but now I have to find myself a tutorial on what to do with them!!! <<<we're talking steep learning curve here, I know>>> Thanks again for your kind help.

Qarik · February 11, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

Thanks Daniel! I have a Nikon D90. I shot another kids theater performance last night using ISO 1600/2000 with better results. I think part of my problem last weekend may have been in PP Elements. I had to lighten AND crop many of the shots and I think maybe that made the noise worse?

The d90 is pretty clean at iso 1600 if exposed correctly as you discovered fyi. I wouldn't go 3200 unless you really need the shot.

sunnyabc · February 11, 2010

[
Thanks 1,000,000 Qarik, Pathfinder, SamirD and Scott!! Your advice is paying off. Here is the dress rehearsal last night shot at 1600, 2.8, 250. NO MORE cropping or pushing in post! I kind of freaked out when I saw that white stage but so far it seems ok?

SamirD · February 12, 2010

Wow, looks much better!

I don't see anything blown out, so it looks like the exposure is correct even with all that white. Check the histogram to confirm as it's the best way to check.

I'm trying to get used to checking the histogram vs the lcd. I've misadjusted exposure when I've looked at an lcd that wasn't as 'true' as could be. Of course, I'm using high end consumer cameras from 2005, so that may be it.

If you feel like nit-picking, the white balance seems a bit on the cold side on my monitor, but it may be perfect on yours. That's the only thing I could even see.

sunnyabc · February 12, 2010

SamirD wrote:

Wow, looks much better! I don't see anything blown out, so it looks like the exposure is correct even with all that white. Check the histogram to confirm as it's the best way to check.

I'm trying to get used to checking the histogram vs the lcd. I've misadjusted exposure when I've looked at an lcd that wasn't as 'true' as could be. Of course, I'm using high end consumer cameras from 2005, so that may be it.

If you feel like nit-picking, the white balance seems a bit on the cold side on my monitor, but it may be perfect on yours. That's the only thing I could even see.

_______________________

Yes, I agree. It is cold. I will adjust that in my raw image. I will also get into he habit of using my histogram more. Can you tell me... when you shoot do you use the JPG + Raw or just Raw? If I do use just raw I will need to process them all on my camera before uploading, correct?

Scott_Quier · February 12, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

Yes, I agree. It is cold. I will adjust that in my raw image. I will also get into he habit of using my histogram more. Can you tell me... when you shoot do you use the JPG + Raw or just Raw? If I do use just raw I will need to process them all on my camera before uploading, correct?

This looks really, really good.

I popped a copy of the image into Photoshop, just to take a look at the histogram and the WB. I found the exposure to be just about spot-on! The WB, is off just a bit but that is easy to fix in post.

As for the question of JPG + RAW vs only RAW ... the only reason I know of to shoot JPG + RAW is if you are going to be building a disk at the venue for distribution and/or if you are going to be printing at the venue. In either case, you would have to be able to nail both the exposure and the WB because you will not have time to fix them in post before delivery.

If you do use just RAW .... yes, you will need to convert from RAW to JPG. This is done, not in camera, but by downloading the RAW image data to your computer and then processing these files through a RAW converter to get JPGs. Sounds complicated and slow, but it's not so much. Tools that are used for this (and more) include Digital Photo Professional (comes with most Canon cameras), Adobe Photoshop & Adobe Camera RAW (usually CS3 or CS4, depending on the camera), and Adobe Lightroom. There are other options available as well, some of them free and others not.

During the conversion process, you will have the opportunity to make adjustments to things like exposure, contrast, WB, etc.

zoomer · February 12, 2010

Much better. Don't be afraid to crank the ISO.
MUCH better to crank the iso to get a proper exposure in the camera or even too bright than it is to take the photo dark and then increase the exposure in processing. As others already said.
Increasing the exposure on a dark photo is a recipe for NOISE.

sunnyabc · February 12, 2010

Scott_Quier wrote:

This looks really, really good. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" > I popped a copy of the image into Photoshop, just to take a look at the histogram and the WB. I found the exposure to be just about spot-on! The WB, is off just a bit but that is easy to fix in post.

As for the question of JPG + RAW vs only RAW ... the only reason I know of to shoot JPG + RAW is if you are going to be building a disk at the venue for distribution and/or if you are going to be printing at the venue. In either case, you would have to be able to nail both the exposure and the WB because you will not have time to fix them in post before delivery.

If you do use just RAW .... yes, you will need to convert from RAW to JPG. This is done, not in camera, but by downloading the RAW image data to your computer and then processing these files through a RAW converter to get JPGs. Sounds complicated and slow, but it's not so much. Tools that are used for this (and more) include Digital Photo Professional (comes with most Canon cameras), Adobe Photoshop & Adobe Camera RAW (usually CS3 or CS4, depending on the camera), and Adobe Lightroom. There are other options available as well, some of them free and others not.

During the conversion process, you will have the opportunity to make adjustments to things like exposure, contrast, WB, etc.

Awesome! Thanks Scott. Serious mystery solved on the RAW stuff. I assumed that since my Photoshop Elements didn't recognize the files I had to process in my camera (which I have done but wouldnt be the method for 900ish pics!). OK, Hmmmm. I don't have a budget to buy more software right now. Can you point me towards a program that might be free? Tonight is opening night so I will probably be spending my weekend at the computer (of course I live at the beach and we are to have the first sunny weekend in months) <hah> <<not complaining though>> <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" > Whoa... hold the presses. I just found my Nikon Software Suite disk that came with my camera. Maybe this will do the job!? Checking now.

ziggy53 · February 12, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

... OK, Hmmmm. I don't have a budget to buy more software right now. Can you point me towards a program that might be free? Tonight is opening night so I will probably be spending my weekend at the computer (of course I live at the beach and we are to have the first sunny weekend in months) <hah> <<not complaining though>> <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" >

You might be able to use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert your CR2 files into DNG files and the DNG files may open with your existing version of PSE.

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

Alternately, if you use Windows or Linux, you can get RAW Therapee which is a freeware converter as well as basic image editor.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

There are also Mac RAW converters but I am unfamiliar with those.

SamirD · February 12, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

Yes, I agree. It is cold. I will adjust that in my raw image. I will also get into he habit of using my histogram more. Can you tell me... when you shoot do you use the JPG + Raw or just Raw? If I do use just raw I will need to process them all on my camera before uploading, correct?

I actually have done only high volume event coverage for many years for most of photography, so I haven't even gotten a chance to touch RAW. Plus, only 3/4 of my cameras do RAW, and the one with the best lens won't.

However that being said, if you plan on doing any post at all, shoot in RAW. If you want the option, shoot RAW + JPG. Then you can just choose. It's only disk space.

Oh and the Microsoft PowerToys for XP comes with a RAW viewer. I don't know if it can convert, but it's going to be handy when working with RAW vs JPG:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx

sunnyabc · February 12, 2010

ziggy53 wrote:

You might be able to use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert your CR2 files into DNG files and the DNG files may open with your existing version of PSE.

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

Alternately, if you use Windows or Linux, you can get RAW Therapee which is a freeware converter as well as basic image editor.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

There are also Mac RAW converters but I am unfamiliar with those.

WOW Thanks so much!... This has been an epic software morning. I tried using Nikon Transfer to get the files from my camera then View NX to edit the files. NX was like water torture AND it crashed my computer twice SO I uninstalled and took your suggestion to download the adobe dng converter. It's GOLDEN! I am now able to edit my raw files in my PSE!! So now what I am doing is using Nikon Transfer to get the RAW files from my camera, then Adobe DNG to convert, then PSE to edit and save as a jpg. Does that sound right?

SamirD · February 13, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

So now what I am doing is using Nikon Transfer to get the RAW files from my camera, then Adobe DNG to convert, then PSE to edit and save as a jpg. Does that sound right?

One thing that would save you some time in this step is to use a card reader to just read/copy the files from the card directly. This can be faster and won't require you to connect your camera to the computer.

I don't think I've ever connected one of my cameras to a computer...

pathfinder · February 13, 2010

Always use a card reader, Do not download from a camera, Always.

Scott_Quier · February 13, 2010

SamirD wrote:

One thing that would save you some time in this step is to use a card reader to just read/copy the files from the card directly. This can be faster and won't require you to connect your camera to the computer.

I don't think I've ever connected one of my cameras to a computer...

- The only time I connect my camera to the computer is for either tethered shooting or to ensure the clocks on two or more cameras are synchronized - just to make sorting images from these cameras a bit easier.

But, for getting the images from the camera to the computer - a card reader is the way to go. It's going to be faster and, usually, more reliable.

SamirD · February 13, 2010

Scott_Quier wrote:

- The only time I connect my camera to the computer is for either tethered shooting or to ensure the clocks on two or more cameras are synchronized...

Interesting, I never thought about time and multiple cameras since mine are different brands. I'll have to keep this in mind if I ever have an 'arsenal' of equipment to choose from.

sunnyabc · February 16, 2010

Scott_Quier wrote:

- The only time I connect my camera to the computer is for either tethered shooting or to ensure the clocks on two or more cameras are synchronized - just to make sorting images from these cameras a bit easier.

But, for getting the images from the camera to the computer - a card reader is the way to go. It's going to be faster and, usually, more reliable.

OK... WELL, I guess it's unanimous on the card reader! Who'd have known?!

(obviously not me). Thanks to everyone for all the tips! This was a super labor intensive project as I ended up shooting them all in raw but I just got all 200 photos uploaded this morning. The drag is as soon as I got them up they were all over facebook. Even though I right click protected and put a password on the album I guess the kids take "screen shots" and post them. I am now reviewing the section on watermarking! Steep learning curve here.

cab.in.boston · February 16, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

Always use a card reader, Do not download from a camera, Always.

I always do, as I find it faster (and I fear wearing out the USB connector on the camera with repeated use), but is there another reason? My wife, OTOH, seems unable to remove the SD card and put it in the reader, she prefers to connect the camera to the PC. You seem very adamant about this, so I'm curious if there are other important reasons. If there are, maybe I'll have a bit more ammunition to use to convince her to use the reader.

Scott_Quier · February 16, 2010

cab.in.boston wrote:

I always do, as I find it faster (and I fear wearing out the USB connector on the camera with repeated use), but is there another reason? My wife, OTOH, seems unable to remove the SD card and put it in the reader, she prefers to connect the camera to the PC. You seem very adamant about this, so I'm curious if there are other important reasons. If there are, maybe I'll have a bit more ammunition to use to convince her to use the reader.

Reasons to use a card reader:

Downloading data to the computer can be faster using a the card reader, much faster
The camera is not powered up - saving battery life, reducing the need to recharge the battery
If you use multiple cards during a shoot, you'll cut your card swapping into and out of the camera by 1/2 - reducing the chances of bending a pin
Using a USB (or other "standard") interface reader reduces/eliminates the need to install additional software on the computer before downloading the data. Very nice if you are using multiple computers.
You can use the software of your choice to perform the download operation and/or file renaming during the download.
Reduces (to zero) the chances the camera will receive a power spike from the computer through the USB cable.

Reasons NOT to use a card reader:

If you only use one card, re-inserting the card into the camera does introduce an opportunity to bend a pin.
There might be other reasons to use the camera vs. a card reader - they escape me at the moment.

pathfinder · February 16, 2010

I think Scott answered the question better than I could have. The main reason for me, is that when I return from a shoot, I may have 6 or 8 different cards with images, not always from the same camera. CF cards, SD cards, etc.

It is much faster and simpler to use a single FireWire card reader than to connect each camera, turn the camera on, download the files, turn the camera off, replace the card with the second or third card, turn the camera back on, download the files, etc etc.

No major harm if you prefer to read the files form your camera, but it MAY be slower, and more tedious, and you may or may not be able to use the software for downloading that you prefer. I download my cards into Lightroom, and have two files written at that time, one to my data hard drive, and a second file to my data hard drive backup hard drive - simultaneously.

I never trust my files to a single hard drive. Hard drives are too fungible.

cab.in.boston · February 16, 2010

Thanks, Scott and Pathfinder.

pathfinder wrote:

I never trust my files to a single hard drive. Hard drives are too fungible.

I import all my files to dual hard drives. I figure that memory is so cheap these days, there's no reason not to.

We only have one memory card that we use, and typically don't shoot enough to fill it up all that fast (it holds about 268 RAW files, I know that's nothing compared to what many of you shoot, but that will usually last us quite a while). The main reasons I went to the card reader mounted in the PC tower were the potential wear damage on the camera's USB connector and because sometimes the Nikon Transfer program would stall while transferring from the camera. I'm working on transitioning to using LR, though. Transferring files using Nikon Transfer is definitely more reliable from the card reader. I honestly haven't noticed a huge improvement in speed using the card reader, and the battery typically lasts so long for us that I don't feel that's a big issue, either. Obviously someone shooting a lot more than we do would probably be more concerned with multiple cards and battery life.

I did wonder about wear and tear on the memory card slot (and the door), but I figured that this camera is made to handle much more abuse than I'll ever give it, so I don't worry about it too much. I think we are more likely to ham-fistedly damage the USB connector than inserting the SD card into the slot.

Anyhoo, thanks for the answers!

SamirD · February 16, 2010

sunnyabc wrote:

The drag is as soon as I got them up they were all over facebook. Even though I right click protected and put a password on the album I guess the kids take "screen shots" and post them.

Welcome to theft in the 21st century.

Watermarking and limiting sizes will help, but if they're already taking screenshots, then they're already willing to spend time to get around your watermark. The good thing is that kids are typically going to only go the easiest route to get what they want. If you can provide a quick and easy way for them to post the images on facebook, you can turn this theft problem into a viral marketing boom.

SamirD · February 16, 2010

cab.in.boston wrote:

I import all my files to dual hard drives. I figure that memory is so cheap these days, there's no reason not to.

Even dual hard drives isn't enough. Check out my experience:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1302913&postcount=9

dsloan · February 17, 2010

a lot of good info in this thread. i'm surprised to hear about the noise at in-between ISO levels. any explanation for this?

Scott_Quier · February 17, 2010

dsloan wrote:

a lot of good info in this thread. i'm surprised to hear about the noise at in-between ISO levels. any explanation for this?

Your might find the reading here to be of interest - particularly post #5.

sunnyabc · February 17, 2010

SamirD wrote:

Welcome to theft in the 21st century.

Watermarking and limiting sizes will help, but if they're already taking screenshots, then they're already willing to spend time to get around your watermark. The good thing is that kids are typically going to only go the easiest route to get what they want. If you can provide a quick and easy way for them to post the images on facebook, you can turn this theft problem into a viral marketing boom.

Thanks Samir. I have come to realize this about fb (make it your friend). I would like to find a way to provide the kids with their photos but still have people directed towards my site to order. Do you have advice on how best to do that? Enable my links? Also, what size do you think I should limit to? Would you go all the way to medium? I have now gotten the watermark thing down so bit by bit

Why so much noise shooting ISO 500??

Comments