Recovering from accidental High ISO?

bandgeekndb · April 28, 2009

So, once again, I failed miserably in the "check the camera" part of getting ready for a shoot. Luckily, this has all been practice, and never for a client yet. This is why I'm practicing!

Anyway, gorgeous, balmy spring day, early afternoon so light was a bit harsh, but I left the camera on ISO 1600 for about half the shoot before I noticed it. I haven't shot manual enough yet to recognize that my numbers were way high :cry

Is there any good way to save these shots? I have Noise Ninja, but I'm holding off processing with that until I get some opinions. I think most of the shots are OK, it's the close ups of the face and skin that show the most noise.

Thank you in advance! Now, off to make a pre-shoot checklist...anybody got one they wanna share?

~Nick

ziggy53 · April 28, 2009

Overexposure is the bigger problem in accidental high-ISO usage. If any of the shots are overexposed there may be detail that is lost forever. I have seen photographers that had to "paint" detail back in after accidental overexposure, not too pretty.

Assuming that the shots are normally exposed, noise reduction software is indeed your best course of action. Colors may have also been affected, compared to the low ISO shots, so color correction may also be required to make the shots look similar.

Tango · April 28, 2009

Nick, sorry to hear it, but atleast i can let you know your not the only one...

there are a few threads out there with mess-ups we all have had.....

and yes the pre-check is the solution....

battery charged, cf card present, lens clean, sensor clean, etc...etc...

oh, and my favorite personal mess-up... leaving mirror lockup on and going out the next day to shoot and thinking my camera was broke until i realized it was on mirror lock up.....

pardes · April 28, 2009

Yup, did the same thing two days ago. Sigh. I just bit the bullet and deleted them. Onward and upward and maybe we'll remember next time.

bandgeekndb · April 28, 2009

Thanks for the advice, and the comfort everybody!

Funny enough, I read dpreview's post about the new Noise Ninja and its handy "Sidekick" mode for batch processing as edits in Lightroom, as opposed to pre-import. So, I updated and tried out this handy Sidekick mode...best...thing...ever!

I culled the worst offenders out after importing into LR, then took my favorite ones and ran them through the ringer. All I had to do was open Noise Ninja separately, start Sidekick mode and set a few file handling options, etc, and then I selected my photos in LR and hit "Edit in -> Noise Ninja". Like magic, NN batch processed all my photos, and dumped the edited TIFFs back into LR, stacked with the originals.

That single-handedly made me a happy NoiseNinja user!

As for the main point of this thread, I'm surprised how well the images turned out. Have to talk to my model, but I might post one or 2 here for critique (other than, how the heck to do I remember to fix the settings before shooting???).

Thanks again,
Nick

ChatKat · April 28, 2009

Set to Zero
When I shoot I turn the camera on and ask myself "Set to Zero?" - somehwere I haeard some one else use that phrase as the trigger for them. I also tell people that I am going to start my sessions with a few test shots. I did that recently with a morning engagement session and sure enough - 1600 iso from the night before. I salvaged it in post but a few years ago I blew half of a shoot because I did not do any test shots and I did not reset all the settings. Learned that the hard way - some of those shots could have been really good sales for me. I also always shoot RAW

bandgeekndb · April 28, 2009

Yes, thank the Lord above for RAW.

ivar ISO1600 is not a pretty thing on my poor D40, so it pained me to lose as many shots as I did!

Luckily, I will be getting the chance to reshoot these, especially since with minor improvements, etc, these will be great portfolio images!

Thanks,
Nick

marikris · April 29, 2009

bandgeekndb wrote:

That single-handedly made me a happy NoiseNinja user!

Hi, Nick! Does Noise Reduction in Photoshop do the same thing as what Noise Ninja does?

Kris

Scott_Quier · April 29, 2009

I don't need Noise Ninja or the "Set to Zero?" question or anything else like that any more. I have a wife who is much smarter and much more disciplined than am I. I've forgotten to check the ISO often enough and then not had the smarts to keep my mouth shut when I get home that now, when I come back from a session and just as I'm putting my equipment away, she will frequently ask, "Have you reset your camera?" When I go "Ooops!", she'll do a mimic of the NCIS slap on the back of the head thing or give me a dirty look or something that will really raise my self-esteem. I love that woman

--- where would I be without her?

ziggy53 · April 29, 2009

marikris wrote:

Hi, Nick! Does Noise Reduction in Photoshop do the same thing as what Noise Ninja does?

Kris

All noise reduction (NR) software and techniques attempt to do the same thing, but some do it better than others.

Noise Ninja does a very competent job at reducing noise and keeping much of the detail.

The noise reduction in PhotoShop reduces both noise and more detail than I like (probably more than you would like as well.)

I happen to prefer "Neat Image" because it has the greatest degree of customization of any NR software I have found. Noise Ninja does a very good job even at default settings.

Qarik · April 29, 2009

I would like to see before and after shots if you could?

bandgeekndb · April 29, 2009

Sure, although I'm at work right now.

When I get home tonight, I'll put them up. I actually posted a bunch to facebook, but I think it's safe to assume a Smuggie link will make this crowd happier!

~nick

bandgeekndb · April 29, 2009

Some of the favorites:

Edit
vs.

Original

Edit
vs.

Original

Edit
vs.

Original

For now, I ask you to ignore some glaring errors in composition, etc. I plan on posting these for critique elsewhere, but to keep this thread about high ISO, let's stay on topic. Trust me though, I can tell I need the work. These are good, but not great; I know I still have a lot to learn!

The full gallery is here.

Original sizes are available in the gallery, and boy do they show the noise! I believe I could get away with doing 4x6's of these, but probably not much more than that.

Thanks for the comments!
~Nick

Netgarden · May 1, 2009

I looked at some of your images Nick, and they should easily print 5x7s. They turned out great! Maybe even 8x10s. You might just try an air brush, set on a mild smoothing, or smudge brush on very low setting, and go over the face a tad. The rest looks fine. [small area]

One other thing, you probably could just surround the face only and do another mild reduction of noise.

Or if the photos here not cropped much, you might reduce the size to about 8x10-150DPIs, slightly sharpen and try printing it at 8x10. Lots of little tricks, ;~)

FlyNavy · May 5, 2009

"When I go "Ooops!", she'll do a mimic of the NCIS slap on the back of the head thing or give me a dirty look or something that will really raise my self-esteem. I love that woman

--- where would I be without her?"

I think I married her twin sister!

Scott_Quier · May 5, 2009

FlyNavy wrote:

"When I go "Ooops!", she'll do a mimic of the NCIS slap on the back of the head thing or give me a dirty look or something that will really raise my self-esteem. I love that woman --- where would I be without her?"

I think I married her twin sister!

Ain't it great!

jfriend · May 5, 2009

bandgeekndb wrote:

Some of the favorites:

I notice that all of these image are backlit (the background is in the sun, subject in the shade). If you want to do this for composition purposes, then you need to get more light on your subject with either a reflector of some kind or fill flash).

This situation also makes the white balance tough to get right because you've got shade for the foreground and sun for the background. In all these shots, the foreground looks too cyan to me, but if you try to correct that, the background looks off. Mixed lighting is tough to get right. Fill flash would also help minimize this issue, but it might be easier to choose compositions that don't have this challenge.

bandgeekndb · May 5, 2009

jfriend wrote:

I notice that all of these image are backlit (the background is in the sun, subject in the shade). If you want to do this for composition purposes, then you need to get more light on your subject with either a reflector of some kind or fill flash).

Thanks for the comments! I didn't even realize it while composing (still have a long way to go in that field), but now I see it. And the color issues stand out, now that you mention them.

So, on the cheap, what is my best method of improving these compositions? I have an SB-400 (I know, what a pro quality flash!), and a Sto-fen diffuser that I like when I'm indoors, but I haven't had much luck outdoors with it (I can't tell whether it's a limitation of the flash or the idiot behind the camera!

). Also, if a reflector will solve this, what size, price, etc. is good? I'm looking to get better lighting, but I don't have the hundreds right now to invest in an off-camera flash, or 2, plus stands, umbrellas, etc. I've looked at the Strobist, but I honestly had trouble sorting out his DIY stuff and finding what I needed. Will a reflector make a HUGE difference in these, to the point where I could gimp along until I invested in OCFs? If a reflector is worth it, should I DIY it, or pony up for a real one?

jfriend wrote:

Fill flash would also help minimize this issue, but it might be easier to choose compositions that don't have this challenge.

What would be a more ideal composition? For this particular shoot, I was shooting around 2pm, in direct sunlight (only time my model was available), so I took my chances with the shade. Some advice, or a point towards a book would be greatly appreciated!

So many questions!

Thanks,
Nick

bandgeekndb · May 5, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

When I go "Ooops!", she'll do a mimic of the NCIS slap on the back of the head thing or give me a dirty look or something that will really raise my self-esteem. I love that woman --- where would I be without her?

Glad there's another NCIS fan here! One of my favorite shows!

Thanks for the comments. I'll have to look into investing in one of these "companions" to remind me about my camera! Oh wait...that's my model in front of the camera...oh well, guess I'll have to remember for myself!

~Nick

bandgeekndb · May 5, 2009

Netgarden wrote:

I looked at some of your images Nick, and they should easily print 5x7s. They turned out great! Maybe even 8x10s.

Thanks for the compliments! I am looking forward to the redo where I don't forget to fix the ISO first! I'm sure they'll be great!

jfriend · May 5, 2009

bandgeekndb wrote:

Thanks for the comments! I didn't even realize it while composing (still have a long way to go in that field), but now I see it. And the color issues stand out, now that you mention them.

So, on the cheap, what is my best method of improving these compositions? I have an SB-400 (I know, what a pro quality flash!), and a Sto-fen diffuser that I like when I'm indoors, but I haven't had much luck outdoors with it (I can't tell whether it's a limitation of the flash or the idiot behind the camera! ). Also, if a reflector will solve this, what size, price, etc. is good? I'm looking to get better lighting, but I don't have the hundreds right now to invest in an off-camera flash, or 2, plus stands, umbrellas, etc. I've looked at the Strobist, but I honestly had trouble sorting out his DIY stuff and finding what I needed. Will a reflector make a HUGE difference in these, to the point where I could gimp along until I invested in OCFs? If a reflector is worth it, should I DIY it, or pony up for a real one?

What would be a more ideal composition? For this particular shoot, I was shooting around 2pm, in direct sunlight (only time my model was available), so I took my chances with the shade. Some advice, or a point towards a book would be greatly appreciated!

So many questions!

Thanks,
Nick

If you are not using supplemental lighting, then you basically have to avoid mixed lighting because it's very difficult to make a good picture. Either put your subject and background in the same lighting or make sure the background is a lot darker than the foreground and expose for the foreground. Subject in shade, background in sun is the worst situation.

Always avoid the "dappled" look where the subject is part in sun and part in shade. This often looks neat to our eyes, but it never comes out right in a photo. There are a very few cases where you can get an artistically neat shot with this effect, but it is very hard to do right and usually just involves a highlight in the hair or something like that.

Learn how to do the basics of fill flash with your SB-400. Once you learn the basic settings to make it work, it's not hard as long as you stay within the limits of the power of your flash. I did a Google search for "simple fill flash tutorial" and a lot of useful pages came up. Check some of them out. The main key is using TTL-BL mode on the flash and then making sure you use an aperture that is compatible with the distance from the subject. A tiny aperture (high f-number) will restrict so much light that the flash might not have enough power unless you are really close. A larger aperture and a distance that isn't too far will work.

A flash has a power rating called guide number. The SB-400's rating at ISO 200 is 98 feet. Since Guide Number = distance x f-number, that means that distance = guide number / f-number. So, if you are at f/4, you can shoot from as far away as 98 / 4 = 24.5 feet. If you are at f/8, you can only be 98 / 8 = 12.25 feet away to have enough flash power. If you raise the ISO on your camera, you can reach farther or make it work at smaller apertures.

Read some of the pages in the Google search I linked above and then go experiment some. It can really, really work out nicely.

Here's one I did with my SB-800 in Yellowstone. I was stuck with dappled lighting (small viewing platform, no other choice) and was trying to overcome that with fill flash. 1/250, f/6, 34mm, main subject distance about 10 feet. I took several images at different flash EV settings and a couple different apertures to get the one I liked. It's not perfect because of the dappled lighting, but I would have had to throw it away without the fill flash. As it was, this was in the center of our holiday card montage that year.

Recovering from accidental High ISO?

Comments