Reading mode: Light Dark

Exposure makes all the difference? D3 @ 6400

Go to last post
T

Todd Hargis

Senior Member
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
31
Location
TX, US
I was testing out my D3 at 6400 ISO since I have been reading the threads on the D4 noise compared to D3/s etc. I tweaked the noise control in NX2 and made several presets for different ISO's (and it works very well) to where it would make the high ISO images from the D3 look great. I took a shot of my temporarily cluttered console of my work van which had a good contrast for noise to show. But these did not look too bad. I guess it all comes down to the right exposure. I've also tried it in the house under fluorescent lighting. Tell me what you think weather it be great, lame, sucks, etc...LOL.

This may not be the best way to test my NR with such a bright image and may be a false way to show noise???? anyway, take a look.

Todd



HERE IS 100% CROP:



--
http://www.toddhargisphotography.com

http://toddhargisphotography.com/Weddings

http://www.pbase.com/todd991

 
Exposure definitely makes a huge difference. Once I took an image at -1EV, at night, with ISO3200 and the result was horrible just because it was -1EV!

But like you said: testing the high ISO performance in day time is not a really good indicator of the camera's high ISO performance.

I've taken an image at ISO 25,600 with my D700 and the result was not that bad! You can see it here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/f_j/5552056404/in/photostream
 
retake the shot in twilight when overall EV is much lower - daylight doesn't bring out the noise (after all it is S/N and there is much more "S" in daylight) and of course there is no need to shoot 6400 in daylight. so, while A for effort, i don't think it in the end says very much.

love your great work --- and images -- and spirit -- otherwise, Todd!
--
http://mlmusto.zenfolio.com/
 
The higher the contrast the less noise is a nuisance. As your light falters, that's when the problems start. Overexposing in dull light helps though.
 
It's moreso light that makes the difference.

Having a good exposure helps significantly reduce visible noise but noise manifests itself mostly in the shadows and mid-tones, especially in low-light underexposed images.
--
-Dan
'Cameras don't take pictures, people do.'
'No one sees your camera when they're looking at your pictures.'
http://www.danharperphotography.com/ -BLOG/stock site
http://www.danharperphoto.com/ -Commercial portfolio
http://www.wpgphoto.com/ -My Winnipeg based photography community
 
001FJ said:
Exposure definitely makes a huge difference. Once I took an image at -1EV, at night, with ISO3200 and the result was horrible just because it was -1EV!

But like you said: testing the high ISO performance in day time is not a really good indicator of the camera's high ISO performance.
Click to expand...
mlmusto said:
retake the shot in twilight when overall EV is much lower - daylight doesn't bring out the noise (after all it is S/N and there is much more "S" in daylight) and of course there is no need to shoot 6400 in daylight. so, while A for effort, i don't think it in the end says very much.
Click to expand...
What matters

1. Light balance. Spectral distribution of the illuminator matters. Daylight doesn't challenge high ISO as much because the energy distribution across the visible band is fairly even. Artificial light presents difficulties because one of the color channels (usually blue) needs to be "pushed" and this, effectively, is like setting that channel to a much higher ISO.

2. Image tones. Dark tones will show more noise than highlights. This is one reason why night scenes tend to look noisier - they often have a preponderance of dark tones.

What does not matter

Lighting level. Given good lighting spectral balance, properly-exposed images under extremely dim light will not show any more noise than they would if taken with the same ISO setting in daytime conditions. Simply turning the light down does not challenge high ISO, provided you adjust exposure accordingly. Landscape scenes taken under moonlight will look just as clean as daytime landscape scenes taken at the same ISO, if the exposure is correctly adjusted to fully compensate for the different light levels.
 
Marianne Oelund said:
1. Light balance. Spectral distribution of the illuminator matters. Daylight doesn't challenge high ISO as much because the energy distribution across the visible band is fairly even. Artificial light presents difficulties because one of the color channels (usually blue) needs to be "pushed" and this, effectively, is like setting that channel to a much higher ISO.
Click to expand...
That is why when you set the WB to make an image taken under typical incandescent light (other than daytime sunlight or moonlight) appear much warmer, it will have less visible noise. And if you base a B&W conversion of it on this warmer version it will also have less visible noise.
 
wootpile said:
The higher the contrast the less noise is a nuisance. As your light falters, that's when the problems start. Overexposing in dull light helps though.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I don't get this method of "shoot high ISO, over expose". It's an exposure, why wouldn't you just pick a lower ISO and expose normally? What's the point of using the higher ISO setting if you're going to over expose anyways, your shutter speed is slower either way.

Anyone care to explain it to me?
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com
 
Early on in 2008 when I got my first D3 I did a test with a series of images of different subjects in low tungsten light and shot each scene at -1.0 EV, 0.0 EV, and +1.0 EV.

In all cases the -1.0 EV were the worst after processing the RAW file in ACR. In a surprising number of cases the +1.0 EV shots were the best of the three exposures.

Using the LCD and histogram which displays a 8-bit profile can be very deceiving and cause people to underexpose. Nothing maximizes noise like boosting the EV in ACR.

Like many people having used prior generations of DSLRs I was worried primarily about blowing highlights. In reality with the D3 generation of cameras this is much harder to do and histograms can show a loss of highlights which may be true for JPEGs but is not true if capturing the scene in RAW.
 
calson said:
Early on in 2008 when I got my first D3 I did a test with a series of images of different subjects in low tungsten light and shot each scene at -1.0 EV, 0.0 EV, and +1.0 EV.

In all cases the -1.0 EV were the worst after processing the RAW file in ACR. In a surprising number of cases the +1.0 EV shots were the best of the three exposures.

Using the LCD and histogram which displays a 8-bit profile can be very deceiving and cause people to underexpose. Nothing maximizes noise like boosting the EV in ACR.

Like many people having used prior generations of DSLRs I was worried primarily about blowing highlights. In reality with the D3 generation of cameras this is much harder to do and histograms can show a loss of highlights which may be true for JPEGs but is not true if capturing the scene in RAW.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think I get it, but really, what you're saying is you're exposing "correctly", just not relying on the histogram at face value?

So you found that (for example) out of:
ISO 1600 pushed a stop
ISO 3200 left alone
ISO 6400 pulled down a stop

That the ISO 6400 one to be the cleanest?
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com
 
noirdesir said:
when you set the WB to make an image taken under typical incandescent light (other than daytime sunlight or moonlight) appear much warmer, it will have less visible noise.
Click to expand...
So, in incandescent light, the more you try to white balance the orange tint out, the noisier the image gets?
 
Dave Largent said:
So, in incandescent light, the more you try to white balance the orange tint out, the noisier the image gets?
Click to expand...
Going from daylight to, say, 2800K incandescent, the blue-channel signal in neutral tones drops by about 45%. This means that setting WB to 2800K requires an 80% boost (1.8x) of the blue signal, and the noise in that channel scales up in proportion. For example, when you're shooting under incandescent light at 3200 ISO, it's as if the blue channel is set to 5800 ISO.
 
Marianne Oelund said:
Dave Largent said:
So, in incandescent light, the more you try to white balance the orange tint out, the noisier the image gets?
Click to expand...
Going from daylight to, say, 2800K incandescent, the blue-channel signal in neutral tones drops by about 45%. This means that setting WB to 2800K requires an 80% boost (1.8x) of the blue signal, and the noise in that channel scales up in proportion. For example, when you're shooting under incandescent light at 3200 ISO, it's as if the blue channel is set to 5800 ISO.
Click to expand...
Another way to look at it is, there just isn't much blue light, when shooting in low light with tungsten. So if you try to balance to white, you need to either boost the other colors, thus pushing up their relative exposure, or bring down the orange to match the other colors (but you will likely have to push overall exposure back up to get the brightness you may desire).

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com
 
Joesiv said:
calson said:
Early on in 2008 when I got my first D3 I did a test with a series of images of different subjects in low tungsten light and shot each scene at -1.0 EV, 0.0 EV, and +1.0 EV.

In all cases the -1.0 EV were the worst after processing the RAW file in ACR. In a surprising number of cases the +1.0 EV shots were the best of the three exposures.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Joesiv said:
So you found that (for example) out of:
ISO 1600 pushed a stop
ISO 3200 left alone
ISO 6400 pulled down a stop
Click to expand...
Good question, any responses?

--
Rens

There are optimists and there are realists
 
Interesting thread, can a filter help in this situation to increase the blue signal? Sorry I'm thick and have no idea.

Tim
 
Thanks!

I lost Ken's cell number... now I have it again.

Before he hung up on me, he said you need to clean up your car...
 
Tim S said:
Interesting thread, can a filter help in this situation to increase the blue signal? Sorry I'm thick and have no idea.
Click to expand...
A filter won't give you more blue light, thus the noise in the blue light will be the same. You only reduce the amount of red light and thus increase your noise in the red-ish colour parts of your image. Unless you strive for equal amounts of noise over all colours, that won't be any use (and adding noise digitally later is technically a very simple thing to do).

There is one advantage you can gain with a filter: if your red channel is clipped (which can happen very easily under incandescent light) then a blue filter can prevent that (naturally at the cost of more noise in the red-ish parts in the image). A better approach is thus to reduce the camera's ISO setting down the level from the read noise is flat as a function of ISO setting while keeping the exposure the same. That gives you more headroom in all colour channels with no downside (ok, maybe a second or two more time per image in post-processing but that is rather insignificant).
 
TFergus said:
Thanks!

I lost Ken's cell number... now I have it again.

Before he hung up on me, he said you need to clean up your car...
Click to expand...
Damn someone beat me to it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top