D300 Iso 3200

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by taylorwilsdon, Jun 27, 2008.

  1. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #1
    Yeah, we've seen this title before :D

    Still, thought this would be an interesting comparison - ISO 3200 with no noise reduction and with noise reduction. Info: 50mm @ f/5 @ 1/100th of a second @ ISO3200. Shot in mostly darkness.

    Click to see full res (where difference is evident)

    No NR:
    [​IMG]

    Noise Reduction (5 in capture NX, still haven't gotten the hang of NR because I rarely do it)
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #2
    Whatever. I set my in-camera NR to "low" because I can't be bothered worrying about noise. I'd rather have detail. I don't care about noise and will continue to take photographs when I have time, thanks.
     
  3. thr33face macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    #3
    I like the one without NR better, as the details simply look nicer. (and not smudged)
    after all it's not 'bad' noise. it's fairly random and looks more like grain than digital noise. that's good.

    btw: you call that 'mostly drakness'?
    this is what i call mostly darkness ;) (obviously just a test shot to illustrate my definition)
    [​IMG]
    this is at f/1.4, 1/2s and iso1600 pushed to 6400
    manually focused, as there was not enough light for the af-system
    handheld with elbows against window frame
     
  4. taylorwilsdon thread starter macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    :confused::confused:
    That seems unbelievably rude to someone who was trying to provide something to the photography forums after people were asking what effects noise reduction had in the other d300 3200 thread...

    Just because noise reduction apparently don't apply to you doesn't mean you have to come in saying "whatever." Thats like if I went into the OS X forum and started telling people "who cares that you are having troubles with finder, I don't use Tiger"

    edit - I'm not sure if your post was intended to have an attitude, I may have read it completely wrong. My apologies if thats the case. It just seemed like you were being dismissive because it wasn't something that appealed to you.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    I actually didn't realize it came off as being rude when I typed it out, but you're right. I guess I would have if I proofread my reply before submitting it. :eek: I also didn't know someone in another thread asked about noise reduction, but if it was necessary for me to read another thread before replying to this one, then you should add a link.

    All you can tell in those images is that the noise reduction isn't necessary in this case. Other than make the photo less sharp, the photo doesn't look less noisy because of the NR. In other cases this may be different, but I have rarely seen a photo that looks better after applying heavy NR. If there was a lot of noise originally, NR just turns the image quality into a different kind of "bad".

    So many people have associated low noise with good image quality that this misconception has now become people's greatest concern. All I meant originally is that most people shouldn't need to worry about it, and just shoot. Just use the ISO required to get a good shutter speed. Nothing worse than a blurry photo.


    The obvious amount of noise in this photo (due to increasing exposure afterwards, maybe?) doesn't really ruin it. If it was taken at ISO 200, I don't know if it would be any better. Sometimes noise adds what appears to be real detail, while at other times, the photo just looks better with noise. I know you said it was just a test shot, but the photo is actually pretty cool. :) I think it would look better if the leaves were a bit more sharp (while still being blurry), and if the photo was more like noise at ISO 3200, but overall, the noise doesn't really get in the way.


    Here's one I took around 2 weeks ago, I think. I was in my room at 3 AM in the morning, writing my thesis, and since I haven't used my D300 for several months now, I just decided to shoot something, so I set this up: ISO 3200 (Auto ISO), f/3.2, 1/13th seconds using a D300 and 105 mm VR macro. I also sharpened it to add more noise, and to give it an oversharpened look.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. taylorwilsdon thread starter macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    I think the difference is that there are two kinds of noise. If you've ever used the D200, by the time you got up to 1600 you started to get disgusting amounts of noise, to the point where the eye was completely distracted. That's when sacrificing some of the sharpness to "smudge" the noise away was a good idea. Here (with the d300), the noise is so controlled already and only appearing in the deep shadows that it doesn't really stand to benefit from Noise reduction; as demonstrated by your shot where the level of detail in the face fibers needs to be preserved.
     
  7. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #7
    Taylor, you're entirely over-sensitive this morning. :) Abstract's comment was far from rude. It was merely factual. To avoid you blasting me I'll say thank you for the comparison.

    It is my opinion, however, that the NR was so minimal in your two photos that it was not worth sacrificing the sharpness. I still see noise on the photo with NR set @ 5, as I would hope you do too. However, it seemed that the benefit of NR didn't outweigh the sacrifice. In some cases perhaps it will, but you lost more sharpness with minimal NR. This may be better if it is a portrait though as sometimes a lens can be TOO sharp for an up close portrait and the softness that comes from the NR may be of great benefit.
     
  8. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8
    No no, after reading my own post, I can understand why it was rude. Thanks, but I can take it. ;)
     
  9. Rotary8 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    #9
    in-camera NR fubars the sharpness in the d300. I tend to leave it at low and clean up the noise in post.
     
  10. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #10
    I don't like the camera doing noise reduction - heck I like minimal in camera processing and avoid it as much as I can.

    I looked at the two photos With NR / Without NR ....

    No way I would pick the NR pic.

    I think in-camera NR fubars sharpness in all cameras.
     
  11. TimTheEnchanter macrumors 6502a

    TimTheEnchanter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #11
    Love it! Not just the quality and setting, but the subject is hilarious... especially given the fact you took it at 3am and strung-out on writing your thesis. :D
     
  12. mknawabi macrumors 6502

    mknawabi

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    #12
    Oh, digital noise :rolleyes:

    If you want beautiful, try the film grain on a tri-x 400
     
  13. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #13
    Ha! Sometimes I feed my Canon F1, and EOS 3 some of that film.

    I'm a sucker for B&W film !!!!!

    I have all my negs dating back to 1972 when I was in Korea and just starting out. Got some great candids!
     

Share This Page