"One day you are a signature, next day you are an autograph." —Billy Wilder

― Scapes ShowcaseCan you really get a decent shot @ 25000 ISO?

Post Reply
User avatar
Didereaux
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Location: swamps of East Texas
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Can you really get a decent shot @ 25000 ISO?

Post by Didereaux » Wed May 03, 2017 2:04 pm

This was done of the 'Super' moon August 2014. Used the wifes Canon 6D w/ 100-400mm L lens @ 400mm 1/400 F16. (for those unfamiliar with full moon shots the moon is only one stop less than an object on a Sunny day. Remember the Sunny 16 Rule? Well there is also the Luney 11 Rule. At any rate I gave it a shot and was pleasantly surprised. Noise was reduced in LR but the colors remain pretty much SOOC.
Image
There are no banal subjects in photography, but an infinite number of banal ways to illustrate them.

User avatar
TomCofer
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2635
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:42 am
Location: Fredericktown, MO
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by TomCofer » Wed May 03, 2017 2:54 pm

Nice!
A lot of folks seem to avoid high ISO shots, but I've found that there are various ways to clean them up and I believe that it's better to have a shot with noise than no shot at all.

If a person has the Topaz plug-ins, here's a way of sharpening high noise photos without increasing the noise that I've used often:

http://blog.topazlabs.com/tutorials/ima ... 6fbe2db6ab
Redneck Enthusiast Photographer on a shoestring budget.

thcofer@charter.net

Failure means you tried. Success means you need to set higher goals for yourself.

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Wed May 03, 2017 3:16 pm

[quote="TomCofer"]... it's better to have a shot with noise than no shot at all.

I've always thought that, back to when I standardized on "fast" 400-speed film, B&W and color both. My teachers would point out that grain is what makes a silver picture. Noise makes a digital picture. If you hold the ISO down you see very little, but indeed now there are many ways of controlling or at least minimizing it. People have always fussed over, "But what if I want to make a big print?" My answer to that has long been that you don't, or at least shouldn't get your nose up to it, what is now called "pixel peeping." I think there's a rue-of-thumb that suggests viewing a picture from a distance around 8X the picture's height, and if you do that you are unlikely to see much grain or noise. Most people have seen this or something like it:
harmon_lincoln.gif
harmon_lincoln.gif (5.61 KiB) Viewed 994 times

If you get far enough back the big blocky pixels blend into Lincoln. I think the principle holds with grain or noise or even relative unsharpness; if you are at a "normal" viewing distance you should not see it. :)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Wed May 03, 2017 4:19 pm

I had never heard the term pixel peeping 'til I joined the large forum, uglyhedgehog. I have never had expensive gear, and after I was introduced to Topaz Simply, I've more often than not enjoyed the softer (and often the "painterly") look. Also, in my signature line is link to the online article, "What's important in a photograph and what isn't." I always look for impact and creativity first.

Sure, sometimes the technical issues get in the way of overall enjoyment or impact, but as mentioned about viewing distance, it can be silly to go to extremes worrying about noise.

Bottom line, I love your photo, Didereaux! I often try to get shots of the full moon low in sky (most often in the morning) and yours is an enviable beauty.
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
minniev
Mentoris Magister
Mentoris Magister
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:55 am
Location: Mississippi
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by minniev » Wed May 03, 2017 9:40 pm

Even though I don't have DeNoise, I do have a noise removal software and wonder if this might work with other programs. I'm gonna watch and explore. I have a huge project on my hands that's gonna require printing bigger than I usually do, and I am liable to arouse some noise that I don't even see yet, in shots where I moved away from base ISO.

This is a pleasing scene that ought to print well on canvas and give you a beautiful result. I love canvas for these softer scenes.
"God gave me photography so that I could pray with my eyes" - Dewitt Jones

User avatar
Didereaux
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Location: swamps of East Texas
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Didereaux » Wed May 03, 2017 11:16 pm

minniev wrote:Even though I don't have DeNoise, I do have a noise removal software and wonder if this might work with other programs. I'm gonna watch and explore. I have a huge project on my hands that's gonna require printing bigger than I usually do, and I am liable to arouse some noise that I don't even see yet, in shots where I moved away from base ISO.

This is a pleasing scene that ought to print well on canvas and give you a beautiful result. I love canvas for these softer scenes.


Thank you. Yes I did print it on a 13x19 canvas (when stretched that makes an 11x17) and it turned out quite nice.
There are no banal subjects in photography, but an infinite number of banal ways to illustrate them.

User avatar
Didereaux
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Location: swamps of East Texas
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Didereaux » Wed May 03, 2017 11:17 pm

LindaShorey wrote:I had never heard the term pixel peeping 'til I joined the large forum, uglyhedgehog. I have never had expensive gear, and after I was introduced to Topaz Simply, I've more often than not enjoyed the softer (and often the "painterly") look. Also, in my signature line is link to the online article, "What's important in a photograph and what isn't." I always look for impact and creativity first.

Sure, sometimes the technical issues get in the way of overall enjoyment or impact, but as mentioned about viewing distance, it can be silly to go to extremes worrying about noise.

Bottom line, I love your photo, Didereaux! I often try to get shots of the full moon low in sky (most often in the morning) and yours is an enviable beauty.



Thank you for the kind words!
There are no banal subjects in photography, but an infinite number of banal ways to illustrate them.

User avatar
Didereaux
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Location: swamps of East Texas
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Didereaux » Wed May 03, 2017 11:18 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:
TomCofer wrote:... it's better to have a shot with noise than no shot at all.

I've always thought that, back to when I standardized on "fast" 400-speed film, B&W and color both. My teachers would point out that grain is what makes a silver picture. Noise makes a digital picture. If you hold the ISO down you see very little, but indeed now there are many ways of controlling or at least minimizing it. People have always fussed over, "But what if I want to make a big print?" My answer to that has long been that you don't, or at least shouldn't get your nose up to it, what is now called "pixel peeping." I think there's a rue-of-thumb that suggests viewing a picture from a distance around 8X the picture's height, and if you do that you are unlikely to see much grain or noise. Most people have seen this or something like it: harmon_lincoln.gif
If you get far enough back the big blocky pixels blend into Lincoln. I think the principle holds with grain or noise or even relative unsharpness; if you are at a "normal" viewing distance you should not see it. :)



Spot on. That is what I have found as well. Danke sir! ;)
There are no banal subjects in photography, but an infinite number of banal ways to illustrate them.

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by St3v3M » Wed May 10, 2017 7:12 am

I love post like these for the experience and education you receive here. Thank you for that! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by St3v3M » Wed May 10, 2017 7:15 am

Alecowakep wrote:Hi! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the great work!

Welcome to the site and feel free to ask questions and post your own! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests