ISO setting vs Noise

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by panabiker, Sep 25, 2006.

  1. panabiker

    panabiker Guest

    I am new to DSLR and have a question about proper ISO settings. I
    understand that the noise is higher with higher ISO settings, however,
    I have a different set of constraints.
    Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?
    Will the underexposed ISO-400 shot still be less noisy than the one
    taken at ISO-1600, or the two shots will be about the same because the
    number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same?
     
    panabiker, Sep 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. panabiker

    Rutger Guest

    "panabiker" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    >I am new to DSLR and have a question about proper ISO settings. I
    > understand that the noise is higher with higher ISO settings, however,
    > I have a different set of constraints.
    > Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    > just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    > lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    > ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    > be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?
    > Will the underexposed ISO-400 shot still be less noisy than the one
    > taken at ISO-1600, or the two shots will be about the same because the
    > number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same?
    >


    Why not give it a try and do some experimenting?
    It is hard to say what is best, depends also on people's judgement. Every
    sensor type has its own signal/noise ratio, Canon sensors produce fewer
    noise than Nikon, i.e.

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
     
    Rutger, Sep 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. panabiker

    Jim Townsend Guest

    panabiker wrote:

    > Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    > just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    > lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    > ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    > be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?


    Actually, you'll find that 'pushing' an ISO 400 shot will introduce
    grain. Sharpening will make it worse.

    Best bet is to use ISO 1600 and clean them up with a good noise removal
    algorithm like Neatimage or NoiseNinja.
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 25, 2006
    #3
  4. panabiker wrote:
    > I am new to DSLR and have a question about proper ISO settings. I
    > understand that the noise is higher with higher ISO settings, however,
    > I have a different set of constraints.
    > Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    > just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    > lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    > ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    > be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?
    > Will the underexposed ISO-400 shot still be less noisy than the one
    > taken at ISO-1600, or the two shots will be about the same because the
    > number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same?


    What camera? Which lens? Can you shoot in RAW?

    In general, if you can't open aperture or increase shutter speed, you're
    better off shooting at a higher ISO than trying to push in in post.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 25, 2006
    #4
  5. John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > In general, if you can't open aperture or increase shutter speed, you're
    > better off shooting at a higher ISO than trying to push in in post.


    I find just the opposite.

    Also, if I expose for the highlights using a normal ISO of 100 then push
    the shadows to bring them out, I get much less noise and a better
    picture than if I expose for the shadows and pull the highlights.

    Shadows contain much more detail than highlights. When in doubt always
    underexpose. And when underexposing always use the smallest ISO
    possible.

    A very good combination is a digital camera with a image stabilization.
    Then when you can't use a tripod, you can use image stabilization to
    avoid having to raise the ISO. Image stabilization is for sharpness and
    low color noise.

    --
    Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
    Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
     
    Stephen Henning, Sep 25, 2006
    #5
  6. panabiker

    Rutger Guest

    "Stephen Henning" <> schreef in bericht
    news:p...
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >> In general, if you can't open aperture or increase shutter speed, you're
    >> better off shooting at a higher ISO than trying to push in in post.

    >
    > I find just the opposite.
    >
    > Also, if I expose for the highlights using a normal ISO of 100 then push
    > the shadows to bring them out, I get much less noise and a better
    > picture than if I expose for the shadows and pull the highlights.
    >
    > Shadows contain much more detail than highlights. When in doubt always
    > underexpose. And when underexposing always use the smallest ISO
    > possible.
    >
    > A very good combination is a digital camera with a image stabilization.
    > Then when you can't use a tripod, you can use image stabilization to
    > avoid having to raise the ISO. Image stabilization is for sharpness and
    > low color noise.


    This article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
    states just the opposite.

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
     
    Rutger, Sep 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Stephen Henning wrote:
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >> In general, if you can't open aperture or increase shutter speed, you're
    >> better off shooting at a higher ISO than trying to push in in post.

    >
    > I find just the opposite.
    >
    > Also, if I expose for the highlights using a normal ISO of 100 then push
    > the shadows to bring them out, I get much less noise and a better
    > picture than if I expose for the shadows and pull the highlights.
    >
    > Shadows contain much more detail than highlights. When in doubt always
    > underexpose. And when underexposing always use the smallest ISO
    > possible.
    >
    > A very good combination is a digital camera with a image stabilization.
    > Then when you can't use a tripod, you can use image stabilization to
    > avoid having to raise the ISO. Image stabilization is for sharpness and
    > low color noise.


    I agree with what you say, and it's my experience also.

    However, I am going on what information there was given by the OP; he's
    already maxed out as to aperture and shutter speed; IS and or tripod
    aren't a part of the equation.

    If he's overexposing that's one thing, but I assumed he had the exposure
    right. Too many assumptions, I know!

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 25, 2006
    #7
  8. panabiker

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >panabiker wrote:
    > I am new to DSLR and have a question about proper ISO settings. I
    > understand that the noise is higher with higher ISO settings, however,
    > I have a different set of constraints.
    > Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    > just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    > lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    > ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    > be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?
    > Will the underexposed ISO-400 shot still be less noisy than the one
    > taken at ISO-1600, or the two shots will be about the same because the
    > number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same?


    In theory you are better off exposing properly at 1600 than you are
    underexposing 2 stops at 400 and adjusting the exposure during the RAW
    to tiff conversion. This is because the sensor response is linear and
    underexposing puts you in the least efficient zone, as explained well
    in the LL link already given ...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    In practice you might not see much of a difference though so it's a
    good idea to test both ways ahead of time ... here's a simple test from
    images I had shot earlier testing similar things ... I shot the sky at
    1600 properly exposed, kept the same shutter speed and aperture but
    shot at ISO 400, so two stops darker, then adjusted +2 stops during RAW
    conversion to get a roughly equivalent final exposure and compared 400%
    blowups of these two 'equivalent' images in the top row ...
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tests/noise_1600_400.jpg ... on the
    2nd row I show properly exposed ISO 400 and 200 images so you can see
    how the noise varies with ISO and no RAW +/- compensation.

    To me there's not much visual difference in the noise levels in the top
    row ... in a situation like you describe I typically ratchet up the ISO
    if necessary and worry about the noise later ... in this example I have
    the noise reduction in my RAW converter turned off because if shooting
    ISO 1600 I'd run the image thru something like Neat Image to clean up
    some of the noise, so you could see less noisy images if your converter
    does this by default.

    Note that this is just a 'mid-tone' exposure, for shadow areas you'll
    see more noise (perhaps greater in the 400 -2 exposure/ +2 conversion
    example). Also this is a fat pixel, low noise camera so you should run
    your own tests to see what the difference will be with your camera and
    RAW converter settings.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Sep 25, 2006
    #8
  9. panabiker

    panabiker Guest

    Thanks to all who replied. It sounds that lower ISO setting/push
    processing won't buy me any noise advantage. I will stick with the
    (minimum) ISO that gives proper exposeure.
    BTW, the camera in question is Rebel XT with a 18-55mm half-frame zoom
    lens as a package.
     
    panabiker, Sep 26, 2006
    #9
  10. panabiker wrote:
    > Thanks to all who replied. It sounds that lower ISO setting/push
    > processing won't buy me any noise advantage. I will stick with the
    > (minimum) ISO that gives proper exposeure.
    > BTW, the camera in question is Rebel XT with a 18-55mm half-frame zoom
    > lens as a package.


    Well, it's not that long till the Holidays, and perhaps there's a nice
    fast lens in the works for you.....

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 26, 2006
    #10
  11. panabiker

    measekite Guest

    A simple answer. If the lens is image stabilized slow the shutter speed
    down. If not use the higher ISO. With most DSLR camera noise will be
    at an acceptable level.

    I would only buy image stabilized lenses.

    panabiker wrote:

    >I am new to DSLR and have a question about proper ISO settings. I
    >understand that the noise is higher with higher ISO settings, however,
    >I have a different set of constraints.
    >Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    >just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    >lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    >ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    >be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?
    >Will the underexposed ISO-400 shot still be less noisy than the one
    >taken at ISO-1600, or the two shots will be about the same because the
    >number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same?
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Sep 27, 2006
    #11
  12. panabiker

    measekite Guest

    Rutger wrote:

    >"panabiker" <> schreef in bericht
    >news:...
    >
    >
    >>I am new to DSLR and have a question about proper ISO settings. I
    >>understand that the noise is higher with higher ISO settings, however,
    >>I have a different set of constraints.
    >>Let's say that in an indoor, available-light situation, an ISO-1600 is
    >>just right for my f5.6, 1/125 exposure setting, and I don't have bigger
    >>lens, nor do I want to slow down the shutter speed. Should I use
    >>ISO-400, knowing that the picture will be 2-stops under-exposed but can
    >>be adjusted afterwards in Photoshop (kind of like push developing)?
    >>Will the underexposed ISO-400 shot still be less noisy than the one
    >>taken at ISO-1600, or the two shots will be about the same because the
    >>number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Why not give it a try and do some experimenting?
    >It is hard to say what is best, depends also on people's judgement. Every
    >sensor type has its own signal/noise ratio, Canon sensors produce fewer
    >noise than Nikon, i.e.
    >
    >


    Even if you could (or anybody) produce prints showing more noise from
    the same photo produced with a Nikon than a Canon does not mean that
    Canon sensors produce less or more noise. All that means is that the
    combination of whatever the sensor produced and the internal processing
    software allowed for less noise when the photo was printed.
    Hypothetically if the Canon sensor produce more noise than the Nikon
    sensor but the Canon software reduced the noise better than maybe the
    result printed appeared less noisey. And even if that happened the
    print might look more plastic and show less detail. It is a hard call.

    Ken Rockwell claims that it is more important to get good color and
    concentrate on composition but we all are still concerned with noise and
    other technical details of the camera.

    >Rutger
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Sep 27, 2006
    #12
  13. On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:09:47 -0700, John McWilliams, <> wrote:
    > panabiker wrote:
    > > Thanks to all who replied. It sounds that lower ISO setting/push
    > > processing won't buy me any noise advantage. I will stick with the
    > > (minimum) ISO that gives proper exposeure.
    > > BTW, the camera in question is Rebel XT with a 18-55mm half-frame zoom
    > > lens as a package.

    >
    > Well, it's not that long till the Holidays, and perhaps there's a nice
    > fast lens in the works for you.....


    One of my co-workers has the XT, and a 62 mm diameter lens. He
    shoots a lot of photos of his kid playing hockey in an indoor rink.
    Exposure longer than 1/100th is out of the question. DOF sucks already,
    so he can't really open up the F-stop any more. He'd really rather
    prefer a certain wider lens (86 mm) for more light capture. There are
    1500 reasons not to do so. Reason 1501 is the fact that the lens is
    approx the right size/shape/weight for wifey to bludgeon him with<g>.

    He shoots at ISO 400 and boosts the raw image exposure approx 2.5 on
    average. Rather noisey, to say the least. Would he be better off with
    ISO 800 and approx 1.25 exposure boost of the raw image?

    --
    Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
    Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
    the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
     
    Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address, Oct 6, 2006
    #13
  14. panabiker

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Sounds to me that what he needs is 50mm f1.4, a fast lens will allow for
    better low light shooting. They aren't real cheap but if he shoots a lot of
    pictures under these conditions it would be a good investment. Better to use
    the right tool to start than force it later and get poor quality.

    R


    "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
    <> wrote in message
    news:4525e8dc$0$24168$...
    > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:09:47 -0700, John McWilliams, <>
    > wrote:
    >> panabiker wrote:
    >> > Thanks to all who replied. It sounds that lower ISO setting/push
    >> > processing won't buy me any noise advantage. I will stick with the
    >> > (minimum) ISO that gives proper exposeure.
    >> > BTW, the camera in question is Rebel XT with a 18-55mm half-frame zoom
    >> > lens as a package.

    >>
    >> Well, it's not that long till the Holidays, and perhaps there's a nice
    >> fast lens in the works for you.....

    >
    > One of my co-workers has the XT, and a 62 mm diameter lens. He
    > shoots a lot of photos of his kid playing hockey in an indoor rink.
    > Exposure longer than 1/100th is out of the question. DOF sucks already,
    > so he can't really open up the F-stop any more. He'd really rather
    > prefer a certain wider lens (86 mm) for more light capture. There are
    > 1500 reasons not to do so. Reason 1501 is the fact that the lens is
    > approx the right size/shape/weight for wifey to bludgeon him with<g>.
    >
    > He shoots at ISO 400 and boosts the raw image exposure approx 2.5 on
    > average. Rather noisey, to say the least. Would he be better off with
    > ISO 800 and approx 1.25 exposure boost of the raw image?
    >
    > --
    > Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
    > Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
    > the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Oct 6, 2006
    #14
  15. "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)" <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:09:47 -0700, John McWilliams, <> wrote:
    >> panabiker wrote:
    >> > Thanks to all who replied. It sounds that lower ISO setting/push
    >> > processing won't buy me any noise advantage. I will stick with the
    >> > (minimum) ISO that gives proper exposeure.
    >> > BTW, the camera in question is Rebel XT with a 18-55mm half-frame zoom
    >> > lens as a package.

    >>
    >> Well, it's not that long till the Holidays, and perhaps there's a nice
    >> fast lens in the works for you.....

    >
    > One of my co-workers has the XT, and a 62 mm diameter lens. He
    >shoots a lot of photos of his kid playing hockey in an indoor rink.


    In the past I've shot a lot of hockey games. Currently I'm
    trying to get some images of K-3 soccer games played in an old
    "roller rink", which has the worst lighting I've found yet for
    inside sports! At this point I'm thinking it may take 2000-3000
    exposures to accidentally get a dozen or so that will be
    "good"... ;-)

    >Exposure longer than 1/100th is out of the question.


    Wellll... sometimes, with care and luck, even down to 1/30th
    will do. Of course you either need to shoot an instant when
    everything is motionless, or to pan perfectly with the motion.
    Not generally an efficient technique, but it can produces some
    useful shots.

    >DOF sucks already,
    >so he can't really open up the F-stop any more.


    That is one I would disagree with. What's needed is fast
    autofocus and Image Stablizaton. Use the narrow depth of field
    to advantage... which usually means either get close or use a
    long lense (or both).

    >He'd really rather
    >prefer a certain wider lens (86 mm) for more light capture. There are
    >1500 reasons not to do so. Reason 1501 is the fact that the lens is
    >approx the right size/shape/weight for wifey to bludgeon him with<g>.


    Reason number 1 is that the diameter of the lense has nothing to
    do with it. (Assuming you are comparing the 86mm stated here to
    the 62mm diameter stated above.)

    > He shoots at ISO 400 and boosts the raw image exposure approx 2.5 on
    >average. Rather noisey, to say the least. Would he be better off with
    >ISO 800 and approx 1.25 exposure boost of the raw image?


    Results depend on the camera, but generally speaking there is no
    such thing as "boosts the raw image exposure". It just doesn't
    work that way with digital. The trick is to use the lowest
    sensitivity that will give correct exposure. That may mean 800,
    or even higher if the camera supports it. But "correct
    exposure" is a *requirement*. If the highlights are not
    approaching maximum white levels, then the image is *not*
    recording the highest possible dynamic range. That essentially
    means that trying to pull the shadows up amplifies noise as much
    as anything else.

    Hence, at 400 ISO give it a try. If that fail, try 800 ISO.
    When you can actually get highlights to hit maximum exposure
    (look at a histogram, a "blinking overexposure display", or use
    software to examine the image, whichever is appropriate for your
    equipment), *that* is the ISO to use. Almost certainly
    increasing the camera's ISO value by 2x (e.g., 400 to 800) will
    cause less noise than using software to double all of the data
    values.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 6, 2006
    #15
  16. panabiker

    Ken Davey Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
    > <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:09:47 -0700, John McWilliams,
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> panabiker wrote:
    >>>> Thanks to all who replied. It sounds that lower ISO setting/push
    >>>> processing won't buy me any noise advantage. I will stick with the
    >>>> (minimum) ISO that gives proper exposeure.
    >>>> BTW, the camera in question is Rebel XT with a 18-55mm half-frame
    >>>> zoom
    >>>> lens as a package.
    >>>
    >>> Well, it's not that long till the Holidays, and perhaps there's a
    >>> nice fast lens in the works for you.....

    >>
    >> One of my co-workers has the XT, and a 62 mm diameter lens. He
    >> shoots a lot of photos of his kid playing hockey in an indoor rink.

    >
    > In the past I've shot a lot of hockey games. Currently I'm
    > trying to get some images of K-3 soccer games played in an old
    > "roller rink", which has the worst lighting I've found yet for
    > inside sports! At this point I'm thinking it may take 2000-3000
    > exposures to accidentally get a dozen or so that will be
    > "good"... ;-)
    >
    >> Exposure longer than 1/100th is out of the question.

    >
    > Wellll... sometimes, with care and luck, even down to 1/30th
    > will do. Of course you either need to shoot an instant when
    > everything is motionless, or to pan perfectly with the motion.
    > Not generally an efficient technique, but it can produces some
    > useful shots.
    >
    >> DOF sucks already,
    >> so he can't really open up the F-stop any more.

    >
    > That is one I would disagree with. What's needed is fast
    > autofocus and Image Stablizaton. Use the narrow depth of field
    > to advantage... which usually means either get close or use a
    > long lense (or both).
    >
    >> He'd really rather
    >> prefer a certain wider lens (86 mm) for more light capture. There
    >> are 1500 reasons not to do so. Reason 1501 is the fact that the
    >> lens is
    >> approx the right size/shape/weight for wifey to bludgeon him with<g>.

    >
    > Reason number 1 is that the diameter of the lense has nothing to
    > do with it. (Assuming you are comparing the 86mm stated here to
    > the 62mm diameter stated above.)
    >
    >> He shoots at ISO 400 and boosts the raw image exposure approx 2.5 on
    >> average. Rather noisey, to say the least. Would he be better off
    >> with
    >> ISO 800 and approx 1.25 exposure boost of the raw image?

    >
    > Results depend on the camera, but generally speaking there is no
    > such thing as "boosts the raw image exposure". It just doesn't
    > work that way with digital. The trick is to use the lowest
    > sensitivity that will give correct exposure. That may mean 800,
    > or even higher if the camera supports it. But "correct
    > exposure" is a *requirement*. If the highlights are not
    > approaching maximum white levels, then the image is *not*
    > recording the highest possible dynamic range. That essentially
    > means that trying to pull the shadows up amplifies noise as much
    > as anything else.
    >
    > Hence, at 400 ISO give it a try. If that fail, try 800 ISO.
    > When you can actually get highlights to hit maximum exposure
    > (look at a histogram, a "blinking overexposure display", or use
    > software to examine the image, whichever is appropriate for your
    > equipment), *that* is the ISO to use. Almost certainly
    > increasing the camera's ISO value by 2x (e.g., 400 to 800) will
    > cause less noise than using software to double all of the data
    > values.


    The voice of reason!
    Well said.

    Ken.

    --
    Volunteer your idle computer time for cancer research
    http://www.grid.org/services/teams/team.htm?id=A0B16F43-D670-4729-9219-D37D5B25B569

    My return address is courtesy of Spammotel http://www.spammotel.com/
     
    Ken Davey, Oct 7, 2006
    #16
  17. panabiker

    AAvK Guest

    I would think a really high powered and dedicated flash would do the trick, even
    a used one from eBay. My Sunpak 444d has guide number of 120–170 feet
    at ISO 100 (being the point), and it's not a handled flash. They take
    a dedication module seperately though. Much cheaper than that fast
    lens.

    --
    }<)))*> Giant_Alex
    cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
    not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
     
    AAvK, Oct 8, 2006
    #17
  18. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:09:48 -0700, AAvK, <> wrote:
    >
    > I would think a really high powered and dedicated flash would do
    > the trick, even a used one from eBay. My Sunpak 444d has guide
    > number of 120?170 feet at ISO 100 (being the point), and it's not
    > a handled flash. They take a dedication module seperately though.
    > Much cheaper than that fast lens.


    I don't doubt that, but isn't it distracting, if not downright
    painful, for the players being photographed?

    --
    Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
    Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
    the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
     
    Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address, Oct 10, 2006
    #18
  19. On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:08:26 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson, <> wrote:

    > Hence, at 400 ISO give it a try. If that fail, try 800 ISO.
    > When you can actually get highlights to hit maximum exposure (look
    > at a histogram, a "blinking overexposure display", or use software
    > to examine the image, whichever is appropriate for your equipment),
    > *that* is the ISO to use. Almost certainly increasing the camera's
    > ISO value by 2x (e.g., 400 to 800) will cause less noise than using
    > software to double all of the data values.


    Friday, I passed on to him the group's advice to try a higher ISO,
    and/or do anything to push the histogram over to the right as per...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    In his email reply he mentioned that the saleslady at Henry's had told
    him something similar, i.e. forget about a new lens. Boost ISO and/or
    compensation to force the histogram over to the right. Monday's a
    holiday here in Canada, so on Tuesday I'll ask him how things went
    during the weekend.

    --
    Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
    Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
    the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
     
    Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address, Oct 10, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    512
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  2. Jason Sommers
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
    Jason Sommers
    Jan 19, 2005
  3. Stacey

    Noise about noise...

    Stacey, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    332
    Stacey
    Feb 18, 2005
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    D70 ISO 200 Noise vs EOS 300D ISO 100

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    427
  5. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    525
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page