I must be living in the twilight zone, and as I read posts about how the high ISO images from a D2X suck, hmmmm.... I begin to wonder. I have to admit I do virtually no lowlight shooting, but I'm beginning to think that I must be the only person left in the world that uses sunshine for light anymore. So, just for fun, I took this crap shot of my wife, as ISO3200, and I processed it in ACR with zero noise reduction. Folks, what am I missing? I think the quality is great. I have ISO 400 film scans that look horrible compared to this ISO 3200. Of course, maybe that's my problem, I'm trying to compare digital to film.
I also processed this image in NC with Normal HighISO NR on, and it looks even better. Is there noise? Sure, but crap man, it sure looks fine to me. I hope my wife doesn't shoot me for posting this
Yep you have rox in your head - d2X CANNOT shoot at iso 3200. :-)
Nice job. The camera is actually very fine at esoteric ISO values in "daylight" mode and works quite well in Tungsten if you give full exposure. Just shot a dance performance with 16 and 3200 with "good" success. However, when push comes to shove.......
I guess it really depends on your audience. For family and friends the noise in this image would work fine, but you would have a tough time getting past the critical eye of an art director, or stock photo house.
Looks good to me. I'm still trying to figure out why it's now crucial to have noise-free high-ISO images; anybody that argues over image noise remember shooting high-ISO film? I seem to remember ISO 1600 film being quite grainy.
Hawkbug wrote:
I guess it really depends on your audience. For family and friends the noise in this image would work fine, but you would have a tough time getting past the critical eye of an art director, or stock photo house.
To begin with, I don't shoot/submit ISO3200 images for stock. However, I have sold ISO1600 images that DID get by the art director. The point I am making is, THIS image has NO noise reduction, but with normal NR turned on, it's a complete different quality. I make my money at ISO 100-800 anyway.
tdawg wrote:
Looks good to me. I'm still trying to figure out why it's now crucial to have noise-free high-ISO images; anybody that argues over image noise remember shooting high-ISO film? I seem to remember ISO 1600 film being quite grainy.
Maybe it's just me :shrug
It's not as crucial as many try to make it. ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping.
jacko wrote:
It's not as crucial as many try to make it. ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping.
No doubt. If the print looks good, what else matters?
Very good quality and good use of light.Btw:What was your light source?
'ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping. ' %100 right again.
Mert wrote:
Very good quality and good use of light.Btw:What was your light source?
'ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping. ' %100 right again.
Light was a single 28 year old flash head shot into an umbrella
jacko wrote:
I must be living in the twilight zone, and as I read posts about how the high ISO images from a D2X suck, hmmmm.... I begin to wonder. I have to admit I do virtually no lowlight shooting, but I'm beginning to think that I must be the only person left in the world that uses sunshine for light anymore. So, just for fun, I took this crap shot of my wife, as ISO3200, and I processed it in ACR with zero noise reduction. Folks, what am I missing? I think the quality is great. I have ISO 400 film scans that look horrible compared to this ISO 3200. Of course, maybe that's my problem, I'm trying to compare digital to film. ...Show more →
Jack, when you said no Noise Reduction in NR, do you mean you set Color Noise Reduction and Luminance Smoothing both to 0? It looks like to me Luminance Smoothing was set to 0, but it looks to me that you must have used SOME Color Noise Reduction to control the Chroma Noise? If you really set both to 0, then Nikon has managed to outdo not just the D2x by quite a large margin, but also the current 'noise king' 5D as well.
The amount of detail it can keep on ISO 3200 plus the not so intrusive noise (do I hear 'film grain' anywhere? ) makes that it is definitely usable and looks fine to me too
Do you ever shoot many photos with the intention of converting to black and white? I love old B&W photos where you can see some film grain. I figured maybe ISO 3200 converted to B&W might have a cool look. Then again, the grain is tough to see unless one is viewing a 100% crop which means more grain might need to be added. This would only work for me when shooting an old ghost town or the like. I haven't gotten around to trying it yet but maybe someone here has?
andylaiphoto wrote:
This is a very nice illustration Jack...but unfortunately the results are different when you shoot in low available light.
Interesting comment and I'm not arguing your point but why would the results be different in available light? I thought proper exposure was the key to low noise.
) makes that it is definitely usable and looks fine to me too