# ISO 3200 Usable on Canon 30D?



## feRRari4756 (Jan 18, 2009)

Hey guys I recently shot a basketball game at ISO 1600, Shutter Speed: 1/125, and Aperture f4 (my largest).

My images had a moderate amount of noise but noise ninja reduced most of it. now, i discovered Imagenomic Noiseware Pro and it works a lot better than noise ninja. 

here are some examples:
(original)






after run through Imagenomic Noiseware Pro:





Now my question is, if i raised my ISO to 3200 (since theyre a little underexposd), do you think the images would still be clean after a run through that program?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 18, 2009)

I can't see your images (Blocked my work firewall) but why not simply do some experimentation; it's digital, the film is cheap.


----------



## Katier (Jan 18, 2009)

as tirediron said it's digital so experiment although 3200 is usually very noisy. Personally I'd work on improving the lighting as the images do feel a bit flat to me.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 18, 2009)

Yes. I often shoot at 3200 on my 20D's, using Noiseware pro, I get results like these.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/151340-concert-photos-st-louis-pink-floyd.html

All shot at 3200. Not too much PP, just noiseware, a bit of color adjustment and a little tweaking of curves.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks for all ur input everybody! 

What do you mean they look flat? What do I do to improve that without adding lighting or using a flash (I will be shooting cheerleading rather than basketball in the gym and I don't have a flash anyway)?

And I will try the ISo 3200 tommorow. Do I really need to mess with ALL those setting with noiseware or not really? If so how do I learn What each one does?

Thanks


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 18, 2009)

I'd say that you'd be better off getting a correct exposure with 3200 than underexposing with 1600.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 18, 2009)

Okay guys I just tested my Canon out at ISO 3200 and it did have a lot of noise...until i ran it through Noiseware. I swear that is the BEST noise reduction software out today. 
I will now shoot very confidently with Noiseware at ISO 3200.

Look at the difference:


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 19, 2009)

The standard settings in noiseware are pretty good, I only recently got the program, so I have not move too much into the advanced settings either


----------



## Katier (Jan 19, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Thanks for all ur input everybody!
> 
> What do you mean they look flat? What do I do to improve that without adding lighting or using a flash (I will be shooting cheerleading rather than basketball in the gym and I don't have a flash anyway)?
> 
> ...



It's just a very flat uniform image.. nothing pops or sings out. Partially down to the under exposure but more so the fact your using ambient light. Really could do with additional controlled lighting IMO.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 19, 2009)

You can adjust contrast with levels or curves.  Controlled lighting isn't usually an option during the game, and the fluorescent lights most gyms use just suck.   

I agree that in general you'll get less noise with a well exposed higher ISO than an underexposed lower ISO.  All of the photos you've posted look underexposed to me, and if you can get more exposure you will see a noticeable decrease in noise before youu use the noise reduction software.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> I will now shoot very confidently with Noiseware at ISO 3200.



Though Noiseware does remove a lot of the grain, it is also removing a ton of detail when over-used at the higher settings.  In facial shots, it will give them that plasticy or fuzzy feel.  This is why it is so important you nail the exposure.  All your shown shots are still always badly underexposed.  There will be LESS noise in the picture if you start nailing the exposure in camera over depending on PPing to correct for user level errors.

The Santa shots also had a severe colourcast.  Your WB was quite far off. The beard looks orange, not white and the hat looks more black than red.    It could have come closer looking something like this:





Not having the original to work with, one was very limited in the amount of correction possible, but you get the idea.

The consistent underexposure leads me to ask you... are you even looking at the camera meter?  If yes, it could be your camera has an issue.  If not, it could be that you are not paying attention to a critical tool.

Ferrari, here is an ISO 3200 Ferrari for you (lol)... with NO post processing other than added sharpening and conversion from RAW to JPG.  This area of the car show was OBVIOUSLY very dark and did indeed need ISO 3200 to get a minimum of 1/30th shutter speed (any less and I could start to introduce motion blur due to camera motion).  I could have opened up the aperture, but that would have reduced my DOF, making the red Ferrari behind it blurry, which I did not want.





Note the top right B&W Ferrari sign... the white looks white and black looks black, neither look grey (as it would, if the when the exposure compensation was incorrect), details are clear and the exposure is good... not underexposed, and no blown highlights either.  This is the goal you are aiming for.  Now, your camera won't be able to touch this level of detail, but thats not the point.  You have to concentrate on proper exposures to minimize noise and then practice with and get to know Noiseware.  Use the most minimal settings to preserve detail as every bit helps.

Now, I know you were practicing with higher ISO settings on the Santa, but when they said it was a flat picture, they meant that the lighting across the scene was uniform and boring.  It has nothing to do with your tests, but it does make for good info for you in the future.  Sometimes extra flash is important, but for what you are now discussing, it is not possible nor even a good idea.  The last thing you want to do is give some poor cheerleader at the top of a 3-tier pyramid a face full of full power flash from 6-feet away at a game.  Not only would you be endangering her, at that point, you would also likely be escorted out.

As a final note, be aware that the higher up the ISO scale that you go, saturation and contrast drops, dynamic range drops (rather drastically in your case), detail is lost and more PPing work is required.  In the end, understanding how your camera works, what are it's limitations and what are the consequences of higher ISO over say, fast glass or supplementary lighting are all part of the photography equation.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 19, 2009)

It can be hard to do when shooting sports...but you can really reduce noise by slightly overexposing.  Your examples, on the other hand, are underexposed...and if you had tried to brighten them in post, it would really have brought out even more noise.

Here is a good article about maximizing the signal to noise ratio and exposing to the right. 
Expose Right


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 19, 2009)

Thanks everybody so far, i really learned a lot. 

Haha I knew about the color cast and the WB being off, but my mac froze as I was adjusting it in aperture and I couldnt export it. Because I was so tired, i just left it that way. 

Jerry, I know it is important to nail the exposure, but how could I without gettting more blur than I already was (unless raiseing the ISO)? What is it that you are reccomening for me to do?


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Jerry, I know it is important to nail the exposure, but how could I without gettting more blur than I already was (unless raiseing the ISO)? What is it that you are reccomening for me to do?



If 1-2 of your pics were underexposed, I would say, yeah, there is not too much short of raising ISO, but all your pics in this thread were at least 1 or more stops underexposed.  If you are telling me the camera is doing that, you have a camera issue.  If you are telling me that you are doing it, you need to change that.  Even your Santa pics, ones with no motion, were 1.8 stops underexposed, if I recall correctly... thats a huge amount to be off by.

In order of best to worst recommendations, they would be:

1 - camera that can handle high ISO cleanly, barring that
2 - faster glass (large apertures), barring that
3 - a little faster glass, and moderate increases in ISO, barring that
4 - raise the ISO, barring that
5 - shoot in highest quality RAW (you're doing this all the time already anyways, yes?) and restore what you can, barring that
6 - we're pretty much screwed... lol

No matter what, your primary goal is to nail the exposure in camera for best results.  If you cannot do it with large apertures and/or high ISO settings or software settings in post process, you are beyond the capabilities of your equipment, or you are not doing something right.  Shooting in RAW is a cheap place to start (becuase it has more latitude for playing with the exposure recovery than any JPG file ever will), but the proper place to start is fast glass.  If you already have fast glass and your needs to shoot in low light are still not attainable but very important to you, you need a body that can do that.

With my D700 and 85mm F/1.4, for example, I see details in low light situations on my pictures... that I do NOT even see in that same room with the naked eye and I still get more than acceptable shutter speeds.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 19, 2009)

Your biggest problem is shooting at F4 it just won't cut it you need to be at minimum F2.8 or lower your shots are at least 2 stops underexposed


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Your biggest problem is shooting at F4 it just won't cut it you need to be at minimum F2.8 or lower your shots are at least 2 stops underexposed



2.8 to 4 is 1 stop.  If he is at least 2 stops under, he's still in the same boat... underexposed.  What would you suggest he do at this point?  Using a lens faster than F/2.8 is possible, but then DOF is so thin that in an action shot, he will have a VERY hard time getting the fast moving subject in focus long enough to get the shot.  Also, at a game most amateur photographers are not always allowed to get down to the sidelines with their 50mm F/1.8, so all you get are a lot of wide and "not very good" shots.  One could use continual focus mode, that would help some, but you still are going to get a lot of pics with an uber-shallow DOF.

On my camera, I am VERY fortunate to be able to use ISO 6400 or higher, and raise aperture to something like F/5.6 and still get high shutter speeds... but this is not the case for the OP.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 19, 2009)

Okay, well right now I cannot afford a fast glass or new camera, so my only option is to raise the ISO. 

I was shooting in full manual, so I  guess my camera was not underexposing because i had full control over the camera. I did not change the metering system though? Should I change any of those setting along with my ISO?

And I knew those santa pics were underexposed. It was like 12:30 in the morning and used NO flash  and there was EXTREMLY little light (I would consider it no light at all). And I know with those conditions, the only way to get a nice exposure is turn down that shutter speed and use a tripod. And I was not doing that that late at night lol. So no, its not my camera.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

On those conditions: 
- you should be in shutter priority mode, set it for the minimum speed required so you get the shots.  Start at 1/125th and go faster *if* needed.

- you should be using SPOT metering mode

- ISO should be set to ISO 3200.

- Exposure compensation should be 0

That's it.

Previously, if you were in full manual, I can guarantee you that you were not paying attention to the meter.  If you did, you would have seen it was showing you the fact that you did not have enough light to take the shots.  The meter should be centered for a close to proper exposure.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 19, 2009)

Okay thanks. By "meter being centered" what do you mean? Do you mean the histogram? Or something with the metering modes? What should be centered?

THANKS!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 19, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> 2.8 to 4 is 1 stop. If he is at least 2 stops under, he's still in the same boat... underexposed. What would you suggest he do at this point? Using a lens faster than F/2.8 is possible, but then DOF is so thin that in an action shot, he will have a VERY hard time getting the fast moving subject in focus long enough to get the shot. Also, at a game most amateur photographers are not always allowed to get down to the sidelines with their 50mm F/1.8, so all you get are a lot of wide and "not very good" shots. One could use continual focus mode, that would help some, but you still are going to get a lot of pics with an uber-shallow DOF.
> 
> On my camera, I am VERY fortunate to be able to use ISO 6400 or higher, and raise aperture to something like F/5.6 and still get high shutter speeds... but this is not the case for the OP.


 

Yes but he is shooting at ISO1600 so that will give him 1 more stop and if he shoot a bit slower that will give him a bit more


----------



## gsgary (Jan 19, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Okay, well right now I cannot afford a fast glass or new camera, so my only option is to raise the ISO.
> 
> I was shooting in full manual, so I guess my camera was not underexposing because i had full control over the camera. I did not change the metering system though? Should I change any of those setting along with my ISO?
> 
> And I knew those santa pics were underexposed. It was like 12:30 in the morning and used NO flash and there was EXTREMLY little light (I would consider it no light at all). And I know with those conditions, the only way to get a nice exposure is turn down that shutter speed and use a tripod. And I was not doing that that late at night lol. So no, its not my camera.


 

Check the histogram, way underexposed i just had a look which means it's not camera error but user error


----------



## gsgary (Jan 19, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> On those conditions:
> - you should be in shutter priority mode, set it for the minimum speed required so you get the shots. Start at 1/125th and go faster *if* needed.
> 
> - you should be using SPOT metering mode
> ...


 

Aperture proiority will give you the fastest shutter speed for the largest aperture you have, using shutter priority will underexpose


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 19, 2009)

Okay so basically I use Shutter Priority at tISO 3200 and probably underexpose

OR

I use Aperture Priority at ISO 3200 and posibbly get blurry images.


----------



## Joves (Jan 19, 2009)

Use shutter priority because the camera should hold the aperture wide open in that case. I personally might try going to the plus side on Exposure Compensation. Since it is digital you may try it before hand to see how it works before you start shooting with some test shots. If it doesnt help then dont use it, it is just that simple.


----------



## Katier (Jan 19, 2009)

Actually fast glass need not be expensive. Just as a for example my f1.7 50mm Lens cost me around £30 ( it's a manual focus, PKA fit ) so one option if your doing indoors work is to explore that option. It's not perfect as manual focusing AF bodies can require a little practice - although I've never had a problem - and you'd need an adapter.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 19, 2009)

yeah. I already have a 50mm prime f/1.8 Canon EF AF lens, but that wont be me close enough to the action.


----------



## Katier (Jan 19, 2009)

Could try a 2xteleconverter.. That'll give you a 100mm but you'll lose some light in the process. Still should be better than f4 though.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 19, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Okay so basically I use Shutter Priority at tISO 3200 and probably underexpose
> 
> OR
> 
> I use Aperture Priority at ISO 3200 and posibbly get blurry images.



Or you get a better understanding of how they all work together and let their strengths work for you, with out making this too terribly hard.  

Sports is my favored form of photography.  Indoor shooting, while in some ways more demanding, is pretty consistent when it comes to lighting, once you understand what you have, it is not usually one of the thing that is all that difficult to overcome.  At least compared to shooting outdoors in changing light.  

First, fast glass is preferred for indoor sports for the obvious reason that it allows more latitude to use shutter speed, aperture and ISO.  F 2.8 is really a minimum in most indoor venues to get the settings you want with out pushing you ISO to the limit or not having enough ISO to work.  If you have no choice then you push you ISO.  Use your fastest glass and crop a bit to get the photo you want. At least it gets you in the ball park.  

First thing to do is get to know your venue or venues you are shooting in.  Most venues, while having anything from adequate to just above midnight during an eclipse lighting, have pretty even lighting across the court.  Unless the custodian is too lazy to get out the big ladder and replace a burnt out light bulb.  This makes it simpler.  You should be able to dial in your settings and shoot.  I normally shoot manual, and always do indoors.  One less thing to worry about. 

Get to the venue early and meter the court.  It is easier with a hand held meter, but if all you have is the in camera meter use it.  Meter the different areas of the court where the action will take place.  Find the dark spot, if there is one and set your camera for it. Unless the place is really freaky, you should not have any overexposure issues with other locations on the court. 

If you don't trust yourself in manual then shoot AV.  In AV you control you shutter speed with your ISO.  You want as low of an ISO as you can shoot with, while still maintaining a shutter speed of no less than 1/250th.  1/320th would of course be better.  

Set you Aperture as wide as it will go.  The difference between a nice sports shot and an outstanding sports shot is capturing the action.  That mean just capturing the action.  Being able to read Suzie's T-shirt logo when she is in the third row is not what you are looking for.  A shallow DOF will make the action pop from the background.  In AV a shallow DOF will remain a constant.  

Now start moving your ISO up until you have the required shutter speed.  800,  Outstanding.  1250, still pretty darn good.  1600 you are good to go.  3200...Still good to go.  A properly exposed shot that is in focus with the action frozen with some noise is better than a shot with motion blur or one that is out of focus.  Neither of those problems is correctable in post processing, noise can be.  

Next thing, practice, practice, practice.  The athletes on the court or field do, so should you.  Before any season starts, I get with the coachs of the college I shoot for and get a practice schedule.  I get out there when they practice and shoot them.  Gets me thinking about the sport I am going to shoot, as they all have their own nuances when shooting. 

One of those nuances is the players themselves.  Get to know them and what the can and can't/don't do on the court or field.  Sports photography is about anticipation.  If you know who your shooters are concentrate on them when they have the ball.  On defense, concentrate on the better defensive players. 

Lastly, I tell this to all parents that shoot.  If you kid is playing you have only one of two choices.  Be a parent and watch the game, or be a photographer and record the action.  You can not do both.  If you are watching the game you are not anticipating what will occur.  By the time you recognize that there was something to shoot, it is too late.  That camera should be glued to your face and you should be tracking the action through the viewfinder.  You don't care about the score, who wins or looses or anything else except good action. If you do, then you are going to miss great shots.  Sports photography is demanding and you have to concentrate on it entirely when you are shooting or you will miss shots.  Good luck and have fun.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 19, 2009)

Thanks everybody for all your help! Especially "gry" for taking the time to write that extensive and conclusive post. 

I MAY be able to get out to the gym this week (before the weekend) because I am shootin cheerleading in in next weekend.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 20, 2009)

Joves said:


> Use shutter priority because the camera should hold the aperture wide open in that case. I personally might try going to the plus side on Exposure Compensation. Since it is digital you may try it before hand to see how it works before you start shooting with some test shots. If it doesnt help then dont use it, it is just that simple.


 

That is rubbish, aperture priority will give you the fastest shutter speed with correct exposure but becaus his lens is not capable of shooting in these conditions you will always have problems


----------



## gsgary (Jan 20, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Okay so basically I use Shutter Priority at tISO 3200 and probably underexpose
> 
> OR
> 
> I use Aperture Priority at ISO 3200 and posibbly get blurry images.


 
Or buy a lens that will work in these conditions 

Or leave your camera at home and watch the match

No2 would be my option without the right lens


----------

