DSLRUsers.com

Yes I know more Motorsport!

But someone mentioned the D200 in lowlight high ISO, this is low ambient lighting, very overcast day at sunset or there abouts. Taken with the D200, 70-200VR. I need to grab the EXIF later on as it is not handy.

EXIF: ISO 1600, 200mm, 1/100, f3.2, Manual Exposure, Matrix Metering, D200, 70-200 VR.

ISO 1600


IS0 1600 after noise reduction applied.


ISO 1600 with half noise reduction applied.


I don't think the original is that bad all things considered...

Cheers
Brett

the 1st is not bad, but the 2nd is awesome!

what NR engine did you use?

perhaps, if you would not mind, could you supply a few 100% crops of some of that photo?

Original File is at home I'll have to grab it later on to grab the 100% crops. The engine was Neat Image, with the specific files for the D200 loaded.

Noise is only a real problem when the exposure is not spot on - these are great Brett

sirhc55 wrote:Noise is only a real problem when the exposure is not spot on - these are great Brett

or - in my case a lot of the time - when your images have lots of shadow detail...

to get around it i use lots of artificial light to get around it, but having said that - i would like to give neat image or noise ninja a bit of a go - the prospect of being able to run the flashes at lower power levels to boost up recycle times...

looking forward to those 100% crops!

Please don't hold your breath there James I will try to get them tonight as time permits

no stress, i'm in no rush, take your time!

steps to apply noise reduction?

You know what? I think I prefer #1, it fits the 956C a bit better than the cleaner look in #2. #1 could easily have been taken in the late 80s...

Nice shot, looks pretty sweet at 1600! I would probably go somewhere between the first and second shot with NR

I use NoiseNinja and bloody love it! It's flexible and super mega awesome..

I had to look very closely to see the difference between the two images, which suggest one or more of:
1) my monitor is not very good
2) my eyes aren't very good
3) there isn't a whole of difference.

There is difference there, look in the brown patches in the background to see it, as I said it doesn't worry me too much at all. Also added an image with half reduction done in the first post.

Here are some links to 100% crops (sorry 800x536):

Original

Full Noise Reduction

Half Noise Reduction

The method I took with this photo is as follows;

1. Layer adjustment for Curves, bring in more contrast.
2. Layer adjustment for Hue / Sat.
3. Sharpening (very slight).
4. Colour space change to sRGB from Adobe 1998.
5. Resize to 800x536 , 72dpi.
6. Save for web at 90%
7. Apply Neat Image on D200 / JPEG Large Fine / ISO 1600 Profile
8. Use both default noise reduction and then a custom half reduction.

Cheers
Brett

I don't quite understand the "noise" thing. Film has had grain for years, its part of the character of the image. The same is also true of digital.

Just personal preference i guess (I'm a noise hater).

The third is my cup-o-tea...A good balance.

Nigell wrote:I don't quite understand the "noise" thing. Film has had grain for years, its part of the character of the image. The same is also true of digital.

I think it is just a digital thing, people want to see a extremely high ISO image with no noise characteristics, they are looking for the cleaner image without a lot of that character that film had.

I like a bit of both, some images scream take out the noise, others say leave me grainy I look better for it.

This was an image I played with, wanted to see how usable ISO 1600 was both with and without noise reduction applied. I only took a couple of images at this level at the event, most were at 400 or 800, which are quite usable.

Cheers
Brett

I agree. I think that the whole noise issue has been blown out of the water - mostly by Canon marketing people.

A number of cameras and photoshop filters are now on the market which add the noise / grain back into the image.

I like #1 with the noise and the clean (full noise reduction) version best