Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Mint, Feb 24, 2008.
to visit Berkeley, and took some cool shots.
#1 It's impressive how much grain you managed to produce at 400ISO, Nikon FTW.
#2 What was your subject? Focus is somewhere in the middle, like the trees, but the dominating force is the clocktower.
#3 Waaaaaaaaaaaay too much visual distraction, poor composition. Leave out trees and power lines next time unless you know how to use them.
How do you know it was 400?
If it was shouldnt he have used atleast 800?
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 20/1 second = 20 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 71/10 = F7.1
# Exposure Program = manual control (1)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400
# Exif Version = 0221
# Original Date/Time = 2008:02:15 23:53:11
# Digitization Date/Time = 2008:02:15 23:53:11
# Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = -4321928/1000000
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/0.05 second
# Aperture Value (APEX) = 5655638/1000000
Aperture = F7.1
# Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/6 = 0
# Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 36/10 = 3.6
Max Aperture = F3.48
# Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
# Light Source / White Balance = tungsten / incandescent (3)
# Flash = Flash did not fire
# Focal Length = 180/10 mm = 18 mm
# Last Modified Subsecond Time = 10
# Original Subsecond Time = 10
# Digitized Subsecond Time = 10
# Colour Space = 65535
# Image Width = 1248 pixels
# Image Height = 804 pixels
# Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)
# Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
# Scene Type = directly photographed image
# Colour Filter Array (CFA) Geometric Pattern = 0x02,0x00,0x02,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x00,0x01
# Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
# Exposure Mode = manual exposure (1)
# White Balance = manual (1)
# Digital Zoom Ratio = 1/1 = 1
# Focal Length in 35mm Film = 27
# Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
# Gain Control = low gain up (1)
# Contrast = normal (0)
# Saturation = normal (0)
# Sharpness = normal (0)
# Subject Distance Range = unknown (0)
Lower ISO = Less Grain, and since he's doing a long exposure ISO doesn't really matter, just set the camera and down and take your long exposure. He also exposed for the entire frame, I would have let the sky and the water be a lot darker and expose for the bridge by itself.
Ah cool thats a tip I will remember. Its true, the sky would have looked great being darker here. So there would need to be some layering involved in PS obviously.
That shot is noisy because it was origionally underexposed to all hell and he tried to save it by upping the brightness/exposure.
Thats not a noise created by the camera, it's noise created in photoshop.
Photoshop can only enhance noise already present. Make a white to black gradient and do anything you want to it, it doesn't add that kind of grain.
"exposes" is probably a better word than enhances.
a white to black gradient isn't a photographic image.
Thats not even CLOSE to the same thing.
Underexposed images that contain minimal or no detail can only be recovered so much in photoshop. Pushing them beyond this boundary causes the program to artificially increase noise as a way to bring out every last bit of detail possible.
It has NOTHING to do with the actual image. I can produce that same effect using ANY underexposed image shot on ANY camera at ANY iso setting.
you are incorrect.
Underexposing causes noise, fact. High ISO increases said noise, fact. Under exposing at high iso causes significant noise, fact. Increasing the brightness exposes said noise, fact. A shot at ISO 100 would have significantly less of this sort of noise even after post processing, fact.
Oh, and Nikon cameras produce more noise, FACT.
The noise and banding that is causing the problems in the image posted are not normal noise issues created by shooting at iso 400. Those issues are a result of taking a severly underexposed image and attempting to fix the issue by radically increasing the exposure in post processing.
While I agree that there would obviously be less sensor noise in the image if it were shot at iso 100, the problems in the image would not be lessened, as they are not a result of shooting at iso 400 whatsoever.
The banding and noise issues in this image are very obviously the effect that you get when your PP software has to fill in lost shadow detail with pixels from surrounding area due to severe underexposure.
Any and all attempts to link this problem to sensor noise, camera brand or otherwise are complete bullshit.
shut the fuck up, troll.
I'm in San Fran right now
Meh, you win.
OMG PERFECT PICTURe!
I was thinking more like this, but I prefer red to yellow:
But I was also talking about on-camera.
oh noes, the noise will kill us alll.....aaaaahhhhhhhh.
Spurious = douche bag
I didn't think that was a secret?