Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,13:37)|
|Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,13:16)|
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)|
|Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.|
Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.
A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal - wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.
I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.
Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.
This is probably something you're aware of, so feel free to ignore..
Are you shooting the images in RAW mode?
No. Fine JPEG.
ETA: removed extra letter
Edited by Robin on Mar. 19 2012,15:25
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis