What's your highest acceptable ISO w/D200?

I find that anything above 400 is too grainy for my tastes because it's a "sharper" or "harder" grain than film. Even some recent stuff shot in clear Florida springs were disappointing at 400. So I'm wondering what others find acceptable. I'm not talking about B&W wreck photography or other types of creative work - just straight "pretty fishy" photos. Also curious if people have much success taming the grain in Photoshop.

Thanks!

Even though it's not an option, I prefer not to shoot above 200 for best results. I prefer to use a lower shutter speed if necessary. When I shot film, grain did not bother me with films like Tri-x etc, noise bothers me though. To me it seems to degrade the image more than grain did. Noise Ninja is my favorite PS plug-in for noise.

I use a D80 which is pretty similar.

I usually try to stick to ASA100, but find that 200 is fine. I've been using Auto ISO to good avail lately and set it to range between 100-200 or up to 400. Remember you have several steps between 200 & 400 as well. I probably would shoot much above that, but remember grain can be a good thing on some shots...

Jack

Yea, not enough choices. I shoot with a 5D, which is by all reviews much better than the D200 yet when it comes to ISO/noise, and I will never use anything above 100 for anything where I am concerned with image quality....

I don't see much difference between ISO 100 and 200 but I still shoot 90% of my underwater stuff at 100. I accidently shot a whole dive at ISO 800 (I was particularly brain dead that day and was even wondering why I had to turn my strobes down so much) and was suprised that it wasn't that bad. Although it was noisey I wouldn't hesitate to use it if I had to. I shot some fast moving dolphin images at 400 and 640 and they were very acceptable. I guess my preference would be to have a sharp image with a some noise over a soft image with little or no noise.

I guess that's a long way of saying "it depends."

When I shot film, grain did not bother me with films like Tri-x etc, noise bothers me though. To me it seems to degrade the image more than grain did. Noise Ninja is my favorite PS plug-in for noise.

You know it is funny, but I feel the same way about it. (Noise vs Grain) and I wonder how much of it is because we look at it differently than film (at least I do to some degree)...may break that thought off into another thread. Anyway moving closer to on-topic...playing with Aperture 2.0 a bit (sort of by-passed the earlier versions) and even just playing around rally like it...how does Noise Ninja do compared to Aperture in terms of noise reduction? (Okay not quite back on topic).....sorry do not mean to be hijacking the thread but since you use Aperture and mentioned noise..

I find that anything above 400 is too grainy for my tastes because it's a "sharper" or "harder" grain than film. Even some recent stuff shot in clear Florida springs were disappointing at 400. So I'm wondering what others find acceptable. I'm not talking about B&W wreck photography or other types of creative work - just straight "pretty fishy" photos. Also curious if people have much success taming the grain in Photoshop.

Thanks!

I had one shoot in SoCal with a D-300, wide-angle (sigma 10-20mm)

No one had told me ISO 800 or 400 was a bad idea so on the basis of "what you dont know wont kill you" I took some shots, figuring the camera was supposed to be really good at high ISO

There is definitely a lot of noise at ISO 800 and still noise at 400. I used neatimage to remove the noise and got some "decent" shots (considering it was my first time out and no strobes) but not magazine quality by any stretch!

Next time I will go for 200 and see what's what.

You know it is funny, but I feel the same way about it. (Noise vs Grain) and I wonder how much of it is because we look at it differently than film (at least I do to some degree)...may break that thought off into another thread. Anyway moving closer to on-topic...playing with Aperture 2.0 a bit (sort of by-passed the earlier versions) and even just playing around rally like it...how does Noise Ninja do compared to Aperture in terms of noise reduction? (Okay not quite back on topic).....sorry do not mean to be hijacking the thread but since you use Aperture and mentioned noise..

I've used neatimage Phosotshop plugin just once, and aperture noise reduction just once.

neatimage (for the amateur like me) blew aperture away, removing a huge amount of noise w/out seriously compromising the image.

But I am just a beginner, so results may definitely vary.

I've used neatimage Phosotshop plugin just once, and aperture noise reduction just once.

neatimage (for the amateur like me) blew aperture away, removing a huge amount of noise w/out seriously compromising the image.

 

But I am just a beginner, so results may definitely vary.

Nah nosie is noise Have you tried it compared to Aperture 2 (or was it earlier Aperture?) In terms of jumps Aperture 2 to the earlier ones is a huge one so it seems...I never had a chance to really use V 1.0 (though I have it..go figure )

Nah nosie is noise Have you tried it compared to Aperture 2 (or was it earlier Aperture?) In terms of jumps Aperture 2 to the earlier ones is a huge one so it seems...I never had a chance to really use V 1.0 (though I have it..go figure )

Aperture 2, but like I said I am just a beginner so god only knows what I am doing!

I have absolutely no problem with noise ISO 400 on the d200 as long as I "expose to the right" - I've printed large examples of this and the water, etc. is just gorgeous. But if I don't expose it like this there is a small problem with noise in the shadows at 400.

In fact I found out by trial and error while sleep-deprived and cold - forgetting to take it off ISO 320 or 400, or not having time to in the rapidly changing light of the freshwater springs, etc. - anyway I really like the shots at 320 or 400 as long again as I exposed it to the right on the histogram. I got much better color and truer/actual color at 320 or 400 of the gorgeous water when I was shooting from shaded areas into the lighter areas of the springs than when I used 200 or less - that is why you see many of my manatee shots at that iso (320 or 400) as it just works better for me and they look great on screen/printed.

I run most everything through a very small dose of noise ninja as an auto-action but I don't have to actually as long as the image is bright enough, that is only needed if there are lots of shadow areas. Plus I might set a small amt of noise reduction in Lightroom but that doesn't usually make that much difference as LR noise reduction is very mild.

I don't shoot above 400 on the d200 as it is pretty unacceptable at least for me. But if I can shoot at 100 or 200 all the better, I just find that more than 1/2 the time I can't for my style of shooting and the times of day that I'm in the water.

That is my experience!! FWIW..

Carol

You know it is funny, but I feel the same way about it. (Noise vs Grain) and I wonder how much of it is because we look at it differently than film (at least I do to some degree)...may break that thought off into another thread. Anyway moving closer to on-topic...playing with Aperture 2.0 a bit (sort of by-passed the earlier versions) and even just playing around rally like it...how does Noise Ninja do compared to Aperture in terms of noise reduction? (Okay not quite back on topic).....sorry do not mean to be hijacking the thread but since you use Aperture and mentioned noise..

If I can see noise after the initial import I use Noise Ninja. I have not tried the Aperture noise reduction tools much, I may try more now with Apeture 2 for minor issues.

To give a totally honest answer, I don't know because I have never shot anything above ISO200. But my guess is that it really depends on the conditions, because in good light conditions a high ISO (even though it is when it's usually least needed) will be more acceptable to most eyes.

However, if anyone knows a good place to look at examples of noise/"grain" that the different cameras produce, I would appreciate it.

cheers

I have absolutely no problem with noise ISO 400 on the d200 as long as I "expose to the right" - I've printed large examples of this and the water, etc. is just gorgeous. But if I don't expose it like this there is a small problem with noise in the shadows at 400.

 

In fact I found out by trial and error while sleep-deprived and cold - forgetting to take it off ISO 320 or 400, or not having time to in the rapidly changing light of the freshwater springs, etc. - anyway I really like the shots at 320 or 400 as long again as I exposed it to the right on the histogram. I got much better color and truer/actual color at 320 or 400 of the gorgeous water when I was shooting from shaded areas into the lighter areas of the springs than when I used 200 or less - that is why you see many of my manatee shots at that iso (320 or 400) as it just works better for me and they look great on screen/printed.

 

I run most everything through a very small dose of noise ninja as an auto-action but I don't have to actually as long as the image is bright enough, that is only needed if there are lots of shadow areas. Plus I might set a small amt of noise reduction in Lightroom but that doesn't usually make that much difference as LR noise reduction is very mild.

 

I don't shoot above 400 on the d200 as it is pretty unacceptable at least for me. But if I can shoot at 100 or 200 all the better, I just find that more than 1/2 the time I can't for my style of shooting and the times of day that I'm in the water.

 

That is my experience!! FWIW..

 

Carol

Carol-

Ironically, some manatee shots I did at Three Sisters two weeks ago prompted me to start this thread. I was in the water at 7:00 am on a cloudy morning and 400 was my only option. Dare I say if I had it to do all over again, I'd go Canon??? (Please, no Canon vs. Nikon discussion. This is only about the D200. ) But being a 25 year Nikon shooter, it just ain't gonna happen.

As I was starting this thread, I thought about putting in plenty more choices but I think most are in agreement that 320 or 400 is about max.

I think what's pertinent here is maximum lens aperture; one of the disadvantages of the Tokina 10-17 which we all love is that it is a stop slower than the 10.5 or 16mm - and in low light that is the difference between 200 and 400 ISO. I think in the Canon to Nikon discussion, (did you think you could mention it without a respose:) ) the argument is now mute in that the D3 has changed everything in this regard. In the D200 class, Canon equivalents are probably fairly similar.

To give a totally honest answer, I don't know because I have never shot anything above ISO200. But my guess is that it really depends on the conditions, because in good light conditions a high ISO (even though it is when it's usually least needed) will be more acceptable to most eyes.

 

However, if anyone knows a good place to look at examples of noise/"grain" that the different cameras produce, I would appreciate it.

 

cheers

I am more than happy to post links to the NEF's and the final images I came up with if anyone cares.

I saw a quite large amount of noise @ 800 (way way more than I expected) and even more at 400 than I was hoping for (but I may have unrealistic expectations or may be doing something utterly wrong)

I am more than happy to post links to the NEF's and the final images I came up with if anyone cares.

I saw a quite large amount of noise @ 800 (way way more than I expected) and even more at 400 than I was hoping for (but I may have unrealistic expectations or may be doing something utterly wrong)

The reason for my question was that different cameras produce different noise/grain, and I don't think it is always a bad thing. It would be interesting to "compare" noise, not the amount, but the "quality".

cheers

The reason for my question was that different cameras produce different noise/grain, and I don't think it is always a bad thing. It would be interesting to "compare" noise, not the amount, but the "quality".

 

cheers

I was just playing around with my manatee shots at ISO 400 that prompted me to start this thread and discovered the grain so much more evident on my laptop than my desktop. I then realized I was sharpening by 25% while doing the RAW conversion on my laptop. I turned off the sharpening in the preferences and the results are far more pleasing. Selective sharpening in Photoshop is the answer, I believe.

The reason for my question was that different cameras produce different noise/grain, and I don't think it is always a bad thing. It would be interesting to "compare" noise, not the amount, but the "quality".

 

cheers

Got ya, the "noise/grain" I experienced seemed quite unpleasing (to me) at large sizes, but I got some decent (to my standards) 10x12 prints out of the shoot.

I am trying to see if I accidentally did something stupid in the RAW conversions in Aperture that miught make the noise/grain less pleasing but I dont see anything obvious.

... It would be interesting to "compare" noise, not the amount, but the "quality"....

I have found my d200 has more of a "film grain-like" noise, it seems to be more like "luminous noise" rather "than colour noise".

My Canons have always been smoother, but I don't mind the "apparent" sharpness that a small amount of luminous noise can give to a print in some instances...