It's Not all in the Megapixels

[pinkporridge]

This looks like a studio shot, but it was shot on location. the sky was very grey that day and she was wearing a vale. that's what gave the white background.

You can always tell how an image has been lit by the eyes. If you look at the left eye you will see a white circle. for this is used:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ex-Pro-Photographic-Light-Reflector-Collapsible/dp/B000RGPUKM

An interchangeable reflector, it has gold silver white and black. if you unzip it completely it makes a very nice diffusing material. i had sam hold the flash behind the (now) diffuser and stand at a rough 45 degree angle form the subject.

lighting is very important for portraits. i personally would not attempt a portrait without at least a reflector.

hope this helps.

 

[The Man]

Just subscribing..Not as knowledgeable as you guys,but I do like photography

 

[pinkporridge]

you should post your work.

 

[The Man]

I would get laughed at

 

[sammy39]

I would get laughed at

lol...no u wouldnt! Im sure theres alot worse that gets posted on the forum! But u have to remember that me and PinkPorridge are professional photographers so (not to boast-its just a fact) our photos are going to be alot better than alot of the stuff you see here but we do no wot we r doing...and its also down to personal preference..
Janie - I agree with Amy...Do u do long exposure night shots of, say, cars? If u do, u can bring the ISO right down, to as low as it goes...It means ur shutter speed will be longer but will have far less grain and when ur doing stuff like that, shutter speed doesnt matter as long as u have it on a tripod. And its also about experimenting...like amy says, try doing the shot u posted again but with a flashgun...even if u can borrow one off someone...use a tripod too, if u didnt in the first place...a rule of thumb I use, is that i always use a tripod for anything thats under 1/20 especially if its a moving object even if its a person...the slightest movement will show up at a slow speed unless you use a flash.

 

[pinkporridge]

I would get laughed at

no ones gonna laugh. its not always about what camera you have or how much training you've had. sometimes all it takes a keen eye.

 

[Guyzerr]

But Guyzerr, I am in a class full of people who just like me, have "Average" cameras. And their prints are better. It can't be just in my head. I have valid issues, and can't figure out how to fix them.

Here are examples and the info. I can upload more, but I wanted to make sure I was doing it right first.


both were taken with tripod and trigger button

Janie that first shot was taken at ISO 3200 which is way above what you initially said. Along with that you have real nasty lighting conditions and that didn't do you any favors.

I suggested that you become very intimate with your camera / settings / limits and that's been backed up by Pink & Sammy with some great suggestions.

I've been shooting with DSLR's for about 6 years now and every time I go out I learn something new about my camera. I've always got the manual in hand and I use it faithfully. It's taught me a ton of stuff.

 

[Tuffdisc]

So I have been trying to do manipulations in photoshop, and I was having issues because of the difference in grain when shot in different ISO's.

Which I didn't think would be SO badly & drasticly different. Not to mention I may as well have used a cell phone to take some of the pics because that's how shitty the grain is.


I brought them and my camera to my teacher who is a professional digital artist - he takes digital photos and compiles them to build an image from the background up. He knows his stuff.

Basically he told me my camera was crap. The censor in it is apparently shitty, and that's why I get such a high grain which is making for some really horrible prints. I mean HORRIBLE.

I am really upset because I spent a good $400?? maybe $600?? on my camera w/o lens. I have a Canon Rebel which according to my teacher is crap. and it has 15MP!!!!

He says megapixels don't matter - that some 5MP point and shoot would take better photos than my rebel because it has a better censor.

He recommends Nikon 40D or something.


My question is this - is there any truth to what he was saying? Are the Nikon censors in their lower models better than the one in my Canon? Because Nikons are cheaper and I will switch teams if it means I can get a clear image.

It's driving me crazy because I love doing low light shots or night photography, and they all look like SHIT!!!

I was on a studio tutorial yesterday, the people said that for Canon users have to put their ISO on 100, while Noink users, sorry Nikon, would have to put their ISO to 200 because there were something wrong...now go tell your teacher which camera makes are better? I would say Canon by a mile. I have only used one manufacturer other than Canon, and that was my first digital camera P&S it was a Sony. Once I had my first canon, a powershot range, I have never looked towards another manufacturer
:24:

 

[Tuffdisc]

tbh janie. unless your going for full frame chips like the canon 5d mk2 or Nikon D3 (i think), your gonna get a shit ton of grain at high iso. If you like, i have a Nikon d300 i can do some tests today and increase the ISO so you can compare to what you get from yours?

I have to disagree with this, my Canon 400D doesn't really give out that much noise at 1600, it is noticeable but that is on some not all situations.

I was shooting a musician that came out reasonable on idiot mode, there wasn't much there :24:

 

[Tuffdisc]

Not all censors are created equal, pixels doesn't mean shit without a good sensor AND noise reduction software in the camera. You can have a 5MP camera taking clearer shots than a 10MP camera at the same ISO setting.

Take a look at this site for comparisons between ISO settings and camera models to see the difference yourself. The next page shows the resolution tests, you can see a huge difference.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/us.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/resolution.htm

Ken Rockwell sucks big time, he is always disparaging Canon for no good. Maybe he doesn't know to get the best out of Canon

Just to add to the OP, people have said to me tonnes of times, it isn't the equipment that makes good photos, it is the person behind the box that makes them, yup, you have to have good technical skills i.e. know your camera.

 

[pinkporridge]

I have to disagree with this, my Canon 400D doesn't really give out that much noise at 1600, it is noticeable but that is on some not all situations.

I was shooting a musician that came out reasonable on idiot mode, there wasn't much there :24:

wait are you trying to tell me that you wont get a load of grain at high ISO?

 

[Tuffdisc]

wait are you trying to tell me that you wont get a load of grain at high ISO?

not much as you suggest

 

[pinkporridge]

u know when i say high ISO im talking, pushing your camera limits. no matter what camera, your gonna have noise. im not talking 1600. you dont really start seing the noise too bad on mine till 2500. you can see it in the pics that sammy39 posted. It stands to reason that a lesser camera would have more noise at a lower ISO, just as my camera has much much more noise than sams at 6400.

my statement is still valid. ALL cameras have lots of grain at high ISO.

 

[Tuffdisc]

u know when i say high ISO im talking, pushing your camera limits. no matter what camera, your gonna have noise. im not talking 1600. you dont really start seing the noise too bad on mine till 2500. you can see it in the pics that sammy39 posted. It stands to reason that a lesser camera would have more noise at a lower ISO, just as my camera has much much more noise than sams at 6400.

my statement is still valid. ALL cameras have lots of grain at high ISO.

Old cameras, yes, new cameras not necessarily

 

[Guyzerr]

my statement is still valid. ALL cameras have lots of grain at high ISO.

:homo:' ette

Unfortunately noise is an issue with digital cameras. It becomes less with the amount invested in the body though.

 

[sammy39]

Old cameras, yes, new cameras not necessarily

Sorry but im gonna have to disagree with you there...as I ve proved with my test images from my full frame, 21MP canon 5d mark 2 which is a professional, industry used camera, you can start to see noise/grain at 6400 and then of course at the highest it goes. As Amy says, a camera with a smaller camera sensor is going to show up grain but at a smaller ISO. ALL cameras will show grain (eventually) no matter how big the sensor is.

 

[Tuffdisc]

Sorry but im gonna have to disagree with you there...as I ve proved with my test images from my full frame, 21MP canon 5d mark 2 which is a professional, industry used camera, you can start to see noise/grain at 6400 and then of course at the highest it goes. As Amy says, a camera with a smaller camera sensor is going to show up grain but at a smaller ISO. ALL cameras will show grain (eventually) no matter how big the sensor is.

errrrrr, I am talking about ISO ratings of 1600, so you can disagree with me whatever :dunno:

 

[sammy39]

Sorry, u didnt make that clear...I thought u meant any ISO setting.

 

[Tuffdisc]

Sorry, u didnt make that clear...I thought u meant any ISO setting.

Oh I did mention 1600

 

[JanieDough]

attention people!

What I am asking is if my camera has an abnormally high grain at those ISO settings. If it has a substantially higher shitty grainy quality that would mean that there's something wrong with my camera.

I don't like using flash for something like this, and I know this amount of grain is not acceptable for what I am doing.

What I am asking is for you guys to evaluate the performance of my camera, not me.

I don't mean to be snarky, but you guys are telling me everything BUT what I wanted to know. Is my camera abnormally grainy?

I know ISO 3200 is high - I posted it so you could compare.

I also posted ISO 400. I can post more! They are still grainy as shit, and I don't think they should be. So is my camera crappy or what?

I know I could do longer shutter speeds, but then my model and everything in the shot would have to hold still for that much longer, and that's not acceptable in some situations.

I don't like using flash - I like the look of scenes at night - or in low light - I like the way the light looks. Flash would ruin it.