[tuggie76]

Hi, I took some high ISO shots at my grandsons trampoline class last night, the attached photo was taken at iso 51200, 1/500 sec at f5.6 with K3ii and Tamron 70-300 at 90mm. I didn't expect a great shot, but find this is almost useless. The 2nd shot is straight out of the camera, except for heavy cropping. the first was run through DFine, still not a lot of good! Any suggestions on how I can improve this?

Thanks.

Tuggie76

---

Last edited by tuggie76; 06-18-2016 at 02:04 PM.

[FantasticMrFox]

So this is even 'heavily' cropped? I think you need to reevaluate your expectations. You are shooting an APS-C camera, and 51,200 is an exceptionally high ISO. This is a normal result and no cause for disappointment.

If you want better performance, get a full frame. Or get a faster lens that allows you to shoot at f/2.8 and ISO 12,800 instead.

[Rondec]

This is a really tough situation. Obviously you need a certain shutter speed, but your lens is pretty slow. I really feel like max iso for K3 is 6400 for decent quality. Full frame will get you roughly a stop better than that. Faster lens would help out -- depending on the focal length you are shooting at, it might be tough to do.

[ismaelg]

Topaz Denoise works wonderful for me. 51,200 is quite extreme, but it should clean up some.
If you want, you can email me the image and I can run it thru Topaz later tonight and see how it works.

Thanks,

[radman]

So this is even 'heavily' cropped? I think you need to reevaluate your expectations. You are shooting an APS-C camera, and 51,200 is an exceptionally high ISO. This is a normal result and no cause for disappointment.

If you want better performance, get a full frame. Or get a faster lens that allows you to shoot at f/2.8 and ISO 12,800 instead.

Hi,


You have the right camera...but I agree with the assessment from Mr. Fox...
the # 1 issue here is you need a faster lens. F2.8 (for ex tamron 70-200 f2.8) would have made a big difference.
Secondly, Try to decrease the shutter speed a bit. Kids move fast, but you could probably get away with around 1/250 to 1/400.


These 2 factors will result in much less noise.


I hope this helps.


radman

[swip]

I don't think too much can be done with the photos you already have.
Going forward, how about using the flash?

[Na Horuk]

I didn't expect a great shot, but find this is almost useless.

Yeah, I think its generally understood that ISO above 3200 is pretty bad, and pretty much useless above 6400. Unless you have a camera that costs $5000+. But even then, that ISO would be far from beautiful. Higher ISO number always means higher amount of digital noise (both luminous and colour)

Anyway, you can buy another lens with faster aperture (f5.6 can be too dark for indoors; try something that is f4 or better yet f2.8), use a slower shutter speed (like 1/60, but with telephoto and moving subjects that if often impossible, too blurry). So the final solution is to use flash or at least very powerful continuous light. There are many types of flash, they freeze movement and light up the scene nicely, but ... well, they are flashes. There is a noticeable, bright shot of light.

With the photos you have, especially if you shot raw, use something like Topaz Denoise, NoiseNinja (might be free? not sure if it still exists) or one of the other specialized Noise reduction software out there. That can help you get better results.
Also, you can turn the photos black and white, which will make the noise colour cast look more like "film grain".

Good luck

[VoiceOfReason]

Definitely need a faster lens. A Tamron/Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, shutter speed of 1/250, and ISO of 6400 or even 12800 would have allowed a much better image.

[robthebloke]

F5.6, iso 51200, and 1/500? Using f4.0, ISO 6400, and 1/100 would have delivered better results. For noise ruined photos like that, the only option is to convert into black and white, play with the tone curves a bit, and it may end looking almost passable as a retro B&W shot if you're lucky.

[FantasticMrFox]

F5.6, iso 51200, and 1/500? Using f4.0, ISO 6400, and 1/100 would have delivered better results.

He shot trampolining, 1/100 sec. will definitely not cut it. Whether he needs 1/500 I don't know, he could try going down to 1/400.

[Simen1]

There is no visible motion blur, but very heavy noise. That means you should use slower shutter speed to reduce the noise. The depth of field is more then enough too. That means you could use a larger aperture or larger sensor to reduce noise too, but it would probably be a lot cheaper to just use a flash.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

The recent batch of Pentax APS-C cameras (2012 to current) seem to do well up to ISO 6400 & hitting their usable limit at ISO 12800. I have my K-50 set to shoot from ISO 100 to ISO 6400. If I had a K-3, K-3II, K-5II or K-5IIs, I'd set the upper limit to ISO 12800. Once you start getting past that ISO, color noise & luminance noise start getting a bit heavier. At that point, black & white will yield better results.

There is where the fast glass comes in. It's the only way to keep the camera in that ISO range. But like always, there are tradeoffs like sharpness & junk. You end up giving up one thing for another. Like you can shoot at f/1.8 & ISO 3200, but then will it be in focus? Or you can shoot at f/8 & ISO 12800 to get a sharper image, but will the noise ruin the image? How much time do you want to spend post processing the image to find that balance between noise & detail? Do you want to use a flash & risk making a person look fatter or skinnier than what they actually are? First world problems. Hahaha!

But yeah. If you go back to the early 2000s, what you shot at ISO 51000 with your K-3 would be what you shot at ISO 3200 with an older generation CCD sensored Pentax, Canon, Nikon, or Sony DSLR.

[tuggie76]

Thanks for all the advise guys, it seems a faster lens is on the Christmas list!. I'll look into Noise Ninja. I did take some with flash, AF540fgz, and they came out well, except for a huge shadow behind, bouncing was not an option as the distance was too far and the roof too high.

Thanks for the offer,Ismaelg, but there is a whole bunch of them, and the ones with flash will be enough. I just wanted to know if I was expecting too much.

The movie mode worked quite well though.

Tuggie76

[rawr]

except for heavy cropping

What do you mean by 'heavy cropping'? If these are 100% crops from your image, the result is very good indeed, all things considered. If they are a 30% crop, not so good.

If they are 100% crops, with noise reduction, a colour temperature fix, and a little boost to clarity and contrast, the full size image may not look too bad.

[wildman]

suggestions on how I can improve this?

Start with a more lor less perfect RAW ETTR file - without that at an IS0 of 51200 you will be dead in the water.
Make sure WB is spot on. Cutting back on saturation and contrast in PP a bit can help also.

My shot at an ISO 51200