[jolee1990]

hey guys, recently i have been told to take pictures for my church christmas event. i have a 18-55 and a 50 f1.4. i plan on using the 50 for individual pics. i read online that you can use iso 3200 to help you for low light pictures. so i tested this and found that it gave me a noisy picture... like grainy. am i doing this wrong ? or wrong technique? or pentax is just weak at 3200?

[lithos]

In short: everything is weak at ISO 3200.

[jolee1990]

what is the point of 3200 then? how can i take low light pics sharper? i will be using my k20d and also a cannon, i am guessing it will be a 85mm f1.4 or a 35mm f1.something . i heard that proffessionals use iso 3200 or like magazines and suff

[brkl]

Not everyone is bothered by a bit of noise.

A tripod would enable you to get good shots at lower ISOs, especially with the 1.4. Actually, I doubt you really need iso 3200 with the 1.4 if you use it wide open. Probably 800 or so will be enough. I would take the shots at 1600 to get some depth of field. They'll be clean enough at normal viewing distances.

[interested_observer]

You can also use noise reduction software like Noise Ninga, Neat Image and Noiseware.

Noise Reduction Tool Comparison

See his recommendations on the last page .....

Noise Reduction Tool Comparison

Here are some additional comparisons...

NOISE Reduction Software Comparison. Shootout Review with samples

[erickallemeyn]

hey guys, recently i have been told to take pictures for my church christmas event. i have a 18-55 and a 50 f1.4. i plan on using the 50 for individual pics. i read online that you can use iso 3200 to help you for low light pictures. so i tested this and found that it gave me a noisy picture... like grainy. am i doing this wrong ? or wrong technique? or pentax is just weak at 3200?

What body? The new K-x is better at 3200 than the previous models. Also, it helps to shoot in RAW and remove the noise afterwards. Yes, there will be some noise, but many time's its acceptable for prints 4x6 or even 8x10. Computer screens show way more noise than prints do.

EDIT** K20D, I see. ISO 1600 with a monopod might be a better option for you?

[Ash]

Remember to ETTR (expose for highlights rather than for shadows) and you may find much better results from ISO 3200. Of course, what that means is to use a longer shutter speed (or wider aperture) than you've been using - on as suggested, put the camera on a tripod/monopod.

[Marc Sabatella]

Post one of the pictures you are unhappy with, and perhaps people can suggest ways of improving it. A picture taken at ISO 3200 on any camera that suppots this should be perfectly usable a web resolution. Sure, if you pixel peep at 100% - the equrivalent of printing a very large poster - you'll see noise. So don't do that. You can also do noise reduction in post processing; your camera may have settings to do some in camera as well.

[jolee1990]

can i just shrink the pictures i take to a "website small" and post em?

[Jewelltrail]

Not sure what you need to do, but if there are no moving objects in the shots, your fears are completely unfounded. This is @ 10mm, ISO 100, f8, 30 secs: Also, even if you do shoot people @ 3200 ISO, you will get very usable shots--listen to Ash's advice and stay ETTR. Will you be able to make poster sized prints @ 3200 ISO which rival perfection? No. But if you want nice ISO 3200 shots @ 8 x 10 and smaller you will have no problem.


[IMG][/IMG]

[egordon99]

Buy a flash.