Re: More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points

Today Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) commented courteously
on the subject at hand

> No it's YOUR fault.The firmware in the camera can't adapt,
> hopefully you can. You say you don't want Photo 101
> lessons, but it seems you need them.

I don't know you and you don't know. So, you should not reach
conclusions based on no facts and unfounded assumptions. For
all you know, I've forgotten more about this then you will
ever be able to learn.

No, I do /not/ want Photo 101 lessons - I took that 45 years
ago. You have not told me a single thing I didn't know, except
that you took my comments and questions out of context so that
you could make yourself look smart and me look stupid. If that
pleases you, then enjoy yourself.

>>As to the histogram, when it is good, I don't need to play
>>with it. And, when exposure is very bad, I don't understand
>>it well enough to help - yet.
>
> Then it's time you learned how to use this tool that's been
> available to you all the way back to your 5700. This is
> basic digital photo technique. You want to push the
> histogram as far right as possible, without having the
> right side touch or max out. This ensures you are maxing
> out your signal to noise ratio., even if the resulting
> photo may look over exposed to you initially. you then have
> the max signal to work with.
>
>>As to noise reduction, I don't currently own Neat Image,
>>Noisee Ninja or those, because PSP 9 has 2 very good noise
>>reduction techniques - EPS for mild noise and DCNR for
>>severe noise. Don't know what those mean? Then /you/ need
>>to do some research before lecturing me.
>
> I'm well aware of the noise reduction in PSP. I've used v
> 5,6,7,8 and gave up at 9, though have used both 9 and 10
> demos.I have found Neat Image more to my liking. The demo
> is free and will batch process up to ten images as a time,
> IIRC. You can also create specific noise profiles based
> upon your camera exif info and automatically have those
> used as a starting point with automatic fine tuning applied
> after that. There are many profiles contributed by users to
> start with.

The issue has been, and still is, whether a Canon Rebel XT in
any reasonable use, Programmed Auto, full manual, flash, or
available light, can produce accurately exposed images with
minimum noise. I know how to fix it, and I know how to prevent
it - in general. Again, you've /not/ told me anything I didn't
already know, except what I really need. And, you seem
incapable or unwilling to do that.

>>And, until I more fully understand /all/ of the various
>>root causes for underexposure and/or excessive noise, batch
>>processing down from 8 MP using PSP 9's batch function with
>>a re-size script isn't going to help, it'll just confuse
>>the issue for my simple brain.
>
> It is a technique which helps minimize the effects of noise
> in your final images. It;'s another tool you need to learn.

That's your opinion again, and you know what they say about
"opinions". You should stop lecturing me when you have no clue
as to what I know and what I don't, and what I have experience
in and what I don't.

>>Back to the Nikon 8800 and SB-800, when I spent nearly a
>>week testing that back in April, which you're referring to,
>>I had not learned full manual nor the most effective EC
>>techniques before concluding it was not to my needs, and
>>returned it.
>
> You have repeatedly said you didn't need Photo 101 advice.
> Full manual exposure is just this. ll manual exposure with
> the 8800 is the same as the 5700 which you used much
> longer. Which way do you want it? I'm a clueless digital
> newbie, or don't insult me by the inference of your replies
> as you have repeated berated David Taylor? You can't have
> both.

No, an 8800 is /not/ the same as a 5700. It is within the
samee design family, yes, but there were 2 previous cameras in
between. And, the 8800 was Nikon's first camera with the new
SB-800 that had iTTL, which the 5700 does not have, so that is
what I wanted to test.

>>Finally, to my 5700. I'm glad to hear that you not only own
>>one, but that you "dusted it off" and tried it again. I
>>much more highly value knowledge from someone who has
>>facts, instead of opinions based on what they've read.
>>
>>Since my 5700 is now in 4 broken pieces - I fixed it with a
>>hammer after it died - I can't take any more test images to
>>prove what I say, but have thousands at the HF and WPC
>>museum that can easily be examined by looking at the degree
>>of under exposure and EXIF to get the shooting parameters,
>>then looking carefully at the car subject and what is in
>>the foreground that tricked the 5700's AE, which was
>>determined solely by a little sensor on the pop-up flash.
>
> Learn to use the histogram real time. It's the real tool
> you have to maximize signal to noise.

Keep your histogram lessons to yourself. I don't use it and I
don't shoot RAW, so that makes me unworthy of constructive
help, is that your thesis? The idea, before, now, and in the
future, is to be able to /reliably/ produce flash and
available light pictures of /car/ in /museums/. Very large
quantities of pictures. Using basic photography knowledge,
knowledge about the camera and flash operation, and the back
of the camera LCD to make an on-the-spot judgment if the
exposure is or is not OK.

>>Now I ask instead of assert: Ed, have you personally shot
>>pictures of /cars/ in museums and dealer showrooms, or more
>>general subjects in museums? If you have, great, I am all
>>ears. But if you have not, I suggest that you have no
>>expertise because you have no direct experience with the
>>frailties of the car picture biz.
>
> Yes, if you actually got off your ass and looked at any of
> the galleries on my website you might actually see "some"
> of what I shoot. Additionally, at work I shoot much more
> valuable and transient situations than yours. I document
> scramjet engine test hardware between tests. I use my own
> equipment instead of what's available at work because I can
> get better shots with it or more timely shots than using
> our professional photogs. The models are near polished
> copper in many instances with near polished steel hardware
> in the facility. Some parts may be covered in muck from
> cooling water. The models are closely enclosed in ducting
> around them making it even harder to get a good shot. I
> also don't get to go back and do it again, as the testing
> environment is quite harsh and the model changes after
> every run. The facility is basically a rocket engine on
> it's side. All this info is available on my website if YOU
> took the time to look before spouting.

I'm not "on my ass", and I'm not going to look at your brag
site. I've quietly watched you expose your "knowedge" for
years, with very little help that is actually on-topic for
whatever /any/ OP wants to know. Again, I ass/u/me that is how
you get your jollies.

Fine by me. I unplonked you, and what do I see? More insults
and zero.zero real-world help. So, back you go, enjoy talking
to yourself again.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nikon D80/200 - Canon 30d
    ... than an el cheapo Point&Shoot camera with a tiny teeny-weeny CCD ... from a manufaturer that its CMOS sensor has less noise than a CCD ... just look at the images (not the ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: A beginner question
    ... object on a terrestrial camera, I had no scale to equate this to daytime ... I don't even know how to work out the exposure etc ... presumably also the point source can easily spill over into adjacent pixels. ... There is only one noise source that is pixel dependent, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Canon 5D stomps Sigma SD14 into the dust
    ... equipped 5D's images. ... ISO 1600 (from what I've seen, things currently turn nasty much before ... There were lots of ISO 800 images, and there was quite a bit of noise; ... personally wouldn't pay so much for this camera. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: How bad is Panasonics Lumix DMC-LX1?
    ... it produces very noisy images, especially at higher ISO numbers. ... at ISO 80 the samples I've seen have a lot more noise than the ... My current camera is a Fuji F700 that takes great shots, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: First pics with the E500
    ... you cannot draw any conclusions about an 8 MP camera ... from these tiny 0.5 MP images. ... The noise at ISO 800 is severe. ... Thirds sensor size. ...
    (uk.rec.photo.misc)