Panning 'Noise'

ukaskew

ukaskew

Messages
3,839
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I experiment quite a bit with slow shutter speed panning shots (very slow, i.e. 1/30 and slower), and I’ve noticed quite a lot of noise in the background. I’ve never used anything but the lowest ISO setting (ISO200 on both my D50 and D90) but there is always a fair bit of noise/grain or whatever it is. The actual subject is usually sharp enough underneath the noise, so I don’t think it can be anything relating to technique. The D90 seems to control it a bit better than the D50, but I can’t say for sure because I haven’t played around with the D90 enough yet.

Any ideas as to what this actually is? I've seen similar examples with the same lens I have used on a D3 and they are much 'cleaner', but I'm not sure if any processing took place on them.

I’ve added a few examples below:

Nikon D50

352902900_rBoiL-L.jpg


Original File (big)...
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/352902900_rBoiL-O.jpg


and one from my D90 which appears to have it under control slightly better, despite the conditions being far worse on the day (quite hazy with light rain)...

407111963_dVefL-L.jpg


Original File (big)...
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/407111963_dVefL-O.jpg
 
I'm not seeing a big difference in bg noise in either shot. The noise, which is far from intrusive for full frame shots is, always going to be more noticeable against darker background tones - the darker the bg the more the noise will show up, which is the case with the first image.

The noise is actually present throughout the image always, not just the bg. It's less visible in both these instances on the actual car, because it's a white car.

I'd judge boith these images very good for low noise. As you reduce the image in size, either for web viewing, or to 'normal' print sizes, the noise becomes less visible anyway.

Nice shots btw - very good panning. :thumbs:
 
CT said:
I'm not seeing a big difference in bg noise in either shot. The noise, which is far from intrusive for full frame shots is, always going to be more noticeable against darker background tones - the darker the bg the more the noise will show up, which is the case with the first image.

The noise is actually present throughout the image always, not just the bg. It's less visible in both these instances on the actual car, because it's a white car.

I'd judge boith these images very good for low noise. As you reduce the image in size, either for web viewing, or to 'normal' print sizes, the noise becomes less visible anyway.

Nice shots btw - very good panning. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

And it's Nikon ;)

Great shots!!
 
Stop pixel peeping ! You would never see the noise in those images when printed at any normal size. If your image looks fine at 25%, it'll look fine in print. Nice shots btw.
 
CT said:
:lol:

And of course we assume both shots were taken at the same ISO?
Click to expand...

Yes, ISO200

WeddingHack said:
Stop pixel peeping ! You would never see the noise in those images when printed at any normal size. If your image looks fine at 25%, it'll look fine in print. Nice shots btw.
Click to expand...

I never pixel peep, but I didn't exactly need to look hard to spot the noise in these, and when I get down to really extreme speeds it gets quite a bit worse. It wouldn't normally bother me in the slightest, but I've got some panning work for a company coming up, and the images are potentially going to be used in pretty big prints. Just wondered if it was normal, really.
 
Can't offer any advice, but the those pictures are brilliant. You've got your technique worked out. :thumbs:
 
Underexposure can also cause noise. If you've got a slight underexposure, on a dark background, you may see more noise than you'd expect. But I really don't think there's anythign to worry about on these as WeddingHack says, the noise will never show when printed or resized for web.

Also, can I assume you are shooting straight to JPEG? If you shoot RAW and use Photoshop to process the RAW and convert to JPEG you will find it does a much better job at noise handling than the camera.
 
Mohain said:
Also, can I assume you are shooting straight to JPEG? If you shoot RAW and use Photoshop to process the RAW and convert to JPEG you will find it does a much better job at noise handling than the camera.
Click to expand...

Yep straight to JPEG, when it comes to the actual shoot I'm doing I will try JPEG+RAW, see how that goes.
 
It *could* be that as you pan the BG pixels are getting hit by different light levels causing the signals from them to pulse up and down over the 1/30s while the panned subject doesn't get this pulsing ???

ie the subject is getting a full 1/30s to soak in while the BG is effectively getting dithered


:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top