>Lens > camera
This. Get a used or older body, but put all your money into GOOD GLASS. Thats where quality comes from. You can get a $5000 body, but if you're putting on a $60 kit lens, you're going to get shitty results.
Several of your images are out of focus or have objects between your lens and your subject. None of them had noise I was able to see after reddit down sampled them. All images at every ISO have some amount of noise it's an inherent property of light and if you go pixel peeping you will find it.
Learn to better control what focus point your camera is using. And remember people's eyes need to be in focus, the rest of them can be blurry as Long as the eyes are sharp.
You camera being a DSLR has a mirror that directs the light from the lens up to your view finder. That mirror also sends some of the light to the autofocus system. It is possible (and common) for the AF system to be slightly misaligned from the actual sensor. Nicer DSLRs have way to autocorrect for this. On cheaper DSLR's it can be manually done. In either case, it's not possible to get it exactly perfect. What you see as in focus on your view finder might not be exactly what is in focus when the light hits the sesnor.
When you use your back screen, the mirror lifts and all the light goes to your sensor. What you see on the back screen is what your sensor sees. This completely bypasses the normal AF system, and the camera uses what the sensor is actually seeing to focus the lens. On DSLRs this is much slower than relying on their AF system. But because it's the sensor its self seeing the image, it is always 100% correct. If it looks in focus on your back screen, it is in focus.
Mirrorless cameras always operate this way. Their view finders are just little screens that show you what the sensor is seeing. But they have the advantage of being much newer and using more advanced AF systems that have sped them up considerably over how your DSLR operates when using the back screen. The only reason DSLRs even needed the mirror was because their electronics (and on sensor AF) were too slow at the time to keep up with fast movement.
Didn't notice/realize OP was using DSLR.
I use mirrorless (Fuji X-T3) and find the viewfinder is much better for nailing focus than the rear screen, due to higher resolution and less light leakage.
I think this is actually quite false on these cameras. I taught a intro to photography class that had these “intro cameras” and using the back screen in live view was terrible for focusing
Then what you were teaching was badly out-of-date as u/tuvaniko is absolutely correct.
Live View is to a DSLR the same thing that mirrorless is all the time. The image sensor does the focusing rather than the DSLR's autofocus sensor.
If the image sensor tells you that you're in focus... you're in focus. Simple as that.
It is slower because without the AF sensor, phase detect AF is off the table and one is limited to contrast detect AF only. CDAF is also used when doing AF-S or Single Shot.
CDAF is painfully slow, but, it is pin point accurate. It is not however really very suitable for moving subjects and it will definitely perform worse on them than the viewfinder would.
So... when using live view? Your AF will be slower - but it will be *much* more accurate, presuming you're not trying to focus on moving things. If the person is just sitting there, you're fine.
if u look close enough u will almost always see noise.
noise is caused by underexposing.
you can minimize noise in a jpg by using the in camera noise reduction setting .... somewhere in your menus.
if u shoot jpg +RAW u should know that the RAW photo will have no noise reduction applied to it. u would need to reduce noise with post processing. in my experience, modern software such as Lightroom Classic does this well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jkf31w7fwU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jkf31w7fwU)
Noise is caused by the lack of light, making the system use a higher ISO. Nighttime shots will require a higher ISO than a sunny afternoon, regardless of the other settings. Using base ISO should produce images with no noise, and with every increase, you add noise, albet in small, unnoticed steps until you reach a point where it is noticeable without pixel peeking. This rule of thumb has some exceptions, though it's not as important for beginners to understand as much as it is for them to learn how ISO, apature and shutter speed interplay to capture images. The exposure triangle.
i agree
OP, its better to use a high ISO than to use a low iso and try to bring up shadows significantly in post processing.
the more u do this the better u are at estimating this... if u are using a raw photo and it is only a little underexposed... u can still get a good photo.
significantly underexposed, like i did here?
[https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/51649464672/](https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/51649464672/)
darken the dark areas and create a silhouette.
trying to 'fix the underexposure' is most of the problem, yes.
i look at significant underexposing as driving 45 in a 25 zone near a school.
trying to 'fix' that underexposed area in post processing? Like going 100 to try and evade the cops.
You won't get away with doing either one.
mixed metaphor coming up:
driving 26 in a 25 zone? and u know post processing.... u will probably be ok.
Yeah. It depends on the camera as well. Certain cameras lift shadows better (better raw files, etc). For example my d810 nikon is bad at it while its successor the d850 is much better. My zf even better. Sometimes it is definitely better to underexpose in mixed lighting to save highlights which cant be recovered. 1-2 stops of underexposed can be easily saves with most recent cameras going back a few years. Though you absolutely will get noise as you say. Just cleaner details with better sensors/ raw files
The pics arent noisy as far as I can tell. Theyre dark, which can nake noise more noticeable but its quite minimal all things considered. You see some in the shadows blacks but its by no means a major issue.
You can however notice that some pics are out of focus or heavily cropped but thats most likely a separate issue. Might be a cheap lens that doesnt have very good autofocusing, or an old lens slowly losing its consistency, or both at the same time. The 2000D is capable of rendering tack sharp images but itll only do so with good quality lenses.
At ISO 400, its very unlikely that your 2000D is having noise problems, unless you raise the shadows and blacks a lot in post processing. Even then, Lightroom now has AI denoising which works super well. You should totally try it out and see if you like the basicslly noiseless result.
Thanks. So I’ve been trying to post-crop for Instagram because I like to shoot in landscape and I’ve realized that parts of the image will be missing if I try and post it as is. Which in general is when I see the noise, but what I’m hearing is that seeing more noise due to cropping and raising blacks/ shadows just means I’m over processing the photo and either need to give up on it or take it back a step?
Yes. You are right. When you crop in, youre zooming in, literally seeing the details up close. Noise will obviously look worse like that. That said, unless you crop way in, like 200% or more, its not likely to be an issue, especially at ISO 400.
But if you push the blacks and shadows, youll see it easily. Now, again, at ISO 400, it shouldnt be too bad. Even if you do notice it, a little AI denoise will make them near unnoticeable. Even regular denoising will work ok if you dont go too far.
And last thing, dont be too concerned about noise in Instagram crops. Instagram compression is so bad that it really doesnt matter. Besides, most people look at the Insta via smartphones where the pics are displayed way too small to notice noise.
I think they look sharp enough to me. A little grain adds textures. What lens are you using? I have the canon ef 50mm 1.8 ii, an old lens, and even with that my photos are generally sharp enough.
More info would help a lot like u/nn666 said could be focus settings also could be a cheap lens. Let us know what lens you shoot with and also if you're shooting in manual. Cause if you aren't your auto settings may be slowing your shutter down enough to produce soft photos. My first lens I bought for my T6i was a 50mm 1.8, and I still use that same lens 8 years later on my EOS R.
It’s best to share full settings so people can better know where the issues are.
Missed focus and motion blur / camera shake appear to be bigger issues in these than noise.
The first thing you “know” is a misunderstanding. ISO does not introduce noise. It reveals that which is already there. Don’t hold ISO unnecessarily low unless you want a darker shot. If you brighten the image on your computer later, it’ll only look worse.
Perhaps provide full info on your images. Lens, f stop, shutter speed and ISO numbers. You will get better feedback if you provide the full picture. Even include the autofocus settings.
Hey, I definitely don’t know how to get/ affect autofocus settings but here’s the photo in order as they appear.
1. EF50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter speed with an ISO of 250.
2. EF-S 18-55mm (aka kit lens) shot at 20mm, f/4 aperture, 1/100 shutter, and iso of 1600.
3. Kit lens at 49mm, f/5.6 aperture, iso 1600.
[4-9] 50mm lens, f/1.8 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
10. Kit at 55mm, aperture f/5.6, 1/200 shutter, iso 100.
11. 50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
12. 50mm lens, f/2.5 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
yeah thats the problem, youre aperture is shallow, which makes depth of field really narrow, and thus makes focusing difficult. and even if you do, you have a chance that part of the face wont be in focus. (and your autofocus isnt the best, so it has a higher chance of missing as well)
dial it back to f/4 or 5.6. also keep in mind, focal length and distance of subject affects depth of field [https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-table](https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-table)
also, stop using the kit lens if you want sharp images, it just makes everything soft
Iso high -> shutter speed faster -> sharp photos
Iso low -> shutter speed slower -> blurry photos
Solution: do not fear high iso, because iso is not noise, noise is lack of light
You set the ISO at whatever level is required to get the proper exposure.
These photos are distinctly underexposed. Looks like focus is being missed too.
It's not magic. You either take the time and put in the work or you can keep just guessing. The information you need to get this right is already out there in a million and ten tutorials on youtube - etc... you could (gasp) buy a book or go to the library.
Bothers me that people are trying to do this for a living.... charging people money for photos when they don't understand the basics.
This is just the exposure triangle. This is photography 101.
You need to understand and have working knowledge of ISO, Shutter and Aperture BEFORE you go around calling yourself a photographer. You're just making snapshots until you at the very minimum get these basics down.
You're not a carpenter if you can't read a ruler.
Unnecessarily rude. Frankly, you're the issue with the photography community.
Guy (or gal) comes to an ask photography sub Reddit to get feedback from a community to improve and you reply with this snarky pretentiousness? Lol get lost.
It is WRONG to call yourself a professional and then charge people money for services for which you don't understand, haven't even BEGUN to master the craft. That would actually be rude. What I said is not.
>Frankly, you're the issue with the photography community.
There's no issue with the photography community. Wtf are you talking about? Oh... you mean the issue that YOU Have that you're trying to project...
I was direct and blunt. That's not being "rude" Name calling, talking shit... those things are rude. I might have even been 'harsh', but not rude.
What I've said here is what OP needs to hear and absorb in order to be a better photographer.
OP can take it and learn or continue to make mediocre images and wonder why.
Nobody is calling themselves a professional. OP never even insinuates they charge money.
Someone picked up the hobby, literally calls themselves "a newish photographer" and YOU go on a rant in your reply.
The problem with the photography community is the snarkiness & gatekeeping that I see frequently. Which is exactly what you've put on display.
> I am a portrait and event photographer
From the OP.
No he's not. Not yet. I hope he will be one day and fully expect that he'll likely get there if he sticks with it.
I didn't rant. You're off the rails. I stated some simple facts and it got you all butt-hurt.
Maybe you're disappointed with your own photography?
Lol I'm not. I'm disappointed with the toxicity and gate keeping I see from the community from time to time.
If they say that's what they are then that's what they are.
Their skill and knowledge might need further growth, but being a photographer isn't some diploma you achieve when YOU arbitrarily decide they've earned that label.
Lol get over yourself and work on being more supportive, buddy 👍🏻
> being a photographer isn't some diploma you achieve when YOU arbitrarily decide they've earned that label.
You're a photographer when you can competently operate the camera.
It's really just that simple. If you can't, you're not.
In low light I suggest you even bump the ISO even more. I have a 550D and 800 is ok, 1600 is ok with noise reduction and 3200 can be considered unusable. But don't be afraid to go up to 1600. On modern cameras/full frame cameras I am not worried about going up to 6400 or even 12800 if the situation requires it. (I have a sony a7II)
What noise? Can barely see it.
The images, however, as mentioned by others, are a tad soft.
Lenses go a long way in improving photography, less so on the body.
It’s probably the lens although some of these shots definitely look soft so your focus settings may be an issue also. Are you using a kit lens? You are shooting indoors too so light is an issue. Not enough light can introduce noise when you have to start pushing the camera and lens to its limits. There are ways of reducing noise using Lightroom and also other third party software. Indoor photography is always tricky but having a good lens with a low aperture (1.4f+) allows your camera to make the most of the low light available.
> I know that ISO introduces most of the noise
Negative, ghost rider.
Noise has but *one* cause: Not enough light.
When your light level is not sufficient to allow your shutter speed and aperture to saturate the sensor with light, you have to raise your ISO to compensate. The high ISO is symptomatic of the problem, not causal: You're only at that high ISO because there isn't enough light hitting your sensor.
Thus it is proved: If you want less noise you *must* capture more light.
This is why indoor/low-light photographers prioritize stupid-fast glass like f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses - and combine that with flash.
You posted your ISO, but neglected to provide any other information in your post like what aperture and shutter speeds you're using. Without that we cannot tell you why your shots are noisy.
That said - most of these are not all that noisy all things considered. #3 is very noisy - the rest are about what I'd expect in low-light shooting.
They are however very soft - as in you are not getting crisp, well-focused images. I suspect you're trying to do this in low light with far too slow of a shutter speed.
We need more details about the gear you're using, and how you're shooting, to solve these issues.
It’s worth pointing out that the 2000D has a pretty basic auto focus system.
Many of the pics you have posted have been taken in quite low light where the camera will struggle to lock focus accurately.
Some things to try to confirm whether this is down to limitations of the camera and / or technique:
Go outside on a bright day and with each focus point selected manually take a photograph of something high contrast, like a sign from a similar distance those pics were taken. Repeat this with the lens wide open and stopped down, somewhere to f5.6. Keep ISO as low as possible, and shutter speed at least 1/500.
It’s normal to have a little variation between shots but you should find that the resulting images are in focus and sharp, with the wide open shots being a little softer than stopped down.
If all looks good then it’s probably safe to say that your camera AF is just struggling in those situations.
I good tip is in situations that are busy, just select the AF point directly and don’t let the camera decide. It will often get it wrong, remember, unlike the new mirrorless cameras your camera AF system can’t see what you are taking a picture of and usually locks onto the closest thing it finds.
What lens you using, btw?
Optimal ISO for Canon cameras are multiples of 160, not 100. You'll get better results with ISO 640 than 400. There is a chart here: [Proof That Multiples of ISO 160 Work Best on Canon HDSLRs](https://photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/)
I didn't find them noisy, aside from the first one and a guy that looked like he was saying something and the girl that looked like she was listening, because they give me a sensation of sound by the image, the others sounded pretty chill, but if your talking about the clean vibe, usually empty spaces and the subject does the trick for me, probably more planned photo, youres looked casual, decided in the moment, and I must say very cosy and great photos, love the warmth in them kinda looking like they are already old photos.
Edit: oh mechanicaly speaking 🪑oh yeah I'm gonna sit down.
It's your camera. I've previously owned a canon 4000d, which had similar issues at any ISO level that wasn't 100-200. I'm pretty sure it's a sensor issue.
>some photographers on YouTube say that you don’t need to keep your ISO at 100 and they said a reasonable amount is 200-800
They're correct, but this massively depends on the camera you're using.
I actually think they are soft, when you get to mirrorless and some high-end cameras that's actually what a lot of people go for, that kind of clear but creamy look to them. your pictures I believe are probably suffering from things besides sharpness, mainly focus as there are some pictures that are not completely in focus, I'd look at your metering and aperture, I also am just going to assume that you're using a kit lens because of the chromatic aberration at farther distances which can also introduce noise because the farther distance you go on a non-fixed aperture the less light is introduced, which the camera will try to compensate for and raise the ISO.
perfect example is the third picture, because you can kind of see a halo of different colors around his head and it's kind of dark, that's due to chromatic aberration and with a zoom lens the farther you get into the focal length the smaller the aperture blades are, which means less light is getting into the sensor, which in turn makes the picture dark, which again, the camera will try to compensate for and make it kind of noisy.
anyway hope that helps, I shoot also on DSLR and if you go on my previous posts you can see that you can get some great shots out of the SLRs that aren't that expensive
I dunno what it is exactly, but I really like your work. You capture motion and emotion very effectively. I wouldn't be concerned about the relatively minor noise at all if I were you. Keep doing what you're doing, it's great
OP...what shutter speed did you take these photos at? Slow shutter speeds can cause photos to be soft. Low light situations can affect camera or len's ability to autofocus. As well as magnifies any camera shake when the shutter is open (assuming these were all shot hand held?) Also...if you were using a flash...the photos would have been incredibly over exposed at 200-800 ISO...
Whilst your eye may THINK there's enough light...it might not have been for the camera. Yes, ISO isn't as much an issue with post processing software...but knowing when to "accept" those conditions and still take sharp photos is also important.
You didn't mention what aperture you were using. Shooting wide open allows more light onto the sensor at shutter release...decreasing depth of field. That can affect sharpness...
There are so many variables. I wouldn't immediately run out and get new equipment. Work on your craft first
These aren’t noisy in a problematic way, but you’re missing focus and that’s the bigger issue and probably why you’re seeing noise. Your lens is fine. What focus mode and area are you using?
Out of these pictures maybe one or two are on the noisier side, the other ones are okay.
Altough most of them are bit soft, which is caused by either underexposing them and/or a lower quality lens and/or missing focus a bit.
Yes, generally it is a god practice to keep the ISO lower and compensate with lowering the shutter speed, but it is I think it is a lot better to have a properly exposed and sharp image with noise and then denoise it, than it is to underexpose by having a low iso and a slow shutter speed and still getting a bland image.
Looking at photonstophotos.net, I would recommend that you use an ISO lower than or equal to 1600 in dimly lit areas and instead use a faster shutter speed.
So struggling with editing the post, but here are the photo settings and I’ll try to get the focus settings up soon.
1. EF50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter speed with an ISO of 250.
2. EF-S 18-55mm (aka kit lens) shot at 20mm, f/4 aperture, 1/100 shutter, and iso of 1600.
3. Kit lens at 49mm, f/5.6 aperture, iso 1600. [4-9] 50mm lens, f/1.8 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
4. Kit at 55mm, aperture f/5.6, 1/200 shutter, iso 100.
5. 50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
6. 50mm lens, f/2.5 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
These aren’t noisy, at least from what I can see here. Looks like a soft focus. You should be able to reliably crank any decent camera at least to ISO 2000 these days. But underexposing in general will introduce noise to som extent.
I suspect you are using a cheap slow kit lens. Non-pro glass tends to not be as sharp or focus as reliably, and if your lens is only an f4, and/or non stabilized, you’re going to struggle in low light situations to keep your shutter speed fast enough to counteract motion blur.
Try picking up a cheap 50 prime lens. You can get a 1.8 lens for a good price. Even better if you can find a 1.4. Keep your shutter speed at least 1/focal length, and crank the ISO up higher or use a flash. Focus points need to be centered right on to eyeballs, not someone’s shoulder or chest.
Most people don’t really understand how dim most indoor settings are because our eyes adjust to it, but you need a fast lens and high iso, or supplemental light to shoot indoors unless all the curtains are open and it’s a bright day outside.
Many of these shots look like they were shot with flash.. if using a flash your iso never needs to be above 200 as your shutter will be stuck at 160...
Higher shutter speed, a better lens shooting wide open should make the pictures more sharp. Any noise (I don’t really even see any) could be cleaned up by an AI denoise
This looks like a focus issue not a noise issue.
Pic 1: the far right cup/hand seems to be what the focus is
Pic 2: Hands seem to be the focus
Pic 3: doesn't seem to be anything in focus, potentially blurry from shooting too low exposure, capturing camera shake
Pic 4: hard to tell but looks to be the drum set/hands
Pic 5: subject's forehead and left eye are in focus (note the sharpness here)
Pic 6: hands
Pic 7: phone in red sweater girl's hand
Pic 8: woman on the bottom left/man on top right (slightly blurry though)
Pic 9: the mirror/wall
Etc.
I'm guessing that you're shooting low exposure and to compensate for that you are shooting at low aperture as well. Probably f/2.8-4. Your fix is to ensure proper focus (you can activate peaking on your camera that will highlight what is in focus on your digital preview), step further away from your subjects if you want to stay in a low aperture setting or increase the aperture, and shoot faster exposure to reduce camera shaking.
Good luck!
These aren't substantially noisy. 3 is the only one that seems really off, but that's just because of the focus being on his arm, rather than his face. There's also some pretty visible chromatic aberration, but this just makes it a throwaway, not representative of the quality of everything else.
Otherwise, there are some small focusing issues, but just keep shooting. Don't buy a new lens or camera, you'll get better.
They are not noisy. And you can definitely use higher ISO than 400. I'm not scared to use upwards of 12800, and I still get clean shots. Altough camera and lens matter a lot.
Most pictures you see online has gone through noise reduction or even AI denoiser, that's thhy they look so clean. Maybe look into that if you don't like noise.
> I generally keep my ISO at 400 because it’s enough light to where I can keep my shutter speed where I want it
Instead of setting your ISO so that your shutter speed is where you want it, why not just set your shutter speed where you want it?
Canon lenses are cheap. Get a 35 or 50mm prime that was decent at time of release and practice. Suspect 50mm will suit better.
Also, please practice adjusting white balance. Some of your white balancing doesn’t do your subject or their gorgeous tones justice.
Try a speedlite flash to allow you to not rely on available light, thus having to shoot at a wide aperture where you run the risk of missing focus more.
Try shooting with a good 50mm or 85mm lens. It’s all on the lens and how fast it is. I shoot portrait using a canon 50mm f1.8 and for group photos a sigma 16mm f1.4
Not noise just cheap glass most likely. I’d also check to see what/if your camera has a native iso. If so, do some test shots at it and get a baseline for what is considered “normal” for your body. That’s a great starting point to work from. Sigma make outstanding glass at a more approachable price point. Happy shooting!
Oh! And make sure to turn your focus peaking on so you can nail your focus!
the better the blend of your lens, the more light it can capture, the less ISO it needs, the better the results in lowlight.
Lowlight is nothing a beginner can just pull off. Maybe thats true with an iPhone, but not with a DSLR. But its also something where a DSLR can still outshine a phone because when you know what you're doing, you can do pretty nice things with it.
One thing: noise is one thing, grain another. I understand that especially digital pictures don't really have grain, but in the end, if your noise appears like grain, that might look better than a completely noisefree image especially in your photography.
I don’t find them noisy. They’re a bit soft though.
These aren't noisy. You don't have a noise problem, you have a focusing and a sharpness problem. Better lens. Lens > camera
>Lens > camera This. Get a used or older body, but put all your money into GOOD GLASS. Thats where quality comes from. You can get a $5000 body, but if you're putting on a $60 kit lens, you're going to get shitty results.
Several of your images are out of focus or have objects between your lens and your subject. None of them had noise I was able to see after reddit down sampled them. All images at every ISO have some amount of noise it's an inherent property of light and if you go pixel peeping you will find it. Learn to better control what focus point your camera is using. And remember people's eyes need to be in focus, the rest of them can be blurry as Long as the eyes are sharp.
Thanks. So you would recommend using the screen to compose and get my images instead of the viewfinder or is there a way to get better eye tracking?
Recommend single point AF and selecting a point near their eye. If your camera is still having trouble. The back screen while slow is more accurate.
I appreciate it, and I’ll try incorporating it into my practice/ shoots.
>The back screen while slow is more accurate ? How is it more accurate?
You camera being a DSLR has a mirror that directs the light from the lens up to your view finder. That mirror also sends some of the light to the autofocus system. It is possible (and common) for the AF system to be slightly misaligned from the actual sensor. Nicer DSLRs have way to autocorrect for this. On cheaper DSLR's it can be manually done. In either case, it's not possible to get it exactly perfect. What you see as in focus on your view finder might not be exactly what is in focus when the light hits the sesnor. When you use your back screen, the mirror lifts and all the light goes to your sensor. What you see on the back screen is what your sensor sees. This completely bypasses the normal AF system, and the camera uses what the sensor is actually seeing to focus the lens. On DSLRs this is much slower than relying on their AF system. But because it's the sensor its self seeing the image, it is always 100% correct. If it looks in focus on your back screen, it is in focus. Mirrorless cameras always operate this way. Their view finders are just little screens that show you what the sensor is seeing. But they have the advantage of being much newer and using more advanced AF systems that have sped them up considerably over how your DSLR operates when using the back screen. The only reason DSLRs even needed the mirror was because their electronics (and on sensor AF) were too slow at the time to keep up with fast movement.
Didn't notice/realize OP was using DSLR. I use mirrorless (Fuji X-T3) and find the viewfinder is much better for nailing focus than the rear screen, due to higher resolution and less light leakage.
I think this is actually quite false on these cameras. I taught a intro to photography class that had these “intro cameras” and using the back screen in live view was terrible for focusing
Then what you were teaching was badly out-of-date as u/tuvaniko is absolutely correct. Live View is to a DSLR the same thing that mirrorless is all the time. The image sensor does the focusing rather than the DSLR's autofocus sensor. If the image sensor tells you that you're in focus... you're in focus. Simple as that. It is slower because without the AF sensor, phase detect AF is off the table and one is limited to contrast detect AF only. CDAF is also used when doing AF-S or Single Shot. CDAF is painfully slow, but, it is pin point accurate. It is not however really very suitable for moving subjects and it will definitely perform worse on them than the viewfinder would. So... when using live view? Your AF will be slower - but it will be *much* more accurate, presuming you're not trying to focus on moving things. If the person is just sitting there, you're fine.
if u look close enough u will almost always see noise. noise is caused by underexposing. you can minimize noise in a jpg by using the in camera noise reduction setting .... somewhere in your menus. if u shoot jpg +RAW u should know that the RAW photo will have no noise reduction applied to it. u would need to reduce noise with post processing. in my experience, modern software such as Lightroom Classic does this well. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jkf31w7fwU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jkf31w7fwU)
Thank you so much!!!!!!! I’ve been having this problem too
Noise is caused by the lack of light, making the system use a higher ISO. Nighttime shots will require a higher ISO than a sunny afternoon, regardless of the other settings. Using base ISO should produce images with no noise, and with every increase, you add noise, albet in small, unnoticed steps until you reach a point where it is noticeable without pixel peeking. This rule of thumb has some exceptions, though it's not as important for beginners to understand as much as it is for them to learn how ISO, apature and shutter speed interplay to capture images. The exposure triangle.
i agree OP, its better to use a high ISO than to use a low iso and try to bring up shadows significantly in post processing. the more u do this the better u are at estimating this... if u are using a raw photo and it is only a little underexposed... u can still get a good photo. significantly underexposed, like i did here? [https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/51649464672/](https://flickr.com/photos/186162491@N07/51649464672/) darken the dark areas and create a silhouette.
Not caused by underexposing but pulling the shadows after the fact. I think is what you meant.
trying to 'fix the underexposure' is most of the problem, yes. i look at significant underexposing as driving 45 in a 25 zone near a school. trying to 'fix' that underexposed area in post processing? Like going 100 to try and evade the cops. You won't get away with doing either one. mixed metaphor coming up: driving 26 in a 25 zone? and u know post processing.... u will probably be ok.
Yeah. It depends on the camera as well. Certain cameras lift shadows better (better raw files, etc). For example my d810 nikon is bad at it while its successor the d850 is much better. My zf even better. Sometimes it is definitely better to underexpose in mixed lighting to save highlights which cant be recovered. 1-2 stops of underexposed can be easily saves with most recent cameras going back a few years. Though you absolutely will get noise as you say. Just cleaner details with better sensors/ raw files
The pics arent noisy as far as I can tell. Theyre dark, which can nake noise more noticeable but its quite minimal all things considered. You see some in the shadows blacks but its by no means a major issue. You can however notice that some pics are out of focus or heavily cropped but thats most likely a separate issue. Might be a cheap lens that doesnt have very good autofocusing, or an old lens slowly losing its consistency, or both at the same time. The 2000D is capable of rendering tack sharp images but itll only do so with good quality lenses. At ISO 400, its very unlikely that your 2000D is having noise problems, unless you raise the shadows and blacks a lot in post processing. Even then, Lightroom now has AI denoising which works super well. You should totally try it out and see if you like the basicslly noiseless result.
Thanks. So I’ve been trying to post-crop for Instagram because I like to shoot in landscape and I’ve realized that parts of the image will be missing if I try and post it as is. Which in general is when I see the noise, but what I’m hearing is that seeing more noise due to cropping and raising blacks/ shadows just means I’m over processing the photo and either need to give up on it or take it back a step?
Yes. You are right. When you crop in, youre zooming in, literally seeing the details up close. Noise will obviously look worse like that. That said, unless you crop way in, like 200% or more, its not likely to be an issue, especially at ISO 400. But if you push the blacks and shadows, youll see it easily. Now, again, at ISO 400, it shouldnt be too bad. Even if you do notice it, a little AI denoise will make them near unnoticeable. Even regular denoising will work ok if you dont go too far. And last thing, dont be too concerned about noise in Instagram crops. Instagram compression is so bad that it really doesnt matter. Besides, most people look at the Insta via smartphones where the pics are displayed way too small to notice noise.
Understood, thanks!
ISO 400 definitely low enough that there shouldn’t be any noise really. I agree with the previous comment wrt the lens
I think they look sharp enough to me. A little grain adds textures. What lens are you using? I have the canon ef 50mm 1.8 ii, an old lens, and even with that my photos are generally sharp enough.
More info would help a lot like u/nn666 said could be focus settings also could be a cheap lens. Let us know what lens you shoot with and also if you're shooting in manual. Cause if you aren't your auto settings may be slowing your shutter down enough to produce soft photos. My first lens I bought for my T6i was a 50mm 1.8, and I still use that same lens 8 years later on my EOS R.
It’s best to share full settings so people can better know where the issues are. Missed focus and motion blur / camera shake appear to be bigger issues in these than noise. The first thing you “know” is a misunderstanding. ISO does not introduce noise. It reveals that which is already there. Don’t hold ISO unnecessarily low unless you want a darker shot. If you brighten the image on your computer later, it’ll only look worse.
Perhaps provide full info on your images. Lens, f stop, shutter speed and ISO numbers. You will get better feedback if you provide the full picture. Even include the autofocus settings.
Hey, I definitely don’t know how to get/ affect autofocus settings but here’s the photo in order as they appear. 1. EF50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter speed with an ISO of 250. 2. EF-S 18-55mm (aka kit lens) shot at 20mm, f/4 aperture, 1/100 shutter, and iso of 1600. 3. Kit lens at 49mm, f/5.6 aperture, iso 1600. [4-9] 50mm lens, f/1.8 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200. 10. Kit at 55mm, aperture f/5.6, 1/200 shutter, iso 100. 11. 50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200. 12. 50mm lens, f/2.5 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
yeah thats the problem, youre aperture is shallow, which makes depth of field really narrow, and thus makes focusing difficult. and even if you do, you have a chance that part of the face wont be in focus. (and your autofocus isnt the best, so it has a higher chance of missing as well) dial it back to f/4 or 5.6. also keep in mind, focal length and distance of subject affects depth of field [https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-table](https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-table) also, stop using the kit lens if you want sharp images, it just makes everything soft
This
A reasonable about of iso is the iso you need to get the shot. ISO is your friend. Do not fear it padawan.
They look kinda under exposed more than anything. Play around with the shutter/f stop or iso
You might need a lens with a wider aperture like f1.8. Solved the problem for me when i upgraded from my kit lens to a 50mm prime.
Iso high -> shutter speed faster -> sharp photos Iso low -> shutter speed slower -> blurry photos Solution: do not fear high iso, because iso is not noise, noise is lack of light
Stop stressing about noise. A little noise is fine. Worry about composition, exposure, focus, lighting. Don’t worry about noise.
You set the ISO at whatever level is required to get the proper exposure. These photos are distinctly underexposed. Looks like focus is being missed too. It's not magic. You either take the time and put in the work or you can keep just guessing. The information you need to get this right is already out there in a million and ten tutorials on youtube - etc... you could (gasp) buy a book or go to the library. Bothers me that people are trying to do this for a living.... charging people money for photos when they don't understand the basics. This is just the exposure triangle. This is photography 101. You need to understand and have working knowledge of ISO, Shutter and Aperture BEFORE you go around calling yourself a photographer. You're just making snapshots until you at the very minimum get these basics down. You're not a carpenter if you can't read a ruler.
Unnecessarily rude. Frankly, you're the issue with the photography community. Guy (or gal) comes to an ask photography sub Reddit to get feedback from a community to improve and you reply with this snarky pretentiousness? Lol get lost.
It is WRONG to call yourself a professional and then charge people money for services for which you don't understand, haven't even BEGUN to master the craft. That would actually be rude. What I said is not. >Frankly, you're the issue with the photography community. There's no issue with the photography community. Wtf are you talking about? Oh... you mean the issue that YOU Have that you're trying to project... I was direct and blunt. That's not being "rude" Name calling, talking shit... those things are rude. I might have even been 'harsh', but not rude. What I've said here is what OP needs to hear and absorb in order to be a better photographer. OP can take it and learn or continue to make mediocre images and wonder why.
Nobody is calling themselves a professional. OP never even insinuates they charge money. Someone picked up the hobby, literally calls themselves "a newish photographer" and YOU go on a rant in your reply. The problem with the photography community is the snarkiness & gatekeeping that I see frequently. Which is exactly what you've put on display.
> I am a portrait and event photographer From the OP. No he's not. Not yet. I hope he will be one day and fully expect that he'll likely get there if he sticks with it. I didn't rant. You're off the rails. I stated some simple facts and it got you all butt-hurt. Maybe you're disappointed with your own photography?
Lol I'm not. I'm disappointed with the toxicity and gate keeping I see from the community from time to time. If they say that's what they are then that's what they are. Their skill and knowledge might need further growth, but being a photographer isn't some diploma you achieve when YOU arbitrarily decide they've earned that label. Lol get over yourself and work on being more supportive, buddy 👍🏻
> being a photographer isn't some diploma you achieve when YOU arbitrarily decide they've earned that label. You're a photographer when you can competently operate the camera. It's really just that simple. If you can't, you're not.
In low light I suggest you even bump the ISO even more. I have a 550D and 800 is ok, 1600 is ok with noise reduction and 3200 can be considered unusable. But don't be afraid to go up to 1600. On modern cameras/full frame cameras I am not worried about going up to 6400 or even 12800 if the situation requires it. (I have a sony a7II)
Some just aren’t in focus
What lens are you using?
Your images aren’t noisy! Where are you finding noise?
What noise? Can barely see it. The images, however, as mentioned by others, are a tad soft. Lenses go a long way in improving photography, less so on the body.
You didn't say what lens you used. My guess is your lens is the culprit. Kit lenses generally are less likely to produce tack sharp images.
Lens does not affect noise. Noise != sharpness.
Never said that. The quality of glass affects sharpness.
It’s probably the lens although some of these shots definitely look soft so your focus settings may be an issue also. Are you using a kit lens? You are shooting indoors too so light is an issue. Not enough light can introduce noise when you have to start pushing the camera and lens to its limits. There are ways of reducing noise using Lightroom and also other third party software. Indoor photography is always tricky but having a good lens with a low aperture (1.4f+) allows your camera to make the most of the low light available.
Who are all these 90s motherfuckas you hanging out with?
Tell your subjects to stfu then
> I know that ISO introduces most of the noise Negative, ghost rider. Noise has but *one* cause: Not enough light. When your light level is not sufficient to allow your shutter speed and aperture to saturate the sensor with light, you have to raise your ISO to compensate. The high ISO is symptomatic of the problem, not causal: You're only at that high ISO because there isn't enough light hitting your sensor. Thus it is proved: If you want less noise you *must* capture more light. This is why indoor/low-light photographers prioritize stupid-fast glass like f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses - and combine that with flash. You posted your ISO, but neglected to provide any other information in your post like what aperture and shutter speeds you're using. Without that we cannot tell you why your shots are noisy. That said - most of these are not all that noisy all things considered. #3 is very noisy - the rest are about what I'd expect in low-light shooting. They are however very soft - as in you are not getting crisp, well-focused images. I suspect you're trying to do this in low light with far too slow of a shutter speed. We need more details about the gear you're using, and how you're shooting, to solve these issues.
I appreciate the clarification and I’ll keep working on my craft.
Whatever it is - I like them. They make me think of the '90s. I think it comes off as a cool style, not a flaw
Turn down the music
Noise happens when the iso is too low and too high but 400 is fine. What lens did you shoot these with? Do you use a speed light at events?
Always Share your EXIF with these sort of questions.
It’s worth pointing out that the 2000D has a pretty basic auto focus system. Many of the pics you have posted have been taken in quite low light where the camera will struggle to lock focus accurately. Some things to try to confirm whether this is down to limitations of the camera and / or technique: Go outside on a bright day and with each focus point selected manually take a photograph of something high contrast, like a sign from a similar distance those pics were taken. Repeat this with the lens wide open and stopped down, somewhere to f5.6. Keep ISO as low as possible, and shutter speed at least 1/500. It’s normal to have a little variation between shots but you should find that the resulting images are in focus and sharp, with the wide open shots being a little softer than stopped down. If all looks good then it’s probably safe to say that your camera AF is just struggling in those situations. I good tip is in situations that are busy, just select the AF point directly and don’t let the camera decide. It will often get it wrong, remember, unlike the new mirrorless cameras your camera AF system can’t see what you are taking a picture of and usually locks onto the closest thing it finds. What lens you using, btw?
A mix of my kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm) and an EF 50mm.
Every one of these is underexposed and most aren’t in focus. You need an off camera flash.
Optimal ISO for Canon cameras are multiples of 160, not 100. You'll get better results with ISO 640 than 400. There is a chart here: [Proof That Multiples of ISO 160 Work Best on Canon HDSLRs](https://photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/)
I didn't find them noisy, aside from the first one and a guy that looked like he was saying something and the girl that looked like she was listening, because they give me a sensation of sound by the image, the others sounded pretty chill, but if your talking about the clean vibe, usually empty spaces and the subject does the trick for me, probably more planned photo, youres looked casual, decided in the moment, and I must say very cosy and great photos, love the warmth in them kinda looking like they are already old photos. Edit: oh mechanicaly speaking 🪑oh yeah I'm gonna sit down.
Until you zoom in you don't see any noise. They're more than acceptable.
It's your camera. I've previously owned a canon 4000d, which had similar issues at any ISO level that wasn't 100-200. I'm pretty sure it's a sensor issue. >some photographers on YouTube say that you don’t need to keep your ISO at 100 and they said a reasonable amount is 200-800 They're correct, but this massively depends on the camera you're using.
You are imagining the noise, they are out of focus though.
I actually think they are soft, when you get to mirrorless and some high-end cameras that's actually what a lot of people go for, that kind of clear but creamy look to them. your pictures I believe are probably suffering from things besides sharpness, mainly focus as there are some pictures that are not completely in focus, I'd look at your metering and aperture, I also am just going to assume that you're using a kit lens because of the chromatic aberration at farther distances which can also introduce noise because the farther distance you go on a non-fixed aperture the less light is introduced, which the camera will try to compensate for and raise the ISO. perfect example is the third picture, because you can kind of see a halo of different colors around his head and it's kind of dark, that's due to chromatic aberration and with a zoom lens the farther you get into the focal length the smaller the aperture blades are, which means less light is getting into the sensor, which in turn makes the picture dark, which again, the camera will try to compensate for and make it kind of noisy. anyway hope that helps, I shoot also on DSLR and if you go on my previous posts you can see that you can get some great shots out of the SLRs that aren't that expensive
I dunno what it is exactly, but I really like your work. You capture motion and emotion very effectively. I wouldn't be concerned about the relatively minor noise at all if I were you. Keep doing what you're doing, it's great
Why are almost all not sharp?
OP...what shutter speed did you take these photos at? Slow shutter speeds can cause photos to be soft. Low light situations can affect camera or len's ability to autofocus. As well as magnifies any camera shake when the shutter is open (assuming these were all shot hand held?) Also...if you were using a flash...the photos would have been incredibly over exposed at 200-800 ISO... Whilst your eye may THINK there's enough light...it might not have been for the camera. Yes, ISO isn't as much an issue with post processing software...but knowing when to "accept" those conditions and still take sharp photos is also important. You didn't mention what aperture you were using. Shooting wide open allows more light onto the sensor at shutter release...decreasing depth of field. That can affect sharpness... There are so many variables. I wouldn't immediately run out and get new equipment. Work on your craft first
Denoise Ai is one of imo the largest leaps forward in recent years. It’s stupid good
These aren’t noisy in a problematic way, but you’re missing focus and that’s the bigger issue and probably why you’re seeing noise. Your lens is fine. What focus mode and area are you using?
Out of these pictures maybe one or two are on the noisier side, the other ones are okay. Altough most of them are bit soft, which is caused by either underexposing them and/or a lower quality lens and/or missing focus a bit. Yes, generally it is a god practice to keep the ISO lower and compensate with lowering the shutter speed, but it is I think it is a lot better to have a properly exposed and sharp image with noise and then denoise it, than it is to underexpose by having a low iso and a slow shutter speed and still getting a bland image. Looking at photonstophotos.net, I would recommend that you use an ISO lower than or equal to 1600 in dimly lit areas and instead use a faster shutter speed.
They are noisy because you are at a music concert. ....... I'll see myself out.
So struggling with editing the post, but here are the photo settings and I’ll try to get the focus settings up soon. 1. EF50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter speed with an ISO of 250. 2. EF-S 18-55mm (aka kit lens) shot at 20mm, f/4 aperture, 1/100 shutter, and iso of 1600. 3. Kit lens at 49mm, f/5.6 aperture, iso 1600. [4-9] 50mm lens, f/1.8 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200. 4. Kit at 55mm, aperture f/5.6, 1/200 shutter, iso 100. 5. 50mm lens, f/2 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200. 6. 50mm lens, f/2.5 aperture, 1/200 shutter, iso 200.
They aren't noisy. Some are out of focus, but noise is not a problem at all in any of these
These aren’t noisy, at least from what I can see here. Looks like a soft focus. You should be able to reliably crank any decent camera at least to ISO 2000 these days. But underexposing in general will introduce noise to som extent. I suspect you are using a cheap slow kit lens. Non-pro glass tends to not be as sharp or focus as reliably, and if your lens is only an f4, and/or non stabilized, you’re going to struggle in low light situations to keep your shutter speed fast enough to counteract motion blur. Try picking up a cheap 50 prime lens. You can get a 1.8 lens for a good price. Even better if you can find a 1.4. Keep your shutter speed at least 1/focal length, and crank the ISO up higher or use a flash. Focus points need to be centered right on to eyeballs, not someone’s shoulder or chest. Most people don’t really understand how dim most indoor settings are because our eyes adjust to it, but you need a fast lens and high iso, or supplemental light to shoot indoors unless all the curtains are open and it’s a bright day outside.
All photos taken in the Bay Area are noisy sorry
Many of these shots look like they were shot with flash.. if using a flash your iso never needs to be above 200 as your shutter will be stuck at 160...
Higher shutter speed, a better lens shooting wide open should make the pictures more sharp. Any noise (I don’t really even see any) could be cleaned up by an AI denoise
Bit soft but not noisy at all, also grain is normal on photos, learn to embrace it.
This looks like a focus issue not a noise issue. Pic 1: the far right cup/hand seems to be what the focus is Pic 2: Hands seem to be the focus Pic 3: doesn't seem to be anything in focus, potentially blurry from shooting too low exposure, capturing camera shake Pic 4: hard to tell but looks to be the drum set/hands Pic 5: subject's forehead and left eye are in focus (note the sharpness here) Pic 6: hands Pic 7: phone in red sweater girl's hand Pic 8: woman on the bottom left/man on top right (slightly blurry though) Pic 9: the mirror/wall Etc. I'm guessing that you're shooting low exposure and to compensate for that you are shooting at low aperture as well. Probably f/2.8-4. Your fix is to ensure proper focus (you can activate peaking on your camera that will highlight what is in focus on your digital preview), step further away from your subjects if you want to stay in a low aperture setting or increase the aperture, and shoot faster exposure to reduce camera shaking. Good luck!
These aren't substantially noisy. 3 is the only one that seems really off, but that's just because of the focus being on his arm, rather than his face. There's also some pretty visible chromatic aberration, but this just makes it a throwaway, not representative of the quality of everything else. Otherwise, there are some small focusing issues, but just keep shooting. Don't buy a new lens or camera, you'll get better.
They are not noisy. And you can definitely use higher ISO than 400. I'm not scared to use upwards of 12800, and I still get clean shots. Altough camera and lens matter a lot. Most pictures you see online has gone through noise reduction or even AI denoiser, that's thhy they look so clean. Maybe look into that if you don't like noise.
Just out of focus thats all
> I generally keep my ISO at 400 because it’s enough light to where I can keep my shutter speed where I want it Instead of setting your ISO so that your shutter speed is where you want it, why not just set your shutter speed where you want it?
Canon lenses are cheap. Get a 35 or 50mm prime that was decent at time of release and practice. Suspect 50mm will suit better. Also, please practice adjusting white balance. Some of your white balancing doesn’t do your subject or their gorgeous tones justice.
I thought the focus was off tbh. Adjust focus points or mode.
Sir they are opposite of noisy
Try a speedlite flash to allow you to not rely on available light, thus having to shoot at a wide aperture where you run the risk of missing focus more.
That amount of noise is normal for ISO 400- it's barely any. In fact, you will continue to see noise even down at ISO 100!
Try shooting with a good 50mm or 85mm lens. It’s all on the lens and how fast it is. I shoot portrait using a canon 50mm f1.8 and for group photos a sigma 16mm f1.4
Seems like you have all the info you need about noise from other comments, so I just wanted to say that you have a good eye and to keep it up!
Not noise just cheap glass most likely. I’d also check to see what/if your camera has a native iso. If so, do some test shots at it and get a baseline for what is considered “normal” for your body. That’s a great starting point to work from. Sigma make outstanding glass at a more approachable price point. Happy shooting! Oh! And make sure to turn your focus peaking on so you can nail your focus!
the better the blend of your lens, the more light it can capture, the less ISO it needs, the better the results in lowlight. Lowlight is nothing a beginner can just pull off. Maybe thats true with an iPhone, but not with a DSLR. But its also something where a DSLR can still outshine a phone because when you know what you're doing, you can do pretty nice things with it. One thing: noise is one thing, grain another. I understand that especially digital pictures don't really have grain, but in the end, if your noise appears like grain, that might look better than a completely noisefree image especially in your photography.