Critique and comments welcome!

Remotes: Poverty wizards and a borrowed XT & 70-200 4L





These all shot with 30D and 70-200 2.8L non-remote





Grain is eviler than Obama. I need a 7D and I should have switched to RAW after dark. Oh well. Needed space.

You did good for an XT.  RAW after dark?  RAW ALL THE TIME BABY! Buy bigger card! I'll fore warn you though.....Stepping up to a 7D is like a whole new world.

I like the first one the best.

Good work with the remotes.

And definitely shoot RAW. I switched sometime back and like it much better.

I normally shoot raw, but I was covering this game for two papers. Neither want raw or need it and I wasn't going to buy new cards to shoot all raw. In the end I had 1082 pictures to dig through, most of which were trashed remote shots.

Here are some from the Mizzou game:

Shot with a Nikon D2Hs and 300 2.8









And remotes:

Goods shots but i do have one comment,there is no grain with digital capture.Grain is only in film so what you are seeing is noise.Good shots and i bet you you loved that 300 2.8.

Old habits die hard.

I might be wrong, but IMO you can get "grain" separately from "noise" in a DSLR.

High ISO that is properly/over exposed will tend to look "grainy" whereas ANY ISO that is severely underexposed (then brought up in post) will look "noisy".

I consider grain to be differences in brightness between pixels, but the overall color looks consistent. I consider noise to be variations in color.

The digital "grain" looks good, IMO. I have yet to look at "noise" and think it is ever appealing.

JMO. I may be technically incorrect, but that's how I see it. Feel free to discuss if that seems off.

High ISO will not necessarily look noisy or grainy....it's a deficiency in CCD design that is slowly being overcome. (S/N ratios improving)

Actual film grain is a result of the size and shape of dye clouds

Here's 1600 ISO on  7D without any noise reduction in post::



(crop of a 100% image)

That was simply impossible via digital just 2 years ago

I hear you... but here's my perspective:

ISO 100, flash didn't fire, so severely unerexposed. This produced (what I call) noise.



ISO 100, flash did fire, no adjustment necessary... no noise or grain.



ISO 6400, flash fired, no adjustment done... this shows (what I call) grain.




All 3 images are with a 5d2, taken at the same event. I marquee selected areas and cropped (that's why they're different sizes) which makes each picture the actual pixels (100% crop). Other than adjusting the underexposed one to be properly exposed, these are exactly how the RAW files were shot.

The way I see it, the underexposed one is the only one I would associate with what I call noise. The 6400 shot looks (to me) like a nice smooth film grain.

::edit:: Sonofa... resize feature got me. You'll have to right click and view image to see the actual pixels.

How long has the Nikon D3 been out?