Lesson from "March Madness" photographers: This morning I was looking at pictures from the recent NCAA basketball final and I realized I was seeing much more DOF than I expected, so I...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This morning I was looking at pictures from the recent NCAA basketball final and I realized I was seeing much more DOF than I expected, so I downloaded a couple of pictures and then looked at the EXIF data; much to my surprise, they did leave the data in, and it tells an interesting story. For some time now, people have been assuming that the only way to get good indoor activity pictures is to use a constant wide-aperture lens, but these pictures were shot at ISO=8000, which allowed the f-stop to be 6.3. Yes, this is web, not Sports Illustrated, but most of us take to the former standard more than to the latter standard. Not only are long constant wide-aperture lenses expensive, they are also awkward to handle, so I'm thinking that this kind of approach might increasingly put more emphasis on doing "outrageously" high ISO well

Bill_de Loc: US

I shoot at ISO 5,000 to 10,000 quite often and have posted pictures here shot at 20,000. When you consider there is now a camera that boasts 3 million, 8,000 doesn't seem so outlandish.

What amazes me is that I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and still got good results. I guess the sun was brighter 40 years ago. :)

--

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

Bill_de wrote:

I shoot at ISO 5,000 to 10,000 quite often and have posted pictures here shot at 20,000. When you consider there is now a camera that boasts 3 million, 8,000 doesn't seem so outlandish.

What amazes me is that I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and still got good results. I guess the sun was brighter 40 years ago. :)

--

I blame global darkening!

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

rehess wrote:

This morning I was looking at pictures from the re... (show quote)

Even at f6.3 they must have had a lot of light especially considering they were shooting at 1/1000 and f6.3.

For some of the stuff I shoot a f2.8 lens is almost a minimum. This is at a classical concert rehearsal indoors. I do not use a flash for the rehearsals or the concerts (where the light levels were even lower).
This was at 1/60 @ f2.8 and ISO 12,800 F=150mm (on a 2x crop factor body)
Hand held and image stabilisation is on.
This was the first time I had used ISO 12,800 for real as I was shooting for a "client".
Some noise reduction was done when PPing the original raw file.

The lens, an Olympus M-Zuiko Digital 40-150 f2.8 pro (80-300 FOV in 35mm terms) is not big and heavy.

1/60 @ F2.8 ISO 12800

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Bill_de wrote:

I shoot at ISO 5,000 to 10,000 quite often and have posted pictures here shot at 20,000. When you consider there is now a camera that boasts 3 million, 8,000 doesn't seem so outlandish.

What amazes me is that I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and still got good results. I guess the sun was brighter 40 years ago. :)

--

You wern't shooting "action" in very low light levels.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

rehess wrote:

This morning I was looking at pictures from the re... (show quote)

Please define "outrageously high" ISO photography. Or is it that the end-result is considered outrageous to some because of image noise or some other criterion? Oh, who defines these criteria? Seriously.

Are all images taken of this ilk, which are passed around on the internet, of poor quality? Perhaps you could convey your point better by showing us examples, rather than just telling us your view in terms that (at least) I myself can't understand. Of course, you'd need to provide photos for comparison of similar scenes with the same focal length and available light that were done handheld without using an "outrageous ISO" setting.

Thank you,
lev29 🤓😎

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

lev29 wrote:

Please define "outrageously high" ISO photography. Or is it that the end-result is considered outrageous to some because of image noise or some other criterion? Oh, who defines these criteria? Seriously.

I specifically said that the ISO=8000. I put the outrageously in quote marks for the usual reason of indicating that I was using some kind of label that might not actually be true; in this case, that standards we used just a few years ago are no longer that useful

lev29 wrote:

Are all images taken of this ilk, which are passed around on the internet, of poor quality?

I never said anything of the kind

lev29 wrote:

Perhaps you could convey your point better by showing us examples, rather than just telling us your view in terms that (at least) I myself can't understand.

The pictures I downloaded and then looked at the EXIF for were embedded in this story http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/villanova-wins-ncaa-championship-buzzer-beater

lev29 wrote:

Of course, you'd need to provide photos for comparison of similar scenes with the same focal length and available light that were done handheld without using an "outrageous ISO" setting.

That is obviously not possible since there is no reason to expect ISO=8000 pictures from a few years ago and taken in the same area to be available.

Bill_de Loc: US

RichardTaylor wrote:

You wern't shooting "action" in very low light levels.

I was shooting Tortoises at midnight :)

When I think about it, I depended a lot more on flash. A 510V battery was always on my belt or velro'd to my tripod.

--

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Bill_de wrote:

I was shooting Tortoises at midnight :)

When I think about it, I depended a lot more on flash. A 510V battery was always on my belt or velro'd to my tripod.

--

:-)

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

rehess wrote:

This morning I was looking at pictures from the re... (show quote)

A few things to consider:

- They're shooting at 24mm and getting a lot of light in there. Tighter action shots, with longer focal lengths, require either higher ISO, longer SS, or larger aperatures.
- This is not your typical gymnasium lighting. This is the NCAA tournament with the same amount of light as any professional arena. Most of us 'Hoggers are shooting in relatively dimly lit gyms/arenas.
- Most of these pros are shooting with f2.8 zooms. They just need that capability for the tighter action shots.

You're right in saying that there a few ways to get around the low light issue, but be prepared for using noise reduction software......a lot!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Capture48 wrote:

I blame global darkening!

Oh, no! Something new to worry about. :cry:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

rehess wrote:

...these pictures were shot at ISO=8000...

Thanks for that. People tend to be afraid of ISO over 400. I don't hesitate to raise it when necessary.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

jerryc41 wrote:

Thanks for that. People tend to be afraid of ISO over 400.

That's precisely why I included the "outrageously high" phrase that concerned lev29. Those of us who have been around awhile tend to not think of that option, but I guess we need to become more familiar with the practical limits of our equipment before the "need" is "urgent".

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

rehess wrote:

That's precisely why I included the "outrageously high" phrase that concerned lev29. Those of us who have been around awhile tend to not think of that option, but I guess we need to become more familiar with the practical limits of our equipment before the "need" is "urgent".

Good point. One of the first things I do when I get a new camera is do tests at various ISOs to see what I can expect if I need to go high ISO.

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Capture48 wrote:

I blame global darkening!

:lol: :lol: :lol: