Experimenting with Higher ISO
Nov 13, 2017 00:08:49 #
When I am confronted with photographic issues, I try to experiment my way through them.
This is my attempt to deal with gathering light before sunup. These images were shot with a very high ISO setting as I couldn't get enough light to expose the images the way I like to. I used ISO 6,400 instead of the usual 200 to 800 range. Not sure if I like them or not.
The D500 is suppose to be good in low-light, so I would like anyone who shoots this camera or other ones to let me know if these seem to be the quality I should expect from the D500. Taking in consideration that I wanted to get faster shutter speeds, and the light was quite a long time before sunrise.
I brought them into post and brought the color from the normal blue morning light to a more reasonable tone, passed the image through a bit of noise reduction, and here you have the results.
As usual, thanks for any helpful info.
Enjoy anyway.
This is my attempt to deal with gathering light before sunup. These images were shot with a very high ISO setting as I couldn't get enough light to expose the images the way I like to. I used ISO 6,400 instead of the usual 200 to 800 range. Not sure if I like them or not.
The D500 is suppose to be good in low-light, so I would like anyone who shoots this camera or other ones to let me know if these seem to be the quality I should expect from the D500. Taking in consideration that I wanted to get faster shutter speeds, and the light was quite a long time before sunrise.
I brought them into post and brought the color from the normal blue morning light to a more reasonable tone, passed the image through a bit of noise reduction, and here you have the results.
As usual, thanks for any helpful info.
Enjoy anyway.
Nov 13, 2017 00:29:06 #
Nov 13, 2017 00:40:34 #
cucharared wrote:
Looking good to me. Is that little red-headed guy a flycatcher?
Ron
Ron
Ruby-crowned Kinglet. That would be closer to a warbler than a flycatcher.
Nov 13, 2017 04:00:41 #
Nov 13, 2017 08:18:39 #
DOOK wrote:
These look good to me, David. 
I guess I was expecting a cleaner image. Thanks. I am uncertain that a print would be more revealing, but I might have to attempt one just to see.
Nov 13, 2017 08:19:27 #
Bozsik wrote:
When I am confronted with photographic issues, I t... (show quote)
David, excellent. I did a double on all the photos and only noticed noise in the last three backgrounds. I bet the backgrounds were darker then in the photos prior to them. I need to play with my ISO more than I have. Thank you for the comparison you gave us to look at since it is always educational.
Greg
Nov 13, 2017 11:14:32 #
CLF wrote:
David, excellent. I did a double on all the photo... (show quote)
Thanks Greg,
The last three shots were the first ones I captured in the morning. The light was very low and the wood duck was approximately 20 yards away, so the image had to be cropped as well. The two mallard shots were a bit later and the lighting had improved somewhat. I also believe the I SO for the mallards was approximately 5000 and not 6400 which could also explain the better performance.
I am judging that 6400 could be used sparingly, if I am attempting to capture images where the lighting is lacking, but not really low light, but I really require the extra shutter speed for sharpness.
The other item I have been working with in On1 is the proper usage of the noiseware. Always something new. That's what photography is all about. Lol
Nov 13, 2017 11:26:16 #
Bozsik wrote:
Thanks Greg, br The last three shots were the firs... (show quote)
David, there always seems to be something new to drive GAS. I am attempting to stay with what I have but a FF Canon keeps calling. I keep looking at the Canon 6D ii. There are a lot of photos posted at UHH using the older 6D and the results look great. At the same time I tell myself a crop sensor works great for my wildlife photos which is about 95% of my photos. It is a great problem to have.
Greg
Nov 13, 2017 11:27:35 #
Nov 13, 2017 15:42:27 #
David, they all look good to me. I see noise only when I peek closely at the pixels, and even then the noise is fine to the point of not detracting from the image.
Nov 13, 2017 16:03:47 #
Nov 13, 2017 16:05:10 #
kpmac wrote:
They look good to me, David.
Thank you. This is good feedback. I guess I am too picky when it comes to the noise issue. I am so use to the old days of KK 64. LOL Thanks again.
Nov 13, 2017 16:06:32 #
Dixiegirl wrote:
David, they all look good to me. I see noise only when I peek closely at the pixels, and even then the noise is fine to the point of not detracting from the image.
Thank you Donna. I value your opinion in this matter. Everyone has been helpful with my uncertainty. I should think more positive.
Nov 13, 2017 16:20:10 #
Bozsik wrote:
Thank you Donna. I value your opinion in this matter. Everyone has been helpful with my uncertainty. I should think more positive.
To be honest, David, I can't stand noise in an image, but the fine stuff I can deal with. Sometimes I think it even enhances depending on the 'quality' of the noise. I think when we get into problems is when we try to sharpen everything including the noise. It just makes a mess, but I've never seen you do that.
Nov 13, 2017 20:41:02 #
Dixiegirl wrote:
To be honest, David, I can't stand noise in an image, but the fine stuff I can deal with. Sometimes I think it even enhances depending on the 'quality' of the noise. I think when we get into problems is when we try to sharpen everything including the noise. It just makes a mess, but I've never seen you do that.
I must admit that I make a conscious effort not to have a lot of noise. I try to do my noise reduction before I do any sharpening or increase the contrast or dynamic contrast.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.