Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Stickly for me, the quality of a picture is dependent on its clarity. I'm not a fan of much computer art. Pictures with high noise lends itself into that realm. The clearer the picture, the better. There are occasions when f2.8 treatment of background enhances the subject, but I still like the idea of using as low an ISO as possible for the best results possible. I've seen wedding shots done at 5000 ISO with a D7000. There was nothing pretty about them due to the noise.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

I would shoot street photography at ASA 1600 all the time, like the gritty rendition of street people. Seemed, at least to me, be a better representation of the subjects. Did the same for run down neighborhoods.

Noise is in the eyes of the beholder.

jwt Loc: Texas Hill Country

I agree, beautiful shot. :thumbup:

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Nice Sandhill crane

Clif Loc: Central Ca.

Recalling the grain in Tri X at a time when 64 was the expected ASA to get a good clean image. Things have changed a lot in 50 years. Dodge and burn are gone, the dark room in a closet and the smell of the chemicals could make your eyes water. Now it is all done with 1 and a 0 inside a little box. It would be fun to see what the next 50 will bring. But for now I think I will set the max at 1200 as I drag my feet. Thanks for giving us some practical input on the ISO topic.

Alan1729 Loc: England UK, now New York State.

Me too I used TriX and Gaf500 just for the noise I could blow up the Gaf 500 and get a stain glass window effect. I remember those days well, I sometimes want to go back to film. Can't get gaf 500 now.

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

I recall using some ASA 400 slide film back in the day. Let's talk about grain.

Clif Loc: Central Ca.

I loved Agfa's CT 18. But that was my eye and personal perception of the rendering of color. I could see the blue/green in the Ekta and the red/orange in Koda. The digital cameras seem produce a more natural color and if you want to give a little push with a tent, just move the slider a little left or right nudge.

The thing I miss most, and perhaps have just not discovered how to do it, is the little button that would stop the lens down so I could actually see the depth of field, no chart or computer needed. But I guess I date myself with terms like "Depth of Field." I need that Boogie button or what ever you call it today

Harry Thomas Loc: Doylestown, Pennsylvania

I understand and and share your sentiments. I wrestle with High ISO choices. Your image is great, however is your subject in good light? Have you tried to find the limits of your camera in low light and hand held? I think, that's the test.

kaerophil Loc: Oxford, CT

Why would you need such high ISO with a daytime full sunlight shot? You only need such high ISO when there is very little light.

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

I am one of those who shoots base ISO 90% of the time, and hates pushing it above ISO 800, (using a D800).

So why am I so averse to high ISO? Probably because my background is landscape photography where controlling wide dynamic ranges is common, so having as much cleanly captured as possible is essential. Remember you lose 1 stop of dynamic range for every ISO doubling, and dynamic range is a function of the capacity and noise floor of a sensor site. Hence, reduced noise allows an extension of dynamic range - to a point - which is why some technical cameras use cooling systems. The other thing that is compromised as you turn up the ISO is the amount of detail captured in all areas, (but most noticeably in the shadows.)

Ok, so now that I have told you why I use base ISO so often, there are obviously exceptions, but when I do push the ISO, it is pushed only as far as is absolutely necessary. For a bird or sports photographer, a high shutter speed (1/1000 - 1/2000) is often necessary, and for a street photographer a moderately high shutter speed (1/250) is necessary, probably stopped down to f8. So, for those situations, the ISO will have to be pushed. Still, for street, a fast prime may allow you to reduce f8 to f5.6, but you also better be good at getting adequate focus and depth of field for your subject in real time.

For any situation in which you control the light, such as studio, base ISO should be the rule.

Vibration reduction fast lenses can help, but they are not cheap. A tripod or good hand holding techniques are also ways to reduce how far you need to push ISO.

The long and the short of it is this: Pushing ISO is always a compromise, sometimes a necessary one, but first use every tool in your skills and kit to avoid using it.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I think it's a nice shot as well. many times a less than perfect pic is better than none at all. The photos of the miracle on the Hudson were way less than even "good" but they were still acceptable for use in the National Media

DaveMM Loc: Port Elizabeth, South Africa

The noise on my previous Canon, a 350D, was noticable even at ISO 400. My current 550D (T2i, same sensor and electronics as T3i) is far better at high ISOs, although I still try to keep below ISO 400. It shows how sensor performance has improved over only a few years.

Your post encourages me to try higher ISO when the light levels are low. Thank you.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

Better get a cup of coffee, this is going to be long (and probably boring)

The first issue is what is meant by the term "useable." Useable is quite different for most people. I know people that think useable is what comes off a cell phone, and I think most of us will agree that cell phone photos are NOT useable. Next comes the issue of what is going to be done with this photo. If my goal is a 4x5 gift to my mother-in-law the definition of what is useable increases dramatically. If I am selling a photo for a 5 foot wall mural in a resort (as I did recently :-) ) then useable has a whole different definition. Most of use will probably be dealing with something in the range of 8x10 to 11x14 or something downsized for web view. If this is the case then many photographic issues will be well hidden due tot he size of the finished product.

Next, I will get to Moose Peterson's teddy bear project. This is a simple test where he suggests that you get a white, a black and a brown teddy bear in set them side by side and then shot them in various lighting conditions and at various ISO settings and then YOU decide which is best for you. What will you accept.

While I agree that the new cameras have excellent ISO renditions, there is a difference in the real clarity when the images are laid side by side (or for that matter even viewed side by side. My D800 produces an excellent (Ok fantastic image with detail in feathers, fur, whiskers, hair and textures when shot at lower ISOs---I can see this on a monitor. I will not hesitate to shoot at 800-1600 if the conditions warrant it. That is I must get this shot. If I had a snowy owl on the wing in fading light and I had to raise the ISO to get the right shutter speed to freeze the wings---up the ISO goes. But I will forever grouse that the quality of the finished photo is just not there. Will I keep the photo because of the uniqueness of the shot---yes. Will I proudly show it off to the general public as an example of my work---no.

To me, higher ISO photos look soft, even muddy, the crisp detail of the fine feathers, the richness of the coat, the detail in the meadow of flowers is just lacking. So I lug my tripod, wait for the wind to die down, use my expensive camera and lens to the limits of its capabilities and rejoice in my results.

Noise reduction software just softens the image. Maybe in little amounts, but it softens the image. This lets me get photos in my local high schools gym (with its g-d awful lights) and I can save the photos with noise reduction work in post. BUT--- the coaches and players all love the photos I take each year when they go to a neighboring school,that has better lights and I can reduce the ISO. So others, even non pros, CAN see a difference.

I greatly respect many of the photographers who have chimed in on this thread. I admire their work. But I respectfully disagree that high ISO produces the same quality image that a lower ISO produces. I am not married to ISO 200, but i will only very grudgingly raise mine to anything over 640, and the conditions and the subject better be worth the effort, or I will put my gear down and just enjoy the moment and the view. I don't have to get an image everytime I go out.

Hope you enjoyed your coffee, if not my ramblings. It is just my old dog opinions.
Do enjoy your high ISO settings. :-) :-) :-)

respectfully

Larry
(the Old Dog)

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Nice shot. Since I just bought a t3i about a month ago, I've not had an opportunity to shoot with high ISO so far. So thanks for the tip.