High ISO - Not such a good deal
Oct 18, 2015 07:45:21 #
I tend to stay away from raising the ISO on my camera unless really need. I typically shoot between 200-400. Then if required I will crank the ISO up. As I see the ISO climb I cringe. Someone once told me here that a pictures at ISO 100-200 was the same as a picture at ISO 800-1000. LL
Oct 18, 2015 08:01:36 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Rongnongno wrote:
We have no dispute there albeit likely on the method used.
Noise created by high ISO even more so because it seems to be predictable. (I need to verify that by reliable sources hence: seems)
Noise created by high ISO even more so because it seems to be predictable. (I need to verify that by reliable sources hence: seems)
I will not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I would just like to add that in photojournalism it is sometimes more important to shoot "in the light" than to think about noise. In the business it is more important to get the emotion than to worry about noise.
Oct 18, 2015 08:10:47 #
billnikon wrote:
I will not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I would just like to add that in photojournalism it is sometimes more important to shoot "in the light" than to think about noise. In the business it is more important to get the emotion than to worry about noise.
Which led me to T-Max at 25,000 in coal mines & discos, back in my good-ole-film days. And leaves me wondering how i'm going to end up using digital, which i am only now beginning to dig into. Those images were dynamic. I haven't figured out whether to try for similar results in digital, if it's even possible, or whether to go for something totally new.
Oct 18, 2015 08:17:35 #
billnikon wrote:
I will not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I would just like to add that in photojournalism it is sometimes more important to shoot "in the light" than to think about noise. In the business it is more important to get the emotion than to worry about noise.
The photojournalism comment is right on. With a news paper being around, what, .75 cents. No one cares about quality. Just as long as they can see the 'dirty laundry' as Don would say. But on the other side, you have people paying 56, 100, 125 and up for a single print. unless you have some artist who's style is that and people, for some unknown reason, flock around his work, Delivering a crappy, picture does not get you return customers. So there are two side to this argument. One where people don't care or wouldn't know the difference and the situation where it does matter and unless pressed, should avoid that situation.
Oct 18, 2015 08:44:32 #
Related article -
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/10/16/the-low-light-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-testing-the-sony-a7s-ii-vs-the-original/
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/10/16/the-low-light-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-testing-the-sony-a7s-ii-vs-the-original/
Oct 18, 2015 09:00:28 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Still another page...
(In progess)
High ISO or even super high ISO is touted by many manufacturers but you are not given the full information on this.
First off, this is not about trying to tell you not to use ISO. This is about giving you a fair warning of the two major problems created.
The first one is known to all "Noise".
Opinions - comments?
(In progess)
High ISO or even super high ISO is touted by many manufacturers but you are not given the full information on this.
First off, this is not about trying to tell you not to use ISO. This is about giving you a fair warning of the two major problems created.
The first one is known to all "Noise".
Opinions - comments?
I don't think the advertised advantage is "high ISO" but rather a greater range of USABLE ISO. The modern sensors and processors have expanded the upper limits of usable ISO. Remember "pushing" color film? Horrible results!
Oct 18, 2015 09:06:09 #
I will generally use 100-160, but recently I needed to take pictures at a Basket Ball game. I set my Nikon D7100 at 5000. When I viewed the pictures I could not believe the clarity. I even printed some at 8 x 10. While they were not the quality of the 100-160 shoots I have taken. They were exceptional. I would say in the digital age hi ASA in the right Camera really works. Sorry ISO I am showing my age using ASA.
Oct 18, 2015 09:10:28 #
CatMarley wrote:
I don't think the advertised advantage is "high ISO" but rather a greater range of USABLE ISO. The modern sensors and processors have expanded the upper limits of usable ISO. Remember "pushing" color film? Horrible results!
Right. It's like a car that can 200 mph. Cruising at 70 all day isn't going to be a problem. If the top speed is 75 mph, it might not be too comfortable cruising at 70.
Oct 18, 2015 09:16:41 #
I did that test with my camera a little while ago. I looked at the files jut now, and do not see any change in RAW file size as ISO went up. Were you looking at JPG?
amfoto1 wrote:
You are correct... br br Set up a test. Camera o... (show quote)
Oct 18, 2015 09:30:18 #
question:
Where does one find the dynamic range in the specs of a camera and what does that the number indicate?
Thank you from one who is still learning.
(In progess)
High ISO or even super high ISO is touted by many manufacturers but you are not given the full information on this.
First off, this is not about trying to tell you not to use ISO. This is about giving you a fair warning of the two major problems created.
The first one is known to all "Noise".
The second is about the dynamic range and that is largely unmentioned simply because few are aware of it.
When you the specification of a camera you see the dynamic range of a camera as a fixed numer when in reality this is a variable number that tends to go down quickly as soon as you crank up the ISO. This is one of the causes for the higher noise by the way*.
While some will dismiss it as they use JPG so, who cares, I am limited anyway, well, you should care. Your preciously limited JPG is influenced even more than you first realize. To create a JPG a camera uses the sensor capture, in other words, the raw data the manufacturer does not want you to have. The result is that a JPG camera produced is more detoriated than a raw capture.
Once again, this is not about putting you off high ISO. You should still use it, just with the full knowledge of what takes place at the sensor level.
-----
* Noise is always present, even when using the optimal status, it is just less visible. Noise is also present in the highlights. When you use high ISO weak functioning pixels on the sensor start failing, enhancing the noise. This additional noise is not random by the way but always at the same place so can be corrected. For the few who are starting to wonder f I am looking at 'red noise', I am not. Red noise is created by long exposure time, overheated failing pixels, not High ISO, that one is corrected with 'black frames' in post processing.
Opinions - comments?[/quote]
Where does one find the dynamic range in the specs of a camera and what does that the number indicate?
Thank you from one who is still learning.
(In progess)
High ISO or even super high ISO is touted by many manufacturers but you are not given the full information on this.
First off, this is not about trying to tell you not to use ISO. This is about giving you a fair warning of the two major problems created.
The first one is known to all "Noise".
The second is about the dynamic range and that is largely unmentioned simply because few are aware of it.
When you the specification of a camera you see the dynamic range of a camera as a fixed numer when in reality this is a variable number that tends to go down quickly as soon as you crank up the ISO. This is one of the causes for the higher noise by the way*.
While some will dismiss it as they use JPG so, who cares, I am limited anyway, well, you should care. Your preciously limited JPG is influenced even more than you first realize. To create a JPG a camera uses the sensor capture, in other words, the raw data the manufacturer does not want you to have. The result is that a JPG camera produced is more detoriated than a raw capture.
Once again, this is not about putting you off high ISO. You should still use it, just with the full knowledge of what takes place at the sensor level.
-----
* Noise is always present, even when using the optimal status, it is just less visible. Noise is also present in the highlights. When you use high ISO weak functioning pixels on the sensor start failing, enhancing the noise. This additional noise is not random by the way but always at the same place so can be corrected. For the few who are starting to wonder f I am looking at 'red noise', I am not. Red noise is created by long exposure time, overheated failing pixels, not High ISO, that one is corrected with 'black frames' in post processing.
Opinions - comments?[/quote]
Oct 18, 2015 09:38:40 #
GeneinChi wrote:
question:
Where does one find the dynamic range in the specs of a camera and what does that the number indicate?
Thank you from one who is still learning.
Where does one find the dynamic range in the specs of a camera and what does that the number indicate?
Thank you from one who is still learning.
You don't. The signal to noise ratio of the processor in your camera may or may not be available from the manufacturer. What it means to your photos is questionable because there are so many other variables involved.
Oct 18, 2015 10:24:54 #
Okay, I get the high ISO noise connection but what about the other way. I admit that I am fairly new to having so much more control over things since I got my K50 but I didn't even realize that the ISO range of this camera went below 100 until I turned the thumbwheel the wrong way a few days ago. I just kept turning the wheel and when the numbers stopped getting smaller I was at an ISO of 8. I haven't really had a chance to do any shooting at that ISO but it's a bright, sunny day here on the Great Plains so there's no excuse not to try it out today. Can I expect further improvement from my normal low ISO of 100? Is there an overkill to low ISO?
Oct 18, 2015 10:58:44 #
I am not a techno nut nor I care very much for the high ISO noise since in the first place I am not a high ISO shooter.
I do not feel limited shooting at ISO 3200 and it could be because my "high" ISO was ISO 400 whch I did not use very often precisely because of the grain, even using medium format. In my case I consider a godsend having ISO 800 in digital cameras like it is today that a simple pass through any noise reduction software will clean the files.
I read on a daily basis of the poor performance of JPEG files and my experience has been different to the point that I am using JPEG more often than RAW. I consider modern JPEG as excellent files as long as certain precautions are taken and we all know which they are.
The dynamic range of a JPEG could be limited but it has not been a problem for me. I use D-lighting with software and the results have been very pleasant and shadows lend themselves to a better control than highlights allowing easily a 2 stops adjustments without any destructive effect on the file. Highlights can also be controlled but I prefer to get it right in camera during exposure.
Some of my beautiful enlargements have come from original JPEG images that I save to TIFF. Under certain conditions I use RAW but JPEG has cut significantly the time I spend at the computer and I am very pleased with my results.
Obviously, this is only my opinion and others will differ from mine.
The file I include is from folkloric dancers in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shot at ISO 3200. The original is a JPEG.
I do not feel limited shooting at ISO 3200 and it could be because my "high" ISO was ISO 400 whch I did not use very often precisely because of the grain, even using medium format. In my case I consider a godsend having ISO 800 in digital cameras like it is today that a simple pass through any noise reduction software will clean the files.
I read on a daily basis of the poor performance of JPEG files and my experience has been different to the point that I am using JPEG more often than RAW. I consider modern JPEG as excellent files as long as certain precautions are taken and we all know which they are.
The dynamic range of a JPEG could be limited but it has not been a problem for me. I use D-lighting with software and the results have been very pleasant and shadows lend themselves to a better control than highlights allowing easily a 2 stops adjustments without any destructive effect on the file. Highlights can also be controlled but I prefer to get it right in camera during exposure.
Some of my beautiful enlargements have come from original JPEG images that I save to TIFF. Under certain conditions I use RAW but JPEG has cut significantly the time I spend at the computer and I am very pleased with my results.
Obviously, this is only my opinion and others will differ from mine.
The file I include is from folkloric dancers in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shot at ISO 3200. The original is a JPEG.
Oct 18, 2015 11:16:42 #
camerapapi wrote:
I am not a techno nut ...
The file I include is from folkloric dancers in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shot at ISO 3200. The original is a JPEG.
The file I include is from folkloric dancers in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shot at ISO 3200. The original is a JPEG.
1600
Oct 18, 2015 11:27:14 #
High school football lights leave a lot to be desired, high ISO is almost always required to be able to use a decent shutter speed. In rain two weeks ago at dimly lit stadium I used 51,000 the entire game (action), 3200 at halftime
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.