High ISO weekend - aim to get "usable images".

Long night. Should have brought out my 50mm but oh well...I think the slow aperture added to the challenge :)

Happy with a few from tonight - I'm very tired but wanted to post some results!

They were all shot on 25600 then polished up a bit in PP. Looking at these, I'd be happy to use my highest ISO setting.

I still want to get some cityscapes and see what the 50mm f1.8 can bring to the table...

#1
DSC_3827_small2.jpg


#2
DSC_3730_small.jpg


#3
DSC_3563_small.jpg


#4
DSC_3674_small1.jpg


Keen to know - I'm impressed with the end results but what do you folks think, would you shoot high ISO if this were the end result???
 
Last edited:
I can see where your going with this thread but looking quickly at the pics they mostly seem taken in good light, you don't need 12.800 iso in that, and well exposed pics in good light isn't really showing what the camera can do, as it's un-realistic for most real world situations.
When we do need high iso the light is usually terrible or it's dark, that would be a better test IMHO.
Not knocking what your doing, and if I had the time I'd join in, just think low light would be a better test thats all.
 
Well they look good enough to me considering the ISO. Whether you had to use that ISO or not is besides the point and I get what you are trying to prove. Although taking some shots where that ISO is required would also be good it doesn't really prove much more as in those cases your choice would be high ISO or no photo!

Be good to compare them with same shots taken at the minimum ISO you could have got away with in same scene.

Doesn't change my view of high ISO, I use Auto 3200 on my camera (mine doesn't go into 10s of thousands) and if the exposure needs 3200 then so be it (based on my choice of aperture and minimum shutter speed)
 
Last edited:
Fair play Phil. Even if you achieve nothing, you've set yourself a challenge and got out with the camera to take some pictures - after all, isn't that what photography is all about.

I think what you are doing is useful.... I can think of a few times where I've bumped the iso indoors and then forgotten to change it when moving outdoors and worried about unnecessary noise. Even if all you prove is that in good light high iso doesn't add noise it's been of use to me.

I can think of many occasions where I have done similar challenges with various settings on the camera (many completely pointless) but they all helped me to understand the camera better. The fact that you are documenting your results and posting them may help others or inspire them to try similar.

I really don't understand why those who don't see the point in what you are doing keep coming back to comment :thinking:
 
Phil Young said:
Lol what you think I wouldn't carry out your request to make me look disrespectful because I'm scared I'll be shown up?!

Give it a rest.
Click to expand...

Stop being paranoid, how are you going to be disrespectful?

I want you to show poor light conditions where you need to use high iso measurements. The scenario I gave was perfectly rational.
 
A Vicar could regard a stranger (if Phil is a stranger to him) turning up just to take photographs as disrespectful. Of course, turning up a bit early and asking his permission would change things completely, as would being a regular at the particular church.
 
Nod said:
A Vicar could regard a stranger (if Phil is a stranger to him) turning up just to take photographs as disrespectful. Of course, turning up a bit early and asking his permission would change things completely, as would being a regular at the particular church.
Click to expand...

but he should still be welcomed in - what would jesus do and so on.
 
joescrivens said:
So is the point to prove you can use a high iso when you don't need to?
Click to expand...

The point is that 25,600 provides some useable images. Agree that some actual shots where it was required to get the shot would be good too but what if the light was okayish but wanted to use high shutter speed and had a lens that didn't have a particularly large Aperture. Only option in that scenario is upping the ISO and this proves that would be viable

So the motto is - Don't fear the high ISO, man
 
In theory, yes, he should but even Jesus lost his rag over what he saw as disrespectful behaviour in the temple!
 
Well that depends if Jesus found photography disrespectful I suppose. And I would think there is no mention of photography in the bible but may be added in the long overdue follow up book.
 
Nod said:
In theory, yes, he should but even Jesus lost his rag over what he saw as disrespectful behaviour in the temple!
Click to expand...

What is disrespectful to you may not to others......and so on.....
 
ernesto said:
The point is that 25,600 provides some useable images. Agree that some actual shots where it was required to get the shot would be good too but what if the light was okayish but wanted to use high shutter speed and had a lens that didn't have a particularly large Aperture. Only option in that scenario is upping the ISO and this proves that would be viable

So the motto is - Don't fear the high ISO, man
Click to expand...

Hmmm but that's not what happened. Phil used a high ISO when he didnt need to.

Phil can you not find a situation where you actually have to use high iso
 
But what if Phil had wanted to use that specific aperture and shutter speed, then that is the ISO he would have had to use. It still provides evidence of the image that you would get in that scenario.

But yes, come on Phil, get out there in the dark for gods sake :)
 
ernesto said:
But what if Phil had wanted to use that specific aperture and shutter speed, then that is the ISO he would have had to use. It still provides evidence of the image that you would get in that scenario.

But yes, come on Phil, get out there in the dark for gods sake :)
Click to expand...

But thats what I am saying. I don't believe he did need those shutter and aperture settings combined with that ISO. All of those scenes are wayyyyyyy brighter than they need to be and in real life they weren't that bright.

Its only useful if you are in a situation where the conditions mean you need to use them. If for example the train was moving in and he wanted a really quick shutter speed to freeze it then it would be showing a situation where it was needed if you see what I mean.

Got to say also that the portait of the man is very noisy, especially on his left eye where the shadow detail is.
 
Hahahaha I knew this would happen!!!!

Excuses to the fact that regardless of the light (which wouldn't make a difference I'd take the same ISO and expose well, and produce the same results) ...they are useable...more than useable.

Here's the deal.

The reason I went out with a slow lens in the first place was because I wanted to make sure 25600 was the minimum ISO I could use and in all three of these it was.

So all those saying I used high ISO when I didn't need to - "our survey says".

I did not have a tripod and for 95% of my shots taken last night I was below 1/10th of a second (often way below). Call that bad light or not enough light of you will but it was challenging.

The reason you may think it's good light is because I made it look like that :) were you expecting noisy under exposed images due to the lighting levels??? I said I would make an image look like I could make it look 4 stops under what it was and I believe that proves my point :)

Regardless of the light, if exposed well it can be made useful. I'll see what else I've taken, probably got a tree or something lol. ISO 25600 is ISO 25600. It produces the same amount of noise in all light - I'm sure I could take a picture in a church and clean it up nicely.

I won't put anymore pictures up apart from what I took last night because like I thought, excuses for the lighting & general negativity.

How annoying that we can't have a good discussion about what was good rather than just dwelling in negatives that aren't true, aren't viable and just don't make for a good Saturday morning :)

The way I see it...I did what I had to do and proved that ISO 25600 is usable.
 
joescrivens said:
But thats what I am saying. I don't believe he did need those shutter and aperture settings combined with that ISO. All of those scenes are wayyyyyyy brighter than they need to be and in real life they weren't that bright.

Its only useful if you are in a situation where the conditions mean you need to use them. If for example the train was moving in and he wanted a really quick shutter speed to freeze it then it would be showing a situation where it was needed if you see what I mean.

Got to say also that the portait of the man is very noisy, especially on his left eye where the shadow detail is.
Click to expand...

Lol Joe you are not serious? ...An image in low light has to be dark...?!

I'm the creator of the image and I decide how I want it exposed. End of, no argument.
 
Phil Young said:
Lol Joe you are not serious? ...An image in low light has to be dark...?!

I'm the creator of the image and I decide how I want it exposed. End of, no argument.
Click to expand...

But images lit like yours hide a multitude of high iso sins. Shadow and dark is the problem with high iso not well lit scenes
 
Phil Young said:
And my example to that is: They wasn't well lit...I had to bring the shadow exposure out (mainly in the close up portrait).
Click to expand...

Talking about the close up portrait.....

Isn't there blown areas of the skin on his face....certainly not natural looking skin even under the lighting conditions. I am sure you posted earlier that you would get the correct exposure for your tests, with the example given ...it clearly is not.

People are not wanting to make you look foolish, they are having a discussion. STOP BEING PARANOID!
 
Phil Young said:
Tom,

It's the negativity I can't stand.

Instead of talking about what was good too many are out to prove why these look good for what they are, or doubting the conditions etc. It's really frustrating, I hoped (use that word strongly) to have a more positive response.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the way to understand how things work or how they are produced, you have to dissect things, this is no different. You take things too personally in 99% of your posts. (just my observation)
 
Phil Young said:
Ok let's dissect thing...

Please give me your points (not long discussions yet) and allow me to comment on whatever the point is.

We'll go from there.
Click to expand...

Ok from the image above......







It's crooked.
 
above image is too noisy for me.

What would you be able to use it for in your opinion? You couldn't sell it as a landscape print - it could go in a news paper I guess? Is that what you were thinking it could be usable for?

In the real world that image you would stick a tripod on it and get a lovely long exposure image you could see - ok so you ddn't have a tripod, but when would someone go outside to take a photo of a builsing in the dark without a tripod? That's where I am struggling with this test.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
above image is too noisy for me.

What would you be able to use it for in your opinion? You couldn't sell it as a landscape print - it could go in a news paper I guess? Is that what you were thinking it could be usable for?
Click to expand...

This particular one - personal use.
 
The building shot puzzles me...I am unsure what I am supposed to be looking at/for.

I can see too much noise on the shadow side of the building compared to the bright side. This is what folk have been trying to tell you. In poorer light you will see more noise.

The point that you think it is OK is a personal thing and that it does not mean it is OK for every useage or purpose.
 
with a discussion like this is the term "usable" means something different to everyone. Actually, low light seems to too.

If Phil is happy with the quality of those shots then great. More power to him. I'd imagine they'd be fine printed at 6x4, but any larger and...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top