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

Richard King said:
You make a good point. Xxxx em, go learn how to do this, its a useful thing to be able to do
Click to expand...

Cheers Richard.

I think I will..."xxxx em" :-)

This thread was aimed at learning and helping others, but nut picking and trying to find ways of "proving" incapablility (as it seems at least).

Any positive discussions welcome.
 
good idea Phil:)
If I were you I would do something like try to get shots of moving subjects in poor light
In my case it would be trying to get birds in flight in the morning as the sun comes up , not managed that yet :D
or zoo animals in a dark enclosure
I think if you just wind up the ISO in good light you wont see much noise anyway:)
 
LCPete said:
good idea Phil:)
If I were you I would do something like try to get shots of moving subjects in poor light
In my case it would be trying to get birds in flight in the morning as the sun comes up , not managed that yet :D
or zoo animals in a dark enclosure
I think if you just wind up the ISO in good light you wont see much noise anyway:)
Click to expand...

I realised this about the moving objects - realised I should have brought my 1.8...

Yep either upping ISO in good light or allowing enough light in to be the equivilent of "good light" (vs your max aperture anyway) will see less noise.

I have an image where ryans face is 2 stops worth less of light and his facial hair is just mush.
 
tiler65 said:
I already know the answer.
Click to expand...

Hence my answer and proof to why you may find I take things personal (or paranoid) sometimes; you seem to be out for nothing else than to try and make me sound less knowledgeable.

Weather I am or am not is neither here nor there - but it's easy to see when someone is trying to make you look small.

Its nice to have some members on here that’s only intention is to help others and discuss what they love, not demonstrate knowledge or try to gain a higher status over others.
 
But Phil, you rarely give descriptions about your findings/experiments - just like you replied to me.

I have now asked you two recent questions which you haven't answered.

If you think that is me trying to belittle you, then I suggest you seek help in some kind of therapy course.
 
Regarding the two questions asked by Tom I would like to hear the answers to them as I'm a little unsure.

Phil if you know please answer, if not then would appreciate Tom clarifying.
 
Phil Young said:
Again...its nice to have some nicer members on here that don't try to make others look small.
Click to expand...

People are not trying to make you look small. You will never learn from people being positive and not questioning you. If you want that Flickr and the "Nice capture" is where you want to be. If you want to learn, then let people question you, show you where you might be making mistakes and learn from it.
 
I think it's a really interesting experiment. Shame the thread has been derailed somewhat by the usual unnecessary posts.
 
ding76uk said:
People are not trying to make you look small. You will never learn from people being positive and not questioning you. If you want that Flickr and the "Nice capture" is where you want to be. If you want to learn, then let people question you, show you where you might be making mistakes and learn from it.
Click to expand...

You're off the mark here.

There's nothing to critque and I'm not apposed to learning.

As stated below your post - there have been done unnecessary posts.

Its not a question of me wanting people to say "well done".

I went out of my way to put my results on here for a reason: to show others that wanted to see, what the potential is when you take a well exposed high ISO shot.

I wasn't doing it to get negative comments from nit pickers.

The fact is this; they are good results (I know that I don't need people to tell me) but what I can really do without is my helpful thread getting derailed because people want to (for whatever reason) pick unnecessary faults.
 
Phil, that 'well exposed' high iso head shot was over exposed....how can you turn around and say it was well exposed?
 
tiler65 said:
Phil, that 'well exposed' high iso head shot was over exposed....how can you turn around and say it was well exposed?
Click to expand...

Tom.

Have you thought about the alternative at that high ISO? The exposure value is 1 stop and is enough to make a huge difference in the level of noise.

Slight blown highlights (which imo don't harm the image too much) vs terrible shadow noise...which would you choose?
 
Phil Young said:
Tom.

Have you thought about the alternative at that high ISO? The exposure value is 1 stop and is enough to make a huge difference in the level of noise.

Slight blown highlights (which imo don't harm the image too much) vs terrible shadow noise...which would you choose?
Click to expand...

Now we are getting somewhere.

People were saying earlier in the thread this very same point but you were dismissive of it.
 
Phil Young said:
Again...its nice to have some nicer members on here that don't try to make others look small.
Click to expand...

TBH Phil, I like trying different things and experimenting and seing what others are up to and I think it's a shame that threads like this often get derailed to some extent.
 
Here's a crop comparison.

noise1.JPG


25600 noise is 25600 noise. It is the same in a well / over exposed image as it is a under exposed image. It's actually wrong to say "there is more noise at xxxISO in shadows", there is the same amount of noise.

It is not affected by exposure time (haven't tested long exposures) and is not affected by the type of lighting used.

If you zoomed in to 400% you would see exactly the same level of noise in both images - brighter areas will just give the illusion of less noise.

Hope this helps.
 
Nick_1981 said:
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:
Click to expand...

+1 on this. Good on you Phil and I'm keen to see what 'you can get away with' Would be nice to see results in a real world scenario though...i.e.when you've no choice but to use a high ISO. Thanks for the thread though!
JohnyT
 
Phil Young said:
Here's a crop comparison.

noise1.JPG


25600 noise is 25600 noise. It is the same in a well / over exposed image as it is a under exposed image. It's actually wrong to say "there is more noise at xxxISO in shadows", there is the same amount of noise.

It is not affected by exposure time (haven't tested long exposures) and is not affected by the type of lighting used.

If you zoomed in to 400% you would see exactly the same level of noise in both images - brighter areas will just give the illusion of less noise.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

I tried to reply earlier but the forum went blank but here we go.

The two examples you have posted last are two different crops from two shots.

What you need to do is have the same crop from different lighting conditions so you can adjust the iso to suit which would mean a more scientific approach. All good lighting/iso tests are done this way. Less variables with the final shot leads to a better understanding of how you can push the equipment to its limits. A simple object with a light, dark, midtone range on it would suffice. You can then expose for each range and also over and under expose each range to show the results. 9 images in total should do it, per iso range you want to use.
 
tiler65 said:
I tried to reply earlier but the forum went blank but here we go.

The two examples you have posted last are two different crops from two shots.

What you need to do is have the same crop from different lighting conditions so you can adjust the iso to suit which would mean a more scientific approach. All good lighting/iso tests are done this way. Less variables with the final shot leads to a better understanding of how you can push the equipment to its limits. A simple object with a light, dark, midtone range on it would suffice. You can then expose for each range and also over and under expose each range to show the results. 9 images in total should do it, per iso range you want to use.
Click to expand...

Tom...

I don't have to mate I know there isn't a difference :)
 
Johnytuono said:
+1 on this. Good on you Phil and I'm keen to see what 'you can get away with' Would be nice to see results in a real world scenario though...i.e.when you've no choice but to use a high ISO. Thanks for the thread though!
JohnyT
Click to expand...

Cheers mate.

As stated above - I did HAVE to use that high ISO :)
 
same old ar@e@ ruining something, just because it doesn't follow their line of thinking.

go for it Phil!
 
always gets boring where a particular member is concerned (waits to be removed for no reason again - not moving on - talking out my backside, lol!)
 
An example of ISO 10,000 from a gig last night.

10K ISO
SI5dv.jpg


100%
xfenH.jpg


Slightly processed, Just dropped clarity a tiny bit, I find that helps lessen the noise, or seemingly. Pushed the blacks and contrast a little and luminance nr to 13. I don't like to go beyond that. I would say this is plenty usable. I didn't need to shoot this high of course. You can see I was at f/5.6 to allow for the higher level. Most of the time I was at 2.8, ISO 2000 - 6400 and they were much cleaner.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
An example of ISO 10,000 from a gig last night.

10K ISO

100%
Click to expand...

10k is nothing lol. Push it and then show the results :)

The point is not to give examples of what you've shot and the cameras handling of high ISO but to show how you have managed to make a very high ISO look like it was shot using an ISO setting 3-4 stops less :)
 
It's very high to me coming from a D90. And I'm showing usable examples. I'll have to look through all the shots from the night to see if I went higher.
 
Is that Y&T Cagey?
 
Yup, never heard them before myself but a friend of ours is a massive fan. They were pretty good, solid. I'm a big Maiden fan so it wasn't too hard to adjust to them :)
 
They did Donnington in '82 when Maiden headlined and Radio 1 Broadcast it over here ... been living off that alone I tink, lol!

Anyway, Phil, back to you ;)
 
I'm going to Download/Donnington next year for Maiden alone :cool:
 
As a newbie I've found this thread rather informative but saddened by the griping :(

Y&T part of the NWOBHM and my youth :)
 
It is interesting, for newbies and people who don't appreciate the gap in ISO performance, so rock on with it Phil

(Y&T are American, so not really part of the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal ;) although loved by many who remember it)
 
ding76uk said:
People are not trying to make you look small. You will never learn from people being positive and not questioning you. If you want that Flickr and the "Nice capture" is where you want to be. If you want to learn, then let people question you, show you where you might be making mistakes and learn from it.
Click to expand...

true if that were the case here but as I read it, most of the feed back has been to say not to bother doing this as it's a waste of time or has already been done...it was suggested he go out and shoot low light subjects, he did that and got a comment saying the pic wasn't straight! so I can see why the OP may feel he is being made to feel small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top