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

snigg said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was a joke....you need to get out more.
 
Why does everyone take things so personal all of a sudden...what is wrong with the Great British insult!!!
 
tiler65 said:
Why does everyone take things so personal all of a sudden...what is wrong with the Great British insult!!!
Click to expand...

Tom.

Weather you intend to it not, a lot of your posts I (and it could be just be) find are quite rude.

If you are joking perhaps you need to indicate it?
 
Phil Young said:
Tom.

Weather you intend to it not, a lot of your posts I (and it could be just be) find are quite rude.

If you are joking perhaps you need to indicate it?
Click to expand...

Show me a post where I am rude. I am not rude, I am giving an honest opinion of my thoughts. I am jovial and always have an upbeat manner to my threads/posts - that is if any one reads them wholly instead of taking snippits to justify your own desire to show that you are offended. (not aimed at any particular person but readers in general)

In case you didn't know I refuse to use the devils work that is emtoicons. (text speak is banned from these boards and to my opinion emoticons fall in the same category)

If you are unable to to read through a piece of my prose and not understand it without those little ball shaped words, then I suggest you all take a step back and think about what reading and writing was like before they were invented.
 
tiler65 said:
Show me a post where I am rude. I am not rude, I am giving an honest opinion of my thoughts. I am jovial and always have an upbeat manner to my threads/posts - that is if any one reads them wholly instead of taking snippits to justify your own desire to show that you are offended. (not aimed at any particular person but readers in general)

In case you didn't know I refuse to use the devils work that is emtoicons. (text speak is banned from these boards and to my opinion emoticons fall in the same category)

If you are unable to to read through a piece of my prose and not understand it without those little ball shaped words, then I suggest you all take a step back and think about what reading and writing was like before they were invented.
Click to expand...

Tom, just wondering how old you are (hope you don't mind me asking)??
 
Here's another taken from last night.

Taken @ f5.3 & 1/8th ISO 25,600

Before:
DSC_3771_copy.JPG


After:
DSC_3771_after.JPG
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
Show me a post where I am rude. I am not rude, I am giving an honest opinion of my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you cannot decide if other people think you are rude. That is their decision. I am pretty much in the same boat as you and a lot of what I say is tongue in cheek and not meant to be rude or offend anyone.

This works well with face to face discussions with people I know as the intent is clear. It doesn't work so well on internet forums and even though I know that, it is hard for me to change how I interact but at least I realise it and am prepared to apologise if anyone takes something the wrong way. If someone feels you have been rude then saying 'you need to get out more' to them is not an acceptance of how they feel and just adds to the rudeness (the rudeness that you don't even realise you are doing)

And smilies, emoticons, other methods of implying things have been on internet forums since internet forums began. Before that people actually spoke to each other in real forums, 1-1 etc,. so it wasn't necessary.
 
ernesto said:
Unfortunately you cannot decide if other people think you are rude. That is their decision. I am pretty much in the same boat as you and a lot of what I say is tongue in cheek and not meant to be rude or offend anyone.

This works well with face to face discussions with people I know as the intent is clear. It doesn't work so well on internet forums and even though I know that, it is hard for me to change how I interact but at least I realise it and am prepared to apologise if anyone takes something the wrong way. If someone feels you have been rude then saying 'you need to get out more' to them is not an acceptance of how they feel and just adds to the rudeness (the rudeness that you don't even realise you are doing)

And smilies, emoticons, other methods of implying things have been on internet forums since internet forums began. Before that people actually spoke to each other in real forums, 1-1 etc,. so it wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm joining this club too. I'm much nicer I'm person.
 
Once you get used to Tom you realise he isn't being rude, it's just his way. Once accepted he becomes a very useful person to have in threads as he provides lots of helpful knowledge etc.
 
joescrivens said:
Once you get used to Tom you realise he isn't being rude, it's just his way. Once accepted he becomes a very useful person to have in threads as he provides lots of helpful knowledge etc.
Click to expand...

Seconded. Tommy is great bloke despite being a Manc supporter. ;)
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
There's been quite a few comments in this thread that have brought it to our attention. Can we get back on track and stop with the bickering.

Thanks chaps
 
I quite enjoy some of the banter between various "members" on here. I think some people take it all a little too seriously and need to lighten up a tad.
 
It verges on the borders of banter sometimes and a lot of new members may not see it that way. To some it looks like a deliberate wind up attempt. It is the internet and things don't come across as banter
 
You reckon Joe will agree Tom?
 
kelack said:
It verges on the borders of banter sometimes and a lot of new members may not see it that way. To some it looks like a deliberate wind up attempt. It is the internet and things don't come across as banter
Click to expand...

If the newbie reads the whole thread then they should be able to pick up on banter, if they can't then they need to ask more questions, not go running off to their 'Mom' or using the RTM every time a post doesn't appear to paint them in divine light.
 
kelack said:
It verges on the borders of banter sometimes and a lot of new members may not see it that way. To some it looks like a deliberate wind up attempt. It is the internet and things don't come across as banter
Click to expand...

Think a bit of cleaning is needed...what the hell is all this rubbish?!

No contribution to the thread that's useful after my last post...
 
Phil Young said:
Think a bit of cleaning is needed...what the hell is all this rubbish?!

No contribution to the thread that's useful after my last post...
Click to expand...

Sorry, Phil, didn't see you had become a mod. Just relax man.
 
Phil Young said:
Here's another taken from last night.

Taken @ f5.3 & 1/8th ISO 25,600

Before:
DSC_3771_copy.JPG


After:
DSC_3771_after.JPG
Click to expand...

There's a definite improvement in the edit Phil - the magenta shift in the blacks has gone, there's definitely less visible noise in the OOF on the right, and the skin texture on his forehead seems crisper. I don't think the shot (after editing) is bad, although you can instantly tell a very high ISO was used because of the blocky detail in the guy's stubble; it's that trade-off of using high ISOs where fine detail starts to decrease. At the end of the day though, you'd probably get away with that in print if there was no other option to get the shot, but you'd be very wary of the actual output size....

I can see why you're doing this, although the drum for high ISO has been banging for a long time now (thanks to modern sensor tech) so I think there's become a fair bit of nonchalance regarding what we can do with camera these days, hence why there are several 'unimpressed' posters. Hey, if you get something out of this exercise then fair play....
 
As I've said before, I think this has been worthwhile. Even if some people are questioning the test scenarios it still may make overs realise that the higher ISOs are there to be used (25,600 is at the extreme of that clearly).
 
ernesto said:
As I've said before, I think this has been worthwhile. Even if some people are questioning the test scenarios it still may make overs realise that the higher ISOs are there to be used (25,600 is at the extreme of that clearly).
Click to expand...

True.

Everyone has a different ISO ceiling, depending on their camera, how far they can process the image and what they deem as acceptable noise. Some people may see noise at ISO 400 on a consumer-grade camera as being too much, others (like Phil) might use the full spectrum of ISO. It's all about being comfortable isn't it.

Me - I just use what's required for the job. Anyway, for work I know that it's going to get mullered by our repro technicians anyway and if it doesn't the print process will surely ruin it :lol:
 
Phil

Start a new thread, and just post the photographic stuff in it. And everyone else with a stupid attitude, just butt out of it
 
I also think it has been useful.
Now, what I would find even more useful at this stage is exactly what PP was used in the last image posted Phil?
It's all well and good taking shots at 25,600, provided one is capable of the appropriate PP measures required. (I still struggle with PP sometimes !)
I know there are many ways to deal with noise in PP, just wondering which is your technique of choice?
 
GHP said:
I also think it has been useful.
Now, what I would find even more useful at this stage is exactly what PP was used in the last image posted Phil?
It's all well and good taking shots at 25,600, provided one is capable of the appropriate PP measures required. (I still struggle with PP sometimes !)
I know there are many ways to deal with noise in PP, just wondering which is your technique of choice?
Click to expand...

I would also like to know the pp work.
JohnyT
 
Phil Young said:
I have to take your word that you are nicer in person.

147 posts & only a few of those are useful. Another thread gone off topic and now better off archived...sigh.
Click to expand...

I actually backed you up a few pages back, but you must have missed it. I repeat: relax man.
 
ernesto said:
As I've said before, I think this has been worthwhile. Even if some people are questioning the test scenarios it still may make overs realise that the higher ISOs are there to be used (25,600 is at the extreme of that clearly).
Click to expand...

In the past I would never go above 3200, and at that it was rarely. Too much clean up in post. I posted examples in here from the other night at ISO 10,000. Not high enough for Phil, but that was very high for me, a first. I got great results and will not be afraid to hit that level again shooting a gig. It's a comfort just knowing the option is there and I won't have to cringe when opening the files up in Lightroom.

I've yet to try above that, but keep meaning to. So, as opinionated and argi-bargie as Phil can be, he's got me trying this at least :) Well, him, Jared Polin and ThatNikonGuy [getting excited over their D4's 10k+ performance] - even they say you will never really need ISO 10k.
 
Last edited:
For anybody that hasn't guessed the processing...

To make a stupidly high ISO pass off as something a lot clearner the trick is to keep the detail but get rid of the noise.

Firstly, the higher the ISO, the more you will need to compensate your camera to allow more than the "normal metered" exposure - noise is very apparent in shadows so highlighting these is the priority when shooting high.

For the cleaning process I have worked with 2 RAW layers - one with high clarity to enhance the detail and the other with soft clarity & aggressive NR to take away the noise.

I put the NR layer on top of the clarity layer and use a low-flow soft erasure and go over the details, which will come through. Use a low-flow soft brush otherwise you will get a wall where noise meets soft.

Once I have got all the detail from both images I merge the layers & increase the black in both neutral & black (selective colour adjustment tool). This give it some of the punch lost through high ISO.

After that I make my final checks (spots etc) and done! Takes me 10mins max when using a pen.

It's no good simply applying NR at these crazy ISOs - you will lose too much detail. Equally, you have to apply it because it is way too noisy. The above is what I do to get my high ISO images looking like something 3-4 stops less (although previously only done at 12800 I will now shoot higher).
 
Last edited:
GHP said:
I also think it has been useful.
Now, what I would find even more useful at this stage is exactly what PP was used in the last image posted Phil?
It's all well and good taking shots at 25,600, provided one is capable of the appropriate PP measures required. (I still struggle with PP sometimes !)
I know there are many ways to deal with noise in PP, just wondering which is your technique of choice?
Click to expand...

See post above Gary :)
 
Oh and just in case it hasn't been guessed already - I probably wouldn't go anywhere near that high unless my glass was super sharp wide open (or at the aperture you are using) ...the detail just won't be there otherwise.
 
Richard King said:
Phil

Start a new thread, and just post the photographic stuff in it. And everyone else with a stupid attitude, just butt out of it
Click to expand...

Either that or everyone could lighten up and be friendly. And we can have a thread that's both useful and a bit of lighthearted fun? After all this is a friendly place to be and I would like it to stay that way.

Just a suggestion. :shrug:
 
Phil Young said:
For anybody that hasn't guessed the processing...

To make a stupidly high ISO pass off as something a lot clearner the trick is to keep the detail but get rid of the noise.

Firstly, the higher the ISO, the more you will need to compensate your camera to allow more than the "normal metered" exposure - noise is very apparent in shadows so highlighting these is the priority when shooting high.

For the cleaning process I have worked with 2 RAW layers - one with high clarity to enhance the detail and the other with soft clarity & aggressive NR to take away the noise.

I put the NR layer on top of the clarity layer and use a low-flow soft erasure and go over the details, which will come through. Use a low-flow soft brush otherwise you will get a wall where noise meets soft.

Once I have got all the detail from both images I merge the layers & increase the black in both neutral & black (selective colour adjustment tool). This give it some of the punch lost through high ISO.

After that I make my final checks (spots etc) and done! Takes me 10mins max when using a pen.

It's no good simply applying NR at these crazy ISOs - you will lose too much detail. Equally, you have to apply it because it is way too noisy. The above is what I do to get my high ISO images looking like something 3-4 stops less (although previously only done at 12800 I will now shoot higher).
Click to expand...

Excellent post, Phil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top