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

Phil Young said:
Not even. Its saying the only thing that happens is detail loss. Noise as proven in this post can be handled quite easily.
Click to expand...

Not sure i understand your post Phil?

Regarding noise, yes it can be removed, but any detail that the noise has masked (esp in low signal / dark areas) cannot be recovered. But i guess you knew that anyway!
 
Rapscallion said:
Not sure i understand your post Phil?

Regarding noise, yes it can be removed, but any detail that the noise has masked (esp in low signal / dark areas) cannot be recovered. But i guess you knew that anyway!
Click to expand...

I don't 100% understand myself, I'm going to try it and see what the results are.
 
Rapscallion said:
The linked thread is interesting and quite relevant to this thread. It is in effect saying the sensor in a d7000 is doing the same thing at iso 950 as at 25600!
Click to expand...

Ahh I see stand corrected did not read it all only the posted snippet:)
 
I know its not the d7000,
But heres a shot at iso 6400 exposed to the right and also an iso 800.
both f2.8,sp 1/15th sec,56mm
6400
SJB_4412froraw6400.jpg

pulled back from 800(PULLED BACK 3 STOPS)
SJB_4413fromrawiso800.jpg
 
Last edited:
They look pretty damn similar to me without scrutinising them too thoroughly. (obviously I was referring to the first pair)

That second example just shows what an incredible amount of data a raw image captures.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
.

How many of you think that exercise aids in fat reduction? And what if I say its such a small percentage its hardly worth the effort?....
Click to expand...

tell me more about this. I'm trying to lose weight by doing exercise ... are you saying this will not happen?
 
joescrivens said:
tell me more about this. I'm trying to lose weight by doing exercise ... are you saying this will not happen?
Click to expand...

To put it simply, yes.

Check out my facebook page "Phil young personal trainer and nutritionist" you can see some notes there regarding the above.
 
Phil Young said:
To put it simply, yes.

Check out my facebook page "Phil young personal trainer and nutritionist" you can see some notes there regarding the above.
Click to expand...

hmm I read the article but I am confused. I have been exercising for 6 weeks and have remained on the same diet, in that time I have lost weight - about 5 lbs.

I like my diet (im not saying it's the best, but I don't want to change it, it makes me happy). Are you telling me that keeping the same diet and exercising is not going to lose me 2 stone in 6 months?
 
We're off topic here, but I too am interested in a good diet/losing weight. Had my bloods checked the other week and my cholesterol level is very high. It's diet,or I'll be on tabs for life to keep it down :/

On topic: These tests then, are proving we may as well just not bother with higher ISO- just shoot at 800 and process the bejaysis out of them - or it only works under very controlled conditions. I'd like to see someone shoot a gig at 800 under crappy lighting, when you need faster shutter speeds. And pull them back.
 
Cagey75 said:
On topic: These tests then, are proving we may as well just not bother with higher ISO- just shoot at 800 and process the bejaysis out of them - or it only works under very controlled conditions. I'd like to see someone shoot a gig at 800 under crappy lighting, when you need faster shutter speeds. And pull them back.
Click to expand...

The thing is whether they prove that you can shoot everything at low iso or not, the difficulty would be that your exposures would be guesswork as you'd have no histogram or blinkies or even a preview image to guage things from. I realise this is no different to film days but I personally would never wish to shoot in this manner as I'm just not good enough nor inclined to.

It does fascinate me though so I'm tempted to carry out a few test of my own (in crap lighting, why not) and see what happens.
 
Cagey75 said:
On topic: These tests then, are proving we may as well just not bother with higher ISO- just shoot at 800 and process the bejaysis out of them - or it only works under very controlled conditions. I'd like to see someone shoot a gig at 800 under crappy lighting, when you need faster shutter speeds. And pull them back.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.

One of the reasons to up the ISO in the camera is so that your metering gives a high shutter speed, if you dropped your ISO to 800 then unless you dialled in -4 EV you'd be shooting at a shutter that was too low and would get a ton of blurred shots.

It's irrelevant if pushing an 800 ISO in PP gives the same noise as 25600 or whatever - your shots would be all full of subject movement in the first place
 
It makes complete sense. The reason your image will be dark is because of the fast shutter speeds. For gigs all you need is about 1/160th [unless it's a fast metal band, like Maiden, go to 1/200th or better] . We push ISO at gigs so our shots are not dark. If you can pull them back to life either way ....
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
It makes complete sense. The reason your image will be dark is because of the fast shutter speeds. For gigs all you need is about 1/160th [unless it's a fast metal band, like Maiden, go to 1/200th or better] . We push ISO at gigs so our shots are not dark. If you can pull them back to life either way ....
Click to expand...

No you are wrong.

You'll have to dial in some crazy negative compensation to get your camera to meter it properly.

try it, leave your camera at 0 compensation and then put it in Av mode and point it at a dark scene, your shutter will drop - up your iso to 25600 and you'll get a lovely fast shutter. Thats exactly why the photographer above for pearl jam uses 6400 instead of 800 - the noise may well be the same but the shutter will not unless you dial in crazy negative exposure compensation.

What on earth would be the point? You'd end up with black images you couldn't check until you processed all of them - so it's extra PP work for no gain.
 
joescrivens said:
No you are wrong.

You'll have to dial in some crazy negative compensation to get your camera to meter it properly.

try it, leave your camera at 0 compensation and then put it in Av mode and point it at a dark scene, your shutter will drop - up your iso to 25600 and you'll get a lovely fast shutter. Thats exactly why the photographer above for pearl jam uses 6400 instead of 800 - the noise may well be the same but the shutter will not unless you dial in crazy negative exposure compensation.

What on earth would be the point? You'd end up with black images you couldn't check until you processed all of them - so it's extra PP work for no gain.
Click to expand...

You would have to shoot everything in manual mode to apply this technique.

I'm definately going to try it and I urge everyone else to and post results.
 
Phil Young said:
You would have to shoot everything in manual mode to apply this technique.

I'm definately going to try it and I urge everyone else to and post results.
Click to expand...

can you tell me what the point of doing it would be?

disadvantages

1. You'd get images you couldn't review on your screen
2. You have to process every image before you can see it (which means you can't do a quick thumbnail cull)
3. More processing
4. The noise is basically the same anyway

Advantages

?
 
joescrivens said:
hmm I read the article but I am confused. I have been exercising for 6 weeks and have remained on the same diet, in that time I have lost weight - about 5 lbs.

I like my diet (im not saying it's the best, but I don't want to change it, it makes me happy). Are you telling me that keeping the same diet and exercising is not going to lose me 2 stone in 6 months?
Click to expand...

Off topic but here's my answer.

Weight is easy to lose, create a negative calorie balance and you are losing weight.
Now, is that weight fat, muscle? You don't know. I'll know if you pm me your diet.

Point is, fat is reduced via nutrition and correct portions at correct times...not exercise.

You know how much fat you will lose for an hours hard work at the gym? Take a tablespoon and measure out 2 of them with oil and you have your answer :)
 
joescrivens said:
can you tell me what the point of doing it would be?

disadvantages

1. You'd get images you couldn't review on your screen
2. You have to process every image before you can see it (which means you can't do a quick thumbnail cull)
3. More processing
4. The noise is basically the same anyway

Advantages

?
Click to expand...

If proved useful then its good in situations where a fast shutter is required and. optimal detail is retained. Weddings, gigs, christenings etc.
 
Phil Young said:
If proved useful then its good in situations where a fast shutter is required and. optimal detail is retained. Weddings, gigs, christenings etc.
Click to expand...
but the shutter speed is set for iso 6400 but you use iso 800 instead and come up with the same result so why not just use the iso 6400 and save p&p time.
 
Phil Young said:
If proved useful then its good in situations where a fast shutter is required and. optimal detail is retained. Weddings, gigs, christenings etc.
Click to expand...

where is this happening?

In the examples posted I am not seeing anymore detail by pushing an 800 ISO up to 6400 than using 6400 in the first place
 
joescrivens said:
finally somebody is on the same page
Click to expand...

I think the theory is that you can 'potentially' retain more detail. Whether it's true or not is what's being discussed/experimented. Whether it's even useful if it's true is another debate all together.
 
Whilst my D7000 is awaiting an exchange for a brand new one I think I'll carry this out on my x10 shooting at ISOs of 200 (pulling back) and 1600 to see what comes out looking sweeter after PP.

OBJECTIVE: to see which retains more detail (I'll apply noise reduction as necessary). Post that later tonight.
 
I can't think of many Wedding photographers that would do this to be honest. I think they would want to be able to view/review to some extent at the time of the shoot instead of waiting until they got home to discover they had missed something...
 
It's nice to know what your camera capable of at at any ISO,the same as it was with film.

But a bad photo is still bad,never mine what ISO it was shot at,and a good photo with impact,is still good no matter what ISO it was shot at :)
 
Phil Young said:
Detail will be greater at 800....and if we're looking for optimal IQ?
Click to expand...

where have you got this from, where is the proof in this sentence? From what I am seeing there is negligable difference - certainly not enough difference to compensate for the disadvantages that I posted above
 
joescrivens said:
where have you got this from, where is the proof in this sentence? From what I am seeing there is negligable difference - certainly not enough difference to compensate for the disadvantages that I posted above
Click to expand...

I've never said it is proof yet. I will test Joe just have patience lol.

All I'm saying is: "don't be an old fart and dismiss it without testing first to conclude" ;)
 
6400 is better, there is zero better detail in the pulled back 800.

Case closed, lets all have cake
 
joescrivens said:
6400 is better, there is zero better detail in the pulled back 800.

Case closed, lets all have cake
Click to expand...

I'm not on either side of this argument particularly but it's hardly 'case closed'. There are many ways to pull back the exposure and the case was made in the my link earlier that the real benefits come from selective curve adjustment. I'm probably as sceptical as you are about the practical benefits of this but I don't think we should be so dismissive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top