How low (light) or how high (ISO) will you go?

EdBray

EdBray

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,179
Name
Edward Bray
Edit My Images
Yes
I realise I must be getting on people's wicks now with all my MkII images, and I suppose I am on a number of ignore lists already, but I will try to curb the number of posts I make for the next few days, but that's for tomorrow and this is for today!

When I get a new camera, I spend a fair bit of time playing with the different settings, getting used to it's foibles and generally learning all it's strengths and weaknesses. To this end, I have just spent an hour trying to take photographs in the most unlikely of conditions to see how my 5D MkII would cope.

All these images with the exception of the overview were taken with just the light from the TV, the room light was switched off.

Yes the images are poor, but lets be honest, if you were in a situation where there was very little light would you still try to capture an image or give up?

All images were taken using my 50mm f1.4 lens at between 1/30sec @ f4 and 1/125sec @ f8, so could have been taken handheld although I used a tripod for consistency.

All images are straight out of the camera with no PP other than using Auto Correct in MS Office Picture Manager to correct for the various levels of under-exposure. The correct exposure for ISO 25600 was 1/30sec @ f4.

So how low can we go? What is acceptable?


Overview image

IMG_0401.jpg


Mono 1/30 @ f4 ISO 25600

IMG_0394.jpg


Mono 1/30 @ f5.6 -1 stop (ISO 51200 equiv)

IMG_0393.jpg


Mono 1/60 @ f5.6 -2 stops (ISO 102400 equiv)

IMG_0392.jpg


Mono 1/60 @ f8 -3 stops (ISO 204800 equiv)

IMG_0391.jpg


Mono 1/125 @ f8 -4 stops (ISO 409600 equiv)

IMG_0390.jpg


Colour 1/30 @ f4 ISO 25600

IMG_0385.jpg


Colour 1/30 @ f5.6 -1 stop (ISO 51200 equiv)

IMG_0386.jpg


Colour 1/60 @ f5.6 -2 stops (ISO 102400 equiv)

IMG_0387.jpg


Colour 1/60 @ f8 -3 stops (ISO 204800 equiv)

IMG_0388.jpg
 
My main concern is how good MS Office Picture Manager is at editing photos? :thinking: :eek:
 
purpleclouds said:
My main concern is how good MS Office Picture Manager is at editing photos? :thinking: :eek:
Click to expand...

It isn't particularly, which is why I used it. I just opened each image, clicked Auto Correct, saved and then uploaded them!
 
You ask waht is acceptable? eerm ecceptable for what? I regularkly work at iso 3200 and 6400 when required... I must get pictures no matter what the quality is..

Surely your not asking what is ecceptable for pictures from your front room... so you need to expand on the question IMHO :)
 
^^ agree. how high for what? wedding work I shoot to get the 'reportage' shot, usually 3200 ISO is nice, but mainly in b&w on my 5D classic.
 
EdBray said:
Yes the images are poor, but lets be honest, if you were in a situation where there was very little light would you still try to capture an image or give up?

So how low can we go? What is acceptable?
Click to expand...
Presumably that situation would only be applicable to a certain person at a certain time in a certain place. It's too wide-ranging to ask as a general 'what would you do' question.

If you had no control over the amount or type of light but you absolutely, positively had to get a shot no matter what, the results would have to be acceptable even if they weren't necessarily satisfactory.
 
KIPAX said:
You ask waht is acceptable? eerm ecceptable for what? I regularkly work at iso 3200 and 6400 when required... I must get pictures no matter what the quality is..

Surely your not asking what is acceptable for pictures from your front room... so you need to expand on the question IMHO :)
Click to expand...

No not my front room :lol: They were just test shots to see what would happen if you pushed a digital image in the way that you would have pushed film in the past.

I was thinking more in the spirit of Bert Hardy.

Scenario 1:You need an image, from a war zone, very poor light, use a flash and give away your position and you may possibly end up dead. What would be acceptable?

Scenario 2: Dimly lit arena, flash not allowed, you want as much depth of field as you can get but want to prevent camera shake. You are using a 70-200 f2.8 with IS/VR (don't want to be brand specific) but can only get 1/15 @ f2.8 at ISO 3200 what do you do, what is acceptable?

Scenario 3: Bride wants an image of her and the Groom at the alter in a dimly lit church, Minister says that flash is not to be used and it is difficult to set a tripod up where you need to take the shot from. Exposure levels are 1/15 @ f2 at ISO 3200. You need at least f4 regardless of what lens you use, what do you do? What would be seen as acceptable?
 
It's very difficult to talk about what's 'acceptable' when you're putting a paying client in each of your scenarios. It would surely be more down to what the client would find acceptable as opposed to what you, as the photographer, would.
 
As has been said, it depends on the context.

On my 40D I occasionally go as high as the H expansion (ISO 3200) to avoid slow shutter speeds and camera shake. That's generally for low light street photography which I convert to B&W anyway.

If I am shooting something more "traditional" (eg. birds or flowers or colour portraits I'd try to stick below 800 (but obviously, again, better high ISO than blur). If at all possible though I'd change the lighting rather than use such high ISO speeds!
 
Well, in scenario 1,2 and 3, it sounds like you need the shot whatever, so you do whatever you need to do to get it surely?
In 3, the Bride has obviously spoken to you about it, in the conversation you just say that you can take the shot but it may well be sub standard due to the conditions.
 
Excuse my ignorance, but how did you get ISO 50,200 equi., and the higher ISOs equi.? Were these out of the camera or pulled in PP?
 
Wail said:
Excuse my ignorance, but how did you get ISO 50,200 equi., and the higher ISOs equi.? Were these out of the camera or pulled in PP?
Click to expand...

Same way as you would have done with film really.

Underexpose the film (image) then bring it back by overdeveloping (adjusted in post processing).

If you underexpose a meter reading by say 2 stops and then bring it back in post processing that is the same as pushing a film. So an image that should be exposed at 1/30, f4 @ ISO1600 if exposed at 1/60 @f5.6 would be underexposed by 2 stops at ISO1600 or you would need to increase the film ISO to 6400 to cope. If you haven't got ISO 6400 film in your camera, you would have to get the image out in the processing, thus pushing the film. This is no different for digital images.

Now the downside is, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so what you gain on one hand (the ability to get an image you otherwise would have been unable to) you lose on the other, loss of detail, higher levels of grain (noise) and lack of tonal range.
 
Interesting .. thank you for the clarification. I never went that far, just goes to show how little I know.

Personally, as I don't do any paid shoots, I am limited by what I want; as such, I am more than happy to push up my ISO to as high as my camera will allow me to get the shot. I am not a fan of using flash, as such my D700 serves me very well even when pushed to the maximum.

Again, thank you for the clarification on that.
 
I can't think of a scenario where any of those images would be acceptable for anything.
Unless noisy liney stuff was in keeping with project requirements.
If the bride/newspaper wanted the shot, I'd do it.
With no client to take orders from, I wouldn't even bother trying.
 
I think for an average customer, ie portraiture, weddings, events etc, iso25600 would be the limit, prehaps 51200 if your really pushing it. Marketing & promotional you would be struggling at over 3200. But then theres areas where getting the photo is the most important thing, like journalistic work where you get the photo by any means.
 
joxby said:
I wouldn't even bother trying.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, I always try to see what can be accomlished, mostly it turns out crap, but in the past, people have made a name for themselves and developed (pun intended) a style by testing the limits of their equipment or recording medium, trying different things, developing monochromatic film in colour chemicals, developing E6 film in C41 chemicals and printing the resultant negatives. All have been tried and now that we have a digital medium it is up to the users to push the boundaries to see what can be acheived.
 
I know you lot are much better than me, but surely if you need to get the picture, and the person you are taking it for is pleased with it, then you would use whatever ISO you could to get it.
I know those test ones are very noisy (and certainly not what you would want to show people as being your normal standard of work), but if its a case of getting the picture or nothing at all then at least there would be something for people to see.
 
EdBray said:
Strangely enough, I always try to see what can be accomlished, mostly it turns out crap, but in the past, people have made a name for themselves and developed (pun intended) a style by testing the limits of their equipment or recording medium, trying different things, developing monochromatic film in colour chemicals, developing E6 film in C41 chemicals and printing the resultant negatives. All have been tried and now that we have a digital medium it is up to the users to push the boundaries to see what can be acheived.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, unfortunately digital isn't blessed with the depth and number of variables that film is.
Slave to photoshop ?, well.....maybe, I don't think there's much further you can go with this particular test sequence, without it.

ere, what about noise reduction in camera, that might be worth a look/compare
 
You really should get that chocolate in the fridge you know! :D

None of the colour shots are usabel for me, and only the 25600 mono shots works really (51200 at an absolute push).
 
img_9722.jpg


ISO 3200 on a Canon 30D. I regularly shot at ISO 1600 on my 30D.

Fullscreen-262-20081227-225358.jpg


ISO 6400 on a Nikon D700.
 
I've not shot anything higher than 1600, but I think I might just try some on NYE.
 
I think everyone is in agreement it depends on the situation.
Until recently if I took a low-light photo that was blurry I'd disgard it.

I was then looking at the work of Canon Professional Ziv Koren who is a combat photographer. A lot of his low-light work is not only very high in noise (even for the 5D Mark II, which handles noise reduction very very well), but were also very blurry.

So... if the subject of the photo is one that would not be possible in any other situation. I think the end result justifies the means.

Of course this is all subjective.

--
Goose
 
i regularly shoot at 3200 f2.8 with my 30D. bloomin dark club.
but if they were like most of those shots, i wouldnt use em.
interesting experiment though.
i have brightend up the odd underexposed shot even at 3200 thats been interesting.
 
I would happily shoot at ISO 1600 with my D40. As for shutter speed I used 1/10 @280mm with my 70-300VR with sharp results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top