Learn with MD Lesson no 3.

..MD..

..MD..

Helen Shapiro
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,257
Name
MonkeyDave
Edit My Images
Yes
For this week I was thinking of looking into ISO

Now this sounds boring I know ... BUT If we take a image using our highest ISO then we will see what our cameras are capable of " also I am sure a few members will be able to see what we have done right or wrong to make them less / more noisey"


So task is two images..


Both at F8

1st Your lowest iso.... F8


2nd Your highest iso.....F8


You can take the image of whatever you want... But as before can you let us know your settings...

Regards


MD:thumbs:
 
Just look at my balls .......settings I mean :D:D
 
100 ISO, f/8, 1/10;
6400 ISO, f/8, 1/640;
and just for a laugh, even though it's not a true ISO, 25600 ISO, f/8, 1/2500;

The only edits are white balance and crop. NR is at Lightroom default settings.

20100715_222911_4520_LR.jpg


20100715_222934_4521_LR.jpg


20100715_222950_4522_LR.jpg
 
tdodd said:
100 ISO, f/8, 1/10;
6400 ISO, f/8, 1/640;
and just for a laugh, even though it's not a true ISO, 25600 ISO, f/8, 1/2500;

The only edits are white balance and crop. NR is at Lightroom default settings.

20100715_222911_4520_LR.jpg


20100715_222934_4521_LR.jpg


20100715_222950_4522_LR.jpg
Click to expand...

I really like the noise in that last photo; it looks very film like. It's amazing how much colour it's lost though! I wish my 1Ds produced noise like that, shots at high ISO just look horrible...
 
trencheel303 said:
I really like the noise in that last photo; it looks very film like. It's amazing how much colour it's lost though! I wish my 1Ds produced noise like that, shots at high ISO just look horrible...
Click to expand...

I did have a quick dabble to see if I could improve the appearance and get it closer to the 6400 ISO shot but didn't really have the time to spend to do it justice. Anyway, vanilla out of the camera seems more valid than something that's been pushed and pulled every which way to try to fix it up. Still, it's pretty impressive to get a shot that's recognisable at 25,600 ISO.

I thought I'd try processing the 25,600 shot in DPP, on default settings. Colour rendering is a little different and I think DPP has done a better job with the file, or at least made it look more punchy and less faded. To be honest it might have looked better if I had polished it with a cloth instead of my thumb, before taking the shots.

20100715_222950_4522_DPP.JPG


So, as well as the lesson on ISO, it is worth noting that different raw software can produce different results with the same file, and those results may be different from a JPEG file produced in camera.
 
Sorry for missing last weeks lesson. I've copied tdodd and done 3 images. Hopefully that makes up for my lack of effort last week. :D

All taken as jpeg from camera and resized in paint nothing else.
Canon 50D with high ISO noise reduction set to standard.
All at f8 34mm

First shot iso100 20 second exposure


Second iso3200 1/3 second exposure


Third extended iso12800 1/10 second exposure


And I think the iso3200 is the best looking of the 3. I think I'll go and try the same shots with an eos300.
 
OK really trying to make up for last week now. A retake of the same images using a much older camera. Both shots taken on canon 300D
Same lens as my last shots so just a change in body.

first shot iso100 20 seconds


second shot iso1600 1.3 seconds


Now looking at all of the shots taken I think I prefer the iso100 shot taken on the 300D.
So what have I learned? I've wasted hundreds of pounds on upgrades that's what! Cheers MD :razz:

In seriousness though I think a lot will depend on subject matter. My shots I think look better with a little noise. Whether that be through longer exposure times or higher iso I think the subject benefits from it.
 
Can we join in randomly? :D

These are 100% crops (to show the full detail loss) at ISO 100 and ISO 6400 on my D90 with kit 18-105. The ISO 100 was underexposed so I did do +2 in PS on that, otherwise both unchanged. Focus wasn't directly on them they just showed it well :D


ISO100.jpg


ISO6400.jpg
 
Right well my camera goes down to ISO 50. SO here is the 1st shot

ISO 50 F8 1/2 sec
ISO_50.jpg



Next was H "which is ISO 3200.

ISO 3200 F8 160th
ISO_3200.jpg


Both these have just been resized for web no sharpening ...


Come on guys lets see some more....


MD
 
Heres mine .. converted straight from raw to jpeg then resized with no processing or in camera noise control.
I purposly picked a dark subject to get some real noise in the high ISO shot.

Camera: PENTAX K-7
Lens: Sigma MKI 70-200mm APO EX f2.8
Exposure: 0.6
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 160 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV



Camera: PENTAX K-7
Lens: Sigma MKI 70-200mm APO EX f2.8
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 160 mm
ISO Speed: 6400
Exposure Bias: +0.3 EV



Just had to add this as I am rather impressed ... same ISO 6400 picture after being put through the new Lightroom 3.0 noise reduction software and a little sharpening/processing.

 
First one at ISO3200, 50mm, f8, 1/10s

Hens1.jpg



This one at ISO100, 50mm f8, 2.5s

Hens2.jpg


Opened with default ACR settings, cropped a bit, resized and saved.

(I had little room to take these at 50mm focal length so the camera was against the kitchen wall with me trying to use manual focus and live view without being able to get my eye behind the screen. I had to crop as a bit of rotation was needed due to my makeshift tripod alterntive - bits and bobs lying around in the kitchen!)
 
Mike.P said:
Heres mine .. converted straight from raw to jpeg then resized with no processing or in camera noise control.
I purposly picked a dark subject to get some real noise in the high ISO shot.

Camera: PENTAX K-7
Lens: Sigma MKI 70-200mm APO EX f2.8
Exposure: 0.6
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 160 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV



Camera: PENTAX K-7
Lens: Sigma MKI 70-200mm APO EX f2.8
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 160 mm
ISO Speed: 6400
Exposure Bias: +0.3 EV



Just had to add this as I am rather impressed ... same ISO 6400 picture after being put through the new Lightroom 3.0 noise reduction software and a little sharpening/processing.

Click to expand...


The redone last shot is a very good improvment imho....


MD
 
I really struggled on last weeks lesson :-( couldn't get the ball in motion, so hoping for better results on this one, will take some pictures tomorrow.
 
p3ryg said:
I really struggled on last weeks lesson :-( couldn't get the ball in motion, so hoping for better results on this one, will take some pictures tomorrow.
Click to expand...



If you where having problems you should have said thats what this / these theads are all about ..... HELPING each and other....


MD
 
It's ok, going to go on the thread tomorrow and post pics for advice, just not had time this week :-)
 
Here are my efforts from this morning, I had a few attempts using Aperture mode, but found that doing this in full manual was easier to control the exposure with the same aperture but changing the shutter speed.

Both taken with 50mm lens on a tripod and straight after each other as you can see :) must change the temp to celcius.

1. ISO 200 f/1.4 1/60sec
LWTP_3_ISO200.jpg


2. ISO 3200 f/1.4 1/800 sec
LWTP_3_ISO3200.jpg


Lesson learned:
Higher ISO will allow a faster shutter speed, useful to me when doing sports photography especially indoors with rubbish light, but the quality goes down when the ISO is very high, I found that around 800 was ok if using noise reduction in PS etc.

Paul.
 
When I was learning about underwater photography using a compact I was told (or read) that noise was a big issue as ISO increases and that I should try and keep the ISO as low as possible. This stuck with me. Somewhere along the line I was also encouraged to underexpose if anything (I guess due to the risk of blown parts of image not being recoverable).

I have now been told and realised that it is much better to have correct exposure at a higher ISO than risk under exposing at a lower ISO. Also raising the ISO in low light allows a higher shutter speed so higher liklihood of a sharp image. So from now on I will still try and keep ISO down but not at the expense of other factors. I also try and err on the overexposed side without blowing highlights.

On reviewing some of my past images taken underwater, many are very grainy and I believe this to be due to being underexposed and having to raise the exposure in PP as they were at ISO 80 or 100. I now know I should not have been so obsessed with low ISO. I too am amazed by the high ISO results and what can be done in PP as shown by the wine bottles. Noise reduction in PP is one area I need to learn more about though as I'm not quite sure how to go about properly adjusting the setttings in ACR/LR.
 
Here are mine sony a200 which hates high iso !! but i'll be honest i thought it would be worse, one thing that surprised me was the file sizes the high iso is twice the size at 1.6mb low iso 705kb after resizing to 800 longest edge

1st one iso100 f8 1/30 28mm sharpen for web thats it no nr

isotest100.jpg


2nd iso3200 f8 1/1000 sharpen for web thats it no nr

isotest3200.jpg
 
I'm surprised at how good some of the high iso shots here look. Does PS Elements have any decent noise reduction software in it?
 
Ok I've been out and had a little play, another Citizen watch to join the party too. This time its a Citizen Eco Drive limited edition Skyhawk Blue Angel in Titanium. This is taken on a Panasonic DMC-L1 (basically Olympus 4/3 technology which are renowned for being noisy at high ISO's)

First 35mm macro f8 1/40 iso 100

4805871398_dfbe934a6f_z.jpg



Second 35mm f8 1/60 iso 1600

4805875664_099e47759d_z.jpg


Its getting quite dark outside so using f8 was getting pretty restrictive for me. I had to use my FL36 flash to get some light anywhere near the subject.

Looking at these at 100% you can really see why I need to keep the ISO down to keep the detail in my images. The lower iso records all the grain of the Titanium, whereas its blown out of the highest iso.
 
OK my 1st day in class ( been looking through the class window too scared to join in).

Nikon D700, Macro 105mm lens.
f8, ISO 200, 1/6sec


Now ISO 6400, 1/160sec
 
Hi Guys,

My first attempt...

ISO 100

4805548499_9723b667b5_z.jpg


ISO 6400

4806171240_0379d3b306_z.jpg


I have added some curves in Lightroom and have cropped the image quite allot (and the lower res makes the images look 'poor' quality but i guess the 2 images shows the vast difference between 6400 and 100 ISO speed)

Up to 800 I found the images to be acceptable 1600 - 6400 were very noisy.

Thanks MD for the lessons :)

Ta
Dan
 
Here's mine... They are both close on 100% crops.

ISO100, f/8, 1/320s
IMG_5707.jpg


ISO1600, f/8, 1/4000s (but it wasn't fast enough)
IMG_5708.jpg
 
Here are mine taken with my Canon 450d with a 50mm. I'm quite pleased with the results. In the past I would keep the iso as low as possible and have missed a few shots because of this, maybe its time to bump it up a bit.

f8, iso100
4808398902_8fd20e3822_b.jpg


f8, iso1600
4808399820_f053d74e68_b.jpg
 
Yeah that's the watch! Very nice. And those celebrations just made me hungry :( Must go food shopping today.
 
Here's my two, one is a little dark and unsure how to sort it. Suggestions appreciated Both hand held on manual no pp apart from small sharpen from raw to jpg.

4808423915_6f74d59574.jpg


iso 100 f8 1/10

4808423885_d6de227c26.jpg


iso3200 f8 1/100
 
Assuming you are keeping the aperture the same then you need to introduce more light by either reducing the shutter speed or adding light with a flash or other source of light. Of course a slower shutter speed will mean difficulty keeping the camera steady so a tripod is needed. I couldn't be bothered setting up my tripod for mine so just balanced the camera on various things that were handy in the kitchen where I took the shots.
 
Dan1502 said:
Assuming you are keeping the aperture the same then you need to introduce more light by either reducing the shutter speed or adding light with a flash or other source of light. Of course a slower shutter speed will mean difficulty keeping the camera steady so a tripod is needed. I couldn't be bothered setting up my tripod for mine so just balanced the camera on various things that were handy in the kitchen where I took the shots.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was the same about setting up the tripod so I should have rested it on the arm of the sofa and tried a slower shutter speed
 
Hey teach! I'm going on holiday tomorrow and my camera is packed. I can dig it out now if the lesson is easy for this week. But I must warn you, I'm drinking beer now.
 
Barrysprout said:
Hey teach! I'm going on holiday tomorrow and my camera is packed. I can dig it out now if the lesson is easy for this week. But I must warn you, I'm drinking beer now.
Click to expand...



Not sure whats happening this week I have been busy..!!

Anyone got any thoughts..



MD
 
Not managed to get involved yet mate but how about someting to do with histograms :thinking:
 
We've covered the 3 basics. Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO, so I guess we could look at:

Exposure Compensation
Picture Style (Colour Temps ets... and when to use them)
Flash, on and off camera (if poss for some)
?
 
Maybe same shot with different white balance settings?

Edit: Have had a full bottle in between my last two posts so the likelyhood of me particiapting is slim. Hopefully these weekly lessons will still be going when I get back from holiday (2 weeks on Lewis) and hopefully the weekly lesson on my return will be for windswept landscape pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top