Shooting in the right ISO setting & editing

DropDead

DropDead

Suspended / Banned
Messages
549
Name
Jake Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, here's a question for you all... If it makes sense!

Basically.. ISO, the higher you go the grainier the photos become. I've always had the mind frame of keeping the ISO to the lowest possible. With this, i've always taken shots and had to expose them allot in PP. Which in turn creates more grain and distortion.

Now to my main question lets say i'm shooting somewhere at 400ISO and its still coming out dark and I take it to PP and do what I usually do and get a really grainy image.

Now lets say I go back and shoot say 800/1000ISO, would it be a better quality image to use in PP?

I hope that makes sense... ?
 
Short answer yes. Correctly exposed images will always be less noisy then under exposed ones
 
boyfalldown said:
Short answer yes. Correctly exposed images will always be less noisy then under exposed ones
Click to expand...

Thank you!

I was shooting the London Boat Show Wakeboarding stuff this weekend and because I usually shoot it in the summer I don't need huge ISO but as it turns out I should have cranked it up to 1000 instead of trying 400!
 
You should always aim for correct exposure, to make the best possible images.
Personally I'd avoid the intermediate iso values. there's evidence to suggest that they're not as clean, stick to the full stops, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc

A well exposed well lit image at 1600 will produce a better print than a muddy shot at 400 that's 2 stops over or under exposed.
 
Phil V said:
You should always aim for correct exposure, to make the best possible images.
Personally I'd avoid the intermediate iso values. there's evidence to suggest that they're not as clean, stick to the full stops, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc

A well exposed well lit image at 1600 will produce a better print than a muddy shot at 400 that's 2 stops over or under exposed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing this up, just the response I was looking for but may I ask why avoid the intermediate values? I usually try and shoot L0 1 (ISO 100)
 
My understanding is that the intermediate ISO settings are interpolated from the full settings.

So if you shoot at ISO 160, the camera actually exposes for ISO 200 but then adjusts downwards. For other intermediate ISO settings, the camera may expose at the full ISO below and will adjust upwards. It's this adjustment that makes the images shot at intermediate ISO settings that means the images are not as 'clean'.

I always try to restrict my ISO to 100, 200, 400 etc.
 
Scarecrow said:
My understanding is that the intermediate ISO settings are interpolated from the full settings.

So if you shoot at ISO 160, the camera actually exposes for ISO 200 but then adjusts downwards. For other intermediate ISO settings, the camera may expose at the full ISO below and will adjust upwards. It's this adjustment that makes the images shot at intermediate ISO settings that means the images are not as 'clean'.

I always try to restrict my ISO to 100, 200, 400 etc.
Click to expand...

I too have read this, but believe on the 1D series even the intermediate ISO are "true" values, limiting yourself to the whole values does make it a lot quicker when change ISO settings -less to choose = faster to choose :)
 
You can also use non-destructive layers for exposure...then running a noise filter after flattening as well...makes a big difference...

STEVIER
 
When PP in Photoshop...

TO DARKEN
Make a new layer...choose a levels layer...change the blend mode from normal to multiply...use the opacity slider to darken the image...you can also click on the white mask box in the layer and paint black on it where you may not want the image to darken...

TO LIGHTEN
Make a new layer...choose a levels layer...change the blend mode from normal to screen...use the opacity slider to lighten the image...you can also click on the white mask box in the layer and paint black on it where you may not want the image to lighten...

Then flatten the image...

Then use some thing like NIK Define 2.0 filter to clean up noise...

Hope this helps...I may have a tutorial for this somewhere...if I do Ill pass it on...

STEVIER
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Personally I'd avoid the intermediate iso values. there's evidence to suggest that they're not as clean, stick to the full stops, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc
Click to expand...

Really?
I'm not doubting, just never heard that before. Where's the evidence?
Does this also apply to third of a stop aperature and shutter speeds?
 
I'm also very interested by this. I use intermediate iso's all the time, never even give it a second thought, just roll my thumb til the shutter speed lands somewhere useable.

If anyone could post some hard facts or even better a link to a study which shows this then I would certainly be reading it!
 
Sorry after much (not enough) research, I've found much mention but not anything official.

But the word is (for Canon non1 series) cameras is that the first 1/3 (125 for instance) is just a third of a stop overexposed - then pulled back in software, and the next one (160) is a third underexposed and then pushed back in software. Of course this means that it has it's fans as using the slightly overexposed one means the camera is effectively helping you to ETTR:geek:. I have no knowledge of other manufacturers habits.
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
When PP in Photoshop...

TO DARKEN
Make a new layer...choose a levels layer...change the blend mode from normal to multiply...use the opacity slider to darken the image...you can also click on the white mask box in the layer and paint black on it where you may not want the image to darken...

TO LIGHTEN
Make a new layer...choose a levels layer...change the blend mode from normal to screen...use the opacity slider to lighten the image...you can also click on the white mask box in the layer and paint black on it where you may not want the image to lighten...

Then flatten the image...

Then use some thing like NIK Define 2.0 filter to clean up noise...

Hope this helps...I may have a tutorial for this somewhere...if I do Ill pass it on...

STEVIER
Click to expand...

sorry to hijack the thread but many thanks for this been looking how to do this for ages :plusone:
 
Phil V said:
Sorry after much (not enough) research, I've found much mention but not anything official.

But the word is (for Canon non1 series) cameras is that the first 1/3 (125 for instance) is just a third of a stop overexposed - then pulled back in software, and the next one (160) is a third underexposed and then pushed back in software. Of course this means that it has it's fans as using the slightly overexposed one means the camera is effectively helping you to ETTR:geek:. I have no knowledge of other manufacturers habits.
Click to expand...

ah, pinch of salt then ;)
 
MartinH32 said:
ah, pinch of salt then ;)
Click to expand...

Think I might have to go with this pinch myself.

If it isn't documented in the manufacturers documentation and it isn't proven by independant testing (or possibly firmware disassembly for those with enough knowledge to do so), then it's just not proven, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Consider: One person thinks something up and puts it on their blog. Another blogger reads that and passes it on, another does the same, the whole Chinese whispers thing happens and then suddenly, it is taken as fact. The original blogger thought this thing might be true and posted that it was only a thought, but over time, it loses the "thought it was true" bit.
 
My thoughts exactly. I found lots and lots (and lots) of talk, but no statements from any manufacturers
 
MartinH32 said:
Really?
I'm not doubting, just never heard that before. Where's the evidence?
Does this also apply to third of a stop aperature and shutter speeds?
Click to expand...

Nope, aperture and shutter speed are mechanical actions that have no influence on noise. :thumbs:

The Boz said:
I'm also very interested by this. I use intermediate iso's all the time, never even give it a second thought, just roll my thumb til the shutter speed lands somewhere useable.

If anyone could post some hard facts or even better a link to a study which shows this then I would certainly be reading it!
Click to expand...

Some light reading here (no, I haven't bothered to read it all because it's not really that important): http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html

Phil V said:
...But the word is (for Canon non1 series) cameras is that the first 1/3 (125 for instance) is just a third of a stop overexposed - then pulled back in software, and the next one (160) is a third underexposed and then pushed back in software...
Click to expand...

Other way around. 125 is 100 pushed. 160 is 200 pulled. Therefore 160 shows less noise and less dynamic range.
 
Oops! Yes, it was late there was wine involved.

But no documented evidence from Canon, so clearly not true anyway.
 
DropDead said:
Thank you!

I was shooting the London Boat Show Wakeboarding stuff this weekend and because I usually shoot it in the summer I don't need huge ISO but as it turns out I should have cranked it up to 1000 instead of trying 400!
Click to expand...

i was also at the boat show shooting some wakeboarding (however i was up in the stands)

i was having to use ISO 1600 to get anything, had alot of misses, i dont know if you wandered the whole thing but i found the exCel center very dark for pictures without flash


London 2012 by BandyQuill, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top