Beginner Testing the High-ISO Waters

Sony Corleone

Sony Corleone

Suspended / Banned
Messages
213
Edit My Images
Yes
Somebody here thought it was amusing that I thought 2000 was a high ISO figure, so I have been shooting at higher numbers to see what can be done. Today I shot at 4000, and when I used Photolab's best noise reduction, I have to say I was surprised to see how good the result was. I can't post the full-size TIFF, but I can post a smaller JPG that will give some idea of how well Photolab worked. Always good to receive useful correction. I appreciate it.

A6700642_DxO resize.jpg
 
In this one, in the camera's monitor preview, he looked like he was in a dark hole. Not my favorite photo, but I am happy with the low light performance and noise reduction.

A6700659 DxO noise test b.jpg
 
Yep, good results here. There is very much a fine line between clean and too clean to the point where images can look a bit mushy and skin a bit waxy, but these are good examples of getting the balance right.
 
Yes agree good work , always helps when there is still some light on the subject
I also use DXO photolab it’s excellent
I have used maximum ISO for band photography on my R5 after converting with DXO was very pleased with the results
 
Of course, all the credit goes to Sony and Photolab, for the lens, the sensor, and the software. I fiddled with certain adjustments, but none were related to noise. I think clicking those Photolab buttons gives impressive results without crossing into that science-fiction look.

I don't know how high I can go without wanting to turn back, but some lady on Youtube is pushing over 12,000, if I recall correctly.
 
You can go higher in good light with less penalty (e.g. to get an even higher SS or more DOF). And when viewed at smaller sizes the noise is reduced as well. The truth is that it is the lack of light which causes most noise with modern sensors. And, if anything, using a higher ISO reduces noise (as opposed to recovering in post).

This was at ISO 12,800, minimal processing in LR, deconvolution sharpening at 119%, and denoise at 20% (exif included)
_SGK0021-1024jpg-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The camera chose 1/1250 and 1/4000 for these shots. That blows my mind. If I had been in manual mode, would have tried something like 1/150.
 
I was in Av mode, and I believe I was using auto ISO with a 3200 ceiling. Maybe it was 6400.

I don't understand why it worked, which shows how poorly I understand exposure.
 
Have a play with high ISO settings. As long as the exposure's accurate, you'll probably be surprised as to how hight you can go and get useable results, especially for happy snaps like your kiddy shots.
 
Sony Corleone said:
The camera chose 1/1250 and 1/4000 for these shots. That blows my mind. If I had been in manual mode, would have tried something like 1/150.
Click to expand...

obviously focal length dependant - but for anything in the normal / short telephoto range (eg, 24-70) your instinct is about right for a sitting child - maybe 1/250 or 1/500 if they are a bit wibbly.... 1/4000 is like freezing a car in motion - your camera's default seems too cautious ( but I suspect it's designers took the view that a noisy shot is better than a blurry shot which I'd agree with)

On Canon you can configure what the shutter speed weighting is for some auto modes when using auto ISO, not sure if your camera supports it but it's well worth experimenting and digging into the menus.

What comes with experience is a kind of instinct with shutter speed and knowing what is needed for the types of shot you take- eg, baby is sitting still, I'm using a 50mm lens and I've got good technique, therefore 1/250 or maybe 1/500. Baby is running around going nuts, want to freeze motion... 1/1000 etc the more shots you take, the easier it will get.
 
Last edited:
Sony Corleone said:
I was in Av mode, and I believe I was using auto ISO with a 3200 ceiling. Maybe it was 6400.

I don't understand why it worked, which shows how poorly I understand exposure.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you wound up with the settings you indicated... the limit must have been set at 6400, otherwise it would not have been at 4000. Most cameras allow you to set the base/minimum ISO and minimum SS as well. But I cannot think of a combination of settings that would give the unusual settings choices you wound up with.

Typically in Av with auto ISO a camera will first attempt to reach the minimum ISO setting; when that is achieved it will increase the SS. But if the SS reaches the minimum setting first it will use a higher ISO in order to prevent going lower.
 
I wonder what people think of the background blurring.

In the second shot, I wanted people to know he was in a restaurant, but I also wanted to set him off from the environment to some degree. I sort of split the difference. In retrospect, it occurs to me that it might have been better to go for a strong blur or no blur at all.

I'm not all that great at guessing what an f-stop will do, but these shots are blurred about as much as I wanted at the time.
 
sk66 said:
I don't know why you wound up with the settings you indicated... the limit must have been set at 6400, otherwise it would not have been at 4000. Most cameras allow you to set the base/minimum ISO and minimum SS as well. But I cannot think of a combination of settings that would give the unusual settings choices you wound up with.

Typically in Av with auto ISO a camera will first attempt to reach the minimum ISO setting; when that is achieved it will increase the SS. But if the SS reaches the minimum setting first it will use a higher ISO in order to prevent going lower.
Click to expand...
I checked the ISO limit, which has not been changed, and you are right. It's 6400.

AI claims this camera is so smart, it may crank up the shutter speed if it thinks a subject is likely to move. I didn't see that coming. It says Sony prioritizes preventing blur from subject motion, so it goes nuts on shutter speed and jacks the ISO to compensate.

The ISO AUTO Min SS is set to Standard because I didn't know it existed, and Standard must be the default.

AI is now telling me that Sony cameras try to stay close to the minimum auto shutter speed instead of just treating it as a floor, so if I had used it, I probably would not have had values of 1/4000 and 1/1250.

Given that the results were pretty good, I now wonder if I should put the minimum at 1/250 to reduce the camera's ISO choices, but then I might have to remember to adjust the floor in certain circumstances. Or maybe not, since it worked surprisingly well at 1/4000.

I suspect I need to make this my default setting and record it as a custom mode I can go to whenever I want. Is that reasonable? I don't see myself needing extremely low shutter speeds except in unusual circumstances, so I should be able to go to manual or something on those occasions.

These fricking machines are too smart. I had to use a machine to understand this machine.
 
I created and recorded a shooting mode and set the minimum at 1/250. To someone who always saw those 1, 2, and 3 labels as mysterious, forbidden runes far beyond his understanding, this is exciting.
 
LCPete said:
Yes agree good work , always helps when there is still some light on the subject
I also use DXO photolab it’s excellent
I have used maximum ISO for band photography on my R5 after converting with DXO was very pleased with the results
Click to expand...
It is good - but a bit slow to process photo.
 
Powerful software often requires expensive hardware, but the new PC I bought in December is cheaper than many lenses. It runs Photolab quickly.
 
Sony Corleone said:
AI claims this camera is so smart, it may crank up the shutter speed if it thinks a subject is likely to move. I didn't see that coming. It says Sony prioritizes preventing blur from subject motion, so it goes nuts on shutter speed and jacks the ISO to compensate.
Click to expand...
The camera will do that when set to P mode, but not in Av.
Sony Corleone said:
AI is now telling me that Sony cameras try to stay close to the minimum auto shutter speed instead of just treating it as a floor,
Click to expand...
Sony behaves (basically) just like Nikon and Canon... probably almost every other make as well.

Basically, in Av without auto ISO the camera just controls the SS; and you control the ISO and SS, usually changing SS first as it is on a main control (ISO is typically a little deeper by default).

In Av with auto ISO it first tries to reach your ISO setting (base/minimum) and then control the SS; if it can... then it is acting just as it would had auto ISO not been enabled.
But if it can't reach the set ISO without going below the minimum SS setting it will start to increase the ISO. And when it reaches the max ISO setting (hard limit) it will reduce the SS below the minimum setting.

Default min SS is 1/FL, which (IMO) is inadequate for hand-holding high resolution sensors... I'll often risk 1/FL or slower, but it costs me a lot of images.
 
Last edited:
Sony Corleone said:
To someone who always saw those 1, 2, and 3 labels as mysterious, forbidden runes far beyond his understanding, this is exciting.
Click to expand...

Yes, modern cameras are very intelligent/capable. But it takes some learning to find out how to leverage that for greatest benefit (and each camera is somewhat different).
 
Sony Corleone said:
I wonder what people think of the background blurring.

In the second shot, I wanted people to know he was in a restaurant, but I also wanted to set him off from the environment to some degree. I sort of split the difference. In retrospect, it occurs to me that it might have been better to go for a strong blur or no blur at all.

I'm not all that great at guessing what an f-stop will do, but these shots are blurred about as much as I wanted at the time.
Click to expand...
I'd say you pretty much nailed it; I could tell he was in a restaurant, and there's nice separation. As with shutter speed, you'll get better at depth of field as you take more shots (I'm still far from being an expert on knowing what effect different f-stops will give me).
 
The impression I am developing is that a lot of beginners who listen to teachers are too caught up in subject isolation, as though it's always necessary. Sometimes I want to see the subject and everything that's behind him. Sometimes I want some blurring, but not to the point where I can't make anything out.

I don't really like shots where the subject is sharp and it's impossible to see anything behind him except a wall of smeared color. To me, it doesn't make sense to put someone in front of, say, the Parthenon, and then blur it until there is no way to tell where he is.
 
Sony Corleone said:
The impression I am developing is that a lot of beginners who listen to teachers are too caught up in subject isolation, as though it's always necessary. Sometimes I want to see the subject and everything that's behind him. Sometimes I want some blurring, but not to the point where I can't make anything out.

I don't really like shots where the subject is sharp and it's impossible to see anything behind him except a wall of smeared color. To me, it doesn't make sense to put someone in front of, say, the Parthenon, and then blur it until there is no way to tell where he is.
Click to expand...
All of those things are compositional tools - I personally think bokeh is overused and often deployed as a compositional crutch for dull photography. I’m not saying it’s not possible to create a beautiful photograph with bokeh- it really is - but it’s one of many - colour, light, shadow, framing, layering to name but a few. Beginners fixate on bokeh (I’ve been there, got thousands of photos to prove it) because it’s the easiest to deploy - the lens does most of the work - shoot at f1.4 and that’s it. The others take experience, practice and patience to learn and execute well.

But more crucially to my mind, I think “depth” is a better term than separation - creating depth is much more satisfying, imo.
 
A nice approach is to look at photos you like (from others) or try to replicate (or just some of the ideas from) them. So, in this example you could look for candid pictures where the subject pops out from the background without using bokeh.

There's other ways to create separation between subject and background other than using bokeh, e..g using light or colour contrast.
 
Great results, the lighting and colors look just right, nothing feels too bright or somehow makes you want to correct things!
 
My advice is to use aperture priority with auto ISO with the maximum possible ISO being whatever the camera allows. Keep an eye on the shutter speed and when it drops too low switch to manual mode and dial in a suitable shutter speed again with auto ISO enabled and the highest possible setting available for the camera to select as appropriate.
 
Sony Corleone said:
The impression I am developing is that a lot of beginners who listen to teachers are too caught up in subject isolation, as though it's always necessary. Sometimes I want to see the subject and everything that's behind him. Sometimes I want some blurring, but not to the point where I can't make anything out.

I don't really like shots where the subject is sharp and it's impossible to see anything behind him except a wall of smeared color. To me, it doesn't make sense to put someone in front of, say, the Parthenon, and then blur it until there is no way to tell where he is.
Click to expand...

Yup. I think the next to nothing in the depth of field look can be overdone. Depth should be appropriate and decided by you :D
 
PaulClick said:
Great results, the lighting and colors look just right, nothing feels too bright or somehow makes you want to correct things!
Click to expand...
That is an interesting comment, because when I give someone else's photo a "like," it generally means there is nothing that stands out that I want to fix. Most of the time, composition is what bothers me. I'll think something like, "Man, if only he had clipped a little off the left side."
 
I fixed up my A6700 and the Powershot V1 as well as I could, creating modes I thought would make most indoor shots I take just about automatic. I think it's working very well. I got the shot I'm posting here at 1/250 and ISO 2000, and after Photolab denoising, I couldn't be happier. I didn't even touch the white balance, exposure, or colors when editing. I thought the CR3 already captured the lighting of a doctor's office perfectly. Photolab tried to juice up the saturation, but I rejected that. The other photos in the set seem okay, too. I might crank the shutter to 500 because of baby motion.

I have a hard time making this site accept anything edited with Photolab without a lot of shrinking. It tells me 650K files are too big. Sorry.

I love this picture. I love the distortion. I love the way the horizontal lines are completely wrong. I didn't even crop it. I tried, but I liked the original too much, so I backed off.

IMG_1206DxO 700 for print.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top