Why use high ISO

[DemiLion]

In real life i find a slight over exposure results in less noise ...this is in dim poorly lit situations..and shooting certain things.. thingy..

Agreed, hence the ETTR reference!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Mileage varies. For screen viewing at about 1200x900 and printing mainly A4, ISO 400 was about my limit for bridge cameras (four generations back, Canon SX10, and six generations back, Canon S3).

For Jocky. If you are using an HS20 then ISO experiences with other bridge cameras would be most relevant to you. I've just been through some hundreds of images captured with my Canon SX10 bridge camera and to my surprise, even though I know I did use ISO 400 some of the time, in amongst the ones I processed and kept there are very, very few ISO 400 images. It seems that in terms of actual results (rather than what I was shooting), ISO 200 was pretty much the practical limit for me with my bridge camera. Your mileage may vary of course, up or down in terms of ISO, but I thought I should correct what I said previously so as not to accidentally mislead you.

 

[Cagey75]

Try shooting a gig or church part of a wedding, where you can't use flash, [or just prefer the natural ambient light feel] without bumping up your ISO ...

Most pros,or even regular enthusiasts such as myself, would much prefer to have a sharp, but slightly noisey image over a badly underexposed or blurred image to work from.

For gig, a little noise can actually add to the images.

 

[ajax_andy]

Or a wedding photographer in a dark church in winter that's not allowed to use flash. "Sorry bride and groom, I didn't get any shots of your ceremony because I didn't want to use a high iso and get slightly noisy images".
Don't think that would go down too well, hope you get the idea.

Exactly this... yesterday I shot a wedding in a very dark church and it was overcast outside meaning no real light coming in through the windows... I was at ISO 3200. Ok so I could have shot it all at ISO 100 but not sure the B&G would have been very happy with their pics being just nothing but complete blackness... I could have explained at least there was no noise in them but not sure they'd see that as a positive

 

[GHP]

Here's a test shot I too when I was testing the high ISO noise of the D800. (click to view full res)

Sorry to the OP for going off topic, but a question for Pookeyhead, or anyone who knows...
How do you get a full sized image up so it's clickable like this? I see it's hosted on Flickr, but when I upload an image, if it gets clicked, it doesn't load the click-able enlarge-able image.
Again, sorry to OP.

 

[Cagey75]

Go to the size of image you want to link on Flickr, so it shows alone and has it's own url.

Then use: copy and paste this and insert the url of your image where I've indicated.

[ url=http://*your image link here with no spaces*][ img]*repeat your link here no spaces[ /img][ /url]

No spaces where I've put them in the brackets either. It would just show as a dead link if I'd left them in.

 

[Pookeyhead]

First, you'll need a Flickr Pro account to enable you to upload images at full reslution.

If you have that, you just link to it as normal using the share button, select 800 pixels as normal for these forums, then copy the link into the forum panel as normal.

You then go back to flicker... view your image full res by right clicking it and selecting "original".

Once it's loaded.. right click on it and select "copy image location"

Then select the first part of the URL you previously pasted in, and replace it with what you just copied from.

 

[joxby]

Are you using an HS20 for your shots?

If so, you cannot really compare that to the folks shooting with a DSLR. Modern DSLR's have much better noise handling than your fuji so figures you are uncomfortable with will be very different on a dslr.

This ^


Reviews of this camera say shooting above iso200 results in significant noise and lost detail.
While iso200 IS high iso for the Fuji HS20 bridge camera, in the World of modern DSLR's iso200 is quite low, so Jockey could be forgiven for wondering what flippin use noisy high iso pictures are.
I'd guess that iso1600 is as good or cleaner on any modern DSLR than the Fuji at iso200.
So the answer to Jockeys question is, high iso is of little practical use on the Fuji HS20 Bridge Camera, but that is not the case with most modern digital SLR's.

 

[Jocky]

Thanks to everyone for the replies.
The Fuji takes bracketed images and flattens them to reduce noise and I have had some quite good results at low light levels but as many have pointed out going manual to take individual high ISO shots produces a lot of noise.
I have neither the funds or inclination to change the camera but I will make the best of what I have using a lot of the info from this thread.

CHEERS

 

[Nod]

I've recently gone from shooting almost exclusively with a D700 to using a pair of Fujis - a bridge and a compact (albeit a good one!). Both the Fujis cope extremely well with high ISO settings and in A4 prints, an image from the XF1 shows virtually none (although some is visible when pixel peeping) at ISO 1600. The bridge (HS30) is marginally better, although viewing the prints side by side, you'd be hard pushed to seperate them. Of course the D700 handles higher ISOs even better but it does have a rather good sensor (made by Sony) and is FF.

 

[GHP]

Thanks to Pookeyhead and Cagey75 for your help.

 

[ajax_andy]

Ahh I remember some of these 'real life' tests of high ISO's and half of them turned out to have had loads of noise reduction carried out on them

High ISO can be used to good effect depending on the camera and also on the lighting conditions used... i.e. in a dark church with light pouring through the windows you can end up with all sorts of factors to take in to consideration until someone taking a pic in a highly controlled environment like their own house with only one or two stable light sources.

High ISO is fine if you can handle all the contributing factors and know how to use noise reduction software or do it manually in photoshop, but a lot of examples people post on here have been doctored with noise reduction which makes the test dubious at best IMO

 

[Nod]

I can assure you Andy (and others) that the examples I've posted in example threads are completely undoctored as far as noise, colour, exposure etc goes, just cropped and resized if necessary. Just printed off a couple of A4s shot at ISO 400 (not out of the way by any means) and noise is very conspicuous by its total absence (on the A4 prints, although I expect pixel peeping would reveal some). If you would like a copy of one of them e-mailed to you to check for any PP (these shots are printed straight from the SD card, not through any software bar Windows photo viewer. Not sure if you can still check for interference by changing the file extension to .doc or .txt and opening in Word or similar to see if Photoshop (or other software) is mentionned but I can assure you the file will be straight out of the camera. I don't think I even have any in camera long exposure or high ISO NR switched on.

 

[GardenersHelper]

High ISO is fine if you can handle all the contributing factors and know how to use noise reduction software or do it manually in photoshop, but a lot of examples people post on here have been doctored with noise reduction which makes the test dubious at best IMO

Jocky. Just to be clear about this, my references to using higher ISOs include the use of noise reduction as and when necessary. This might occasionally be needed even at ISO 100 on my bridge cameras (which I operated JPEG with noise reduction minimised in camera).

With raw on my current camera (G3) I use default input colour noise reduction on all images. I start using luminance noise reduction at around ISO 800. EDIT. This is for output of 900 pixels height on screen and A4 for printing.

The higher the ISO, the more difficult it becomes to get an acceptable balance between reducing noise and losing detail, and between what you do to the subject, to the background, and to the midground. (And colours can be degraded at higher ISOs too, which can add additional post processing complications).

 

[Pookeyhead]

Ahh I remember some of these 'real life' tests of high ISO's and half of them turned out to have had loads of noise reduction carried out on them

Mine have not I assure you. They were done to satisfy ME and me alone prior to dropping 2 grand on a new camera.

 

[ajax_andy]

Sorry guys didn't mean to say anyone had posted doctored images in here I was more referring to the thread about 'real life' experiments where it turned out the guy proclaiming his 3200 ISO and above images were great yet failed to mention the vast amount of noise reduction carried out to get that result.

Am glad people have posted undoctored images in this thread as that's a more realistic test and result that can be judged properly.

 

[DemiLion]

Ahh I remember some of these 'real life' tests of high ISO's and half of them turned out to have had loads of noise reduction carried out on them

High ISO can be used to good effect depending on the camera and also on the lighting conditions used... i.e. in a dark church with light pouring through the windows you can end up with all sorts of factors to take in to consideration until someone taking a pic in a highly controlled environment like their own house with only one or two stable light sources.

High ISO is fine if you can handle all the contributing factors and know how to use noise reduction software or do it manually in photoshop, but a lot of examples people post on here have been doctored with noise reduction which makes the test dubious at best IMO

If you're referring to either of my shots then you are talking out of your back passage. There's absolutely zero NR, either in camera or in Lightroom.

 

[kelack]

Mark, he wasn't if you read the post above yours

 

[artyman]

This was at 6400 on a 7D a dimly lit interior of a National Trust property, no flash allowed, and in any case I prefer using natural light as is.

I can also provide noise at 12800 also shot handheld in available light.

 

[andya700]

An example of where high ISO is neccesary

The Royal naval dockyard Chatham, inside the ropemaking room.

1600 ISO f4.5 1/60

 

[Phil Young]

Sorry guys didn't mean to say anyone had posted doctored images in here I was more referring to the thread about 'real life' experiments where it turned out the guy proclaiming his 3200 ISO and above images were great yet failed to mention the vast amount of noise reduction carried out to get that result.

Am glad people have posted undoctored images in this thread as that's a more realistic test and result that can be judged properly.

Andy,

I see the balls that were supposed to be in place to say what thread it was have been misplaced. Therefore, for the benefit of the thread here's the link: Phil's "doctored ISO thread"

I think that's the one you mean!?

*And they were 12800-25600 images, 3200 is nothing*

 

[ajax_andy]

Andy,

I see the balls that were supposed to be in place to say what thread it was have been misplaced. Therefore, for the benefit of the thread here's the link: Phil's "doctored ISO thread"

I think that's the one you mean!?

*And they were 12800-25600 images, 3200 is nothing*

Ahh sorry yeah that's the one

3200 is nothing? My Canon 7D disagrees... sadly my bank balance disagrees that I should be purchasing a 5D MK III any time soon

 

[Phil Young]

Ahh sorry yeah that's the one

3200 is nothing? My Canon 7D disagrees... sadly my bank balance disagrees that I should be purchasing a 5D MK III any time soon

Whatever.

Grow a pair next time you want to insult me and be a bit more direct.

 

[Nod]

IF Andy had bothered to read Phil's thread, he would have seen that there was no intention of deceiving readers into believing that the images were undoctored - the whole thread was aimed at showing that super high ISO noise COULD be doctored to be as smooth as lower (ISO 400 IIRC) ISO shots.

Andy, just because your bank balance doesn't agree (wrong hobby/business!) doesn't make all cameras equal! Yes, I'm lucky that I can afford one of the best (last generation) high ISO/low noise bodies and Phil has worked hard to afford his - maybe if your business does well, you could afford better kit.

 

[ajax_andy]

Whatever.

Grow a pair next time you want to insult me and be a bit more direct.

Had no idea who made that thread to 'be more direct' in what you believe to be insults (which they weren't).

Am 100% sure I did actually debate the whole noise reduction and controlled lighting to a reasonable degree in that tread anyway... maybe it was with you, maybe it wasn't as I have no idea and can't be bothered to trawl through it to find out.

My 'pair' are fully grown mate and if you take offence so easily then there's not much I can do about that

 

[KIPAX]

Andy, just because your bank balance doesn't agree (wrong hobby/business!) doesn't make all cameras equal! Yes, I'm lucky that I can afford one of the best (last generation) high ISO/low noise bodies and Phil has worked hard to afford his - maybe if your business does well, you could afford better kit.

I have the best equipment money can buy to enable me to do the best job I can... But I can't afford that equipment.. My business can.. If this was a hobby I would still have my canon 10d and sigma 70-200

 

[Yv]

Gentlemen, unless you would like your metaphorical forum jewels temporarily castrating, perhaps you can both consider being civil to each other.

 

[ajax_andy]

IF Andy had bothered to read Phil's thread, he would have seen that there was no intention of deceiving readers into believing that the images were undoctored - the whole thread was aimed at showing that super high ISO noise COULD be doctored to be as smooth as lower (ISO 400 IIRC) ISO shots.

Andy, just because your bank balance doesn't agree (wrong hobby/business!) doesn't make all cameras equal! Yes, I'm lucky that I can afford one of the best (last generation) high ISO/low noise bodies and Phil has worked hard to afford his - maybe if your business does well, you could afford better kit.

As I've just stated to Phil I debated about some of the images in that thread at the time as people were posting images of how great their camera performed at high ISO's only then under questioning state the image had been put through noise reduction software which meant it wasn't a true reflection on the camera's performance and user skill in post production as well.

I can't be arsed to trawl through it to see who I debated that with and what images were the questionable ones... At no point did I say x or y was a fraud or anything, Phil's taken offence when I have no idea if it was even him I pulled up about doctoring the results.

The fact is there were images in that thread that were 'tampered with' and if they weren't Phil's then I have no idea why he'd be offended? If they were then my argument still stands that there's little to no point in having visual representations of high iso performance that have had noise reduction carried out on them.

I have no issue with anyone's business or the kit they use... I'm glad to see other togs do well. Fingers crossed mine does the same and I can upgrade to a FF body soon

 

[ajax_andy]

Gentlemen, unless you would like your metaphorical forum jewels temporarily castrating, perhaps you can both consider being civil to each other.

Hi... my apologies. I didn't mean to be uncivil towards anyone, and maybe what I said has been taken out of context or with intent that wasn't there i.e. to offend.

I will try to be more polite and think about what words I use before posting in future

 

[Phil Young]

As I've just stated to Phil I debated about some of the images in that thread at the time as people were posting images of how great their camera performed at high ISO's only then under questioning state the image had been put through noise reduction software which meant it wasn't a true reflection on the camera's performance and user skill in post production as well.

I can't be arsed to trawl through it to see who I debated that with and what images were the questionable ones... At no point did I say x or y was a fraud or anything, Phil's taken offence when I have no idea if it was even him I pulled up about doctoring the results.

The fact is there were images in that thread that were 'tampered with' and if they weren't Phil's then I have no idea why he'd be offended? If they were then my argument still stands that there's little to no point in having visual representations of high iso performance that have had noise reduction carried out on them.

I have no issue with anyone's business or the kit they use... I'm glad to see other togs do well. Fingers crossed mine does the same and I can upgrade to a FF body soon

It was explained numerous times in the thread but just to lay this to rest:

It was a thread about editing and noise reduction. It shows now what a camera can do but what good NR skills can do.

Anyone that can't be bothered to go through it should not comment as obviously they are not qualified to discuss.

 

[TheTimeChamber]

I use it because I am lazy and don't always fancy lugging a tripod around with me, and the sometimes the situation deems a tripod a none item.

ISO6400, little processing added (who knows what), my tripod in this situation would have hindered my very sketchy access into the building.


Stepboard by Sectionate, on Flickr

 

[Efaill]

The whole important idea that's needed is to explain the that there are 3 ways to affect the exposure of an image; Shutter speed, Aperture and ISO. Due to "artistic" requirements depending on what your doing you will likely not have the option of adjusting all 3.

You may need a fast shutter speed to capture action and if you can't achieve what you need by opening the aperture fully the ISO would be the sole option for taking a picture at all to get the shutter speed required for a freeze of motion and expose correctly.

The other case would be taking a landscape hand held where you may want a small enough aperture to maintain a large Depth of Field but being hand held limits how low you can take the shutter speed. this could also be a place to use a higher ISO to maintain the aperture and a steady shot with a high enough shutter speed.

The option to adjust the ISO I typically leave till last but should not be ruled out as you won't be able to take a photo at all then.

 

[strumstrum]

needing to use higher iso to get the shot aside I actually prefer a B&W shot sooc at a higher iso whether I need to or not, if I have perfect light and shoot at iso 100 I will pretty much always add a touch of noise in LR for B&W.. obviously a personal preference but for me its one answer to OPs question.

 

[ZoneV]

Canon 30D, ISO1600, some NR in Lightroom 3. (Yes, I could have got away with a stop less ISO and half the shutter speed but I was too busy being a tourist to notice at the time ).

After seeing how well this came out, I'm sure light/exposure has at least as much to do with how good the results look as the sensor used.

ISO1600, f/4, 1/250.

 

[Phil Young]

To the OP:

Sometimes you have no choice but to increase ISO past a "comfortable level". You have to then accept the quality is compromised and you can make another decision on if you wish to get that IQ back in PP or leave as is.

Personally, using all my ISO range is just the done thing to do to get the shutter speed I require, which is obviously the most important setting...if that means ISO400 great, if it means ISO6400 then so be it.

I know people are "afraid of noise" but as long as your lens has been able to capture some detail, it can be cleaned up to look great.

With compacts you can probably clean an image to look 2 stops lower with very little effort (ie you can clean a 3200 shoot to look like 800).

Where the image is not usable is when there is no detail and everything is just complate mush (more noise than detail in other words).

I just know to pixel peep less in the high ISO images

 

[ajax_andy]

It was explained numerous times in the thread but just to lay this to rest:

It was a thread about editing and noise reduction. It shows now what a camera can do but what good NR skills can do.

Anyone that can't be bothered to go through it should not comment as obviously they are not qualified to discuss.

I did go through it Phil... I've already stated that I not only went through it but contributed to the discussion.

Time to move on I think as pretty pointless being so protective over a thread

 

[wegotitugetit]

i used the 5d mk2 at the weeked nd the use of high iso was amazing in comparison to the 40D ithlds it's own there i always tried to avoid high iso but it wasnt untill is was almost pitch black before the flash come out so was well happy to use high iso

on my 1d mk3 it had to be usd for football under floodlight's although it was good it still showed it at the highest setting

 

[Phil Young]

I did go through it Phil... I've already stated that I not only went through it but contributed to the discussion.

Time to move on I think as pretty pointless being so protective over a thread

No ones being protective, you were making me look deceitful by applying NR to some extreme high ISO images (behind my back I night add which looked quite foolish once brought up by myself) and I corrected that.

Don't get me wrong - I don't look for trouble and that's not what is happening here. I'm merely defending myself as your previous posts indicated (willfully or not) that I deserve less respect for a thread which clearly demonstrates good PP skills which can help others.

Your input wasn't helpful in the thread really, your only argument was that I would over expose a white dress.

There was no openness to explore how ISO can work in a wedding situation just a straight forward "this is how it is".

What I don't like is the 'snake like behaviour' of the way you went about your previous posts. No mention of who I was an what I was doing, just 2 posts aimed at the thread creator look small. You didn't even get the ISO figure right and guessed 3200 when that's just a Tuesday afternoon portrait shoot for me!

I don't want to really continue this, I just wanted to publicly put myself out there as not a deceitful person but someone who happens to be good at noise reduction and can help others should they want to improve theirs.

Are we done?

 

[ajax_andy]

No ones being protective, you were making me look deceitful by applying NR to some extreme high ISO images (behind my back I night add which looked quite foolish once brought up by myself) and I corrected that.

Don't get me wrong - I don't look for trouble and that's not what is happening here. I'm merely defending myself as your previous posts indicated (willfully or not) that I deserve less respect for a thread which clearly demonstrates good PP skills which can help others.

Your input wasn't helpful in the thread really, your only argument was that I would over expose a white dress.

There was no openness to explore how ISO can work in a wedding situation just a straight forward "this is how it is".

What I don't like is the 'snake like behaviour' of the way you went about your previous posts. No mention of who I was an what I was doing, just 2 posts aimed at the thread creator look small. You didn't even get the ISO figure right and guessed 3200 when that's just a Tuesday afternoon portrait shoot for me!

I don't want to really continue this, I just wanted to publicly put myself out there as not a deceitful person but someone who happens to be good at noise reduction and can help others should they want to improve theirs.

Are we done?

Edited my response to let the thread get back on track

 

[Marc]

Phil & Andy, this stops here please. Any moe posts on the subject may result in the suspension of posting privileges.