High iso usage

[DickyOZ]

ISO limits depend so much on the camera. All cameras have ridiculous ranges of ISO - less than half the ranges are truly useful. My Fuji HS20 & HS50 were very poor above ISO 400. My OM-D E-M1 gives excellent results up to 1600 and acceptable images at 3200. I set one of my dials to alter ISO and if I can't get the shutter speed I need I just wind up the ISO until I can. That doesn't mean you can't get very pleasing images above those values - you just have to accept some compromise. Professionals will insists on much higher IQ than most amateur photographers. If you are happy with the results you get then don't worry about ISO, just enjoy your photos and share them for others to enjoy too.

[xpatUSA]

I never vary from ISO 100 on my Sigma DSLRs. Because they are ISO-less, shooting ISO 100 at -2EV on the meter is exactly the same** as shooting ISO 400 at 0EV on the meter. Therefore, -2EV on the meter normally represents my low limit for spot metering in the region of interest. If, at that level, the aperture or speed are "out of limits" I usually don't take the shot, and -3EV is the absolute limit for both me and my camera which flashes the meter reading angrily in protest ;-)

** meaning exactly the same raw data is sent to the raw converter. The ISO 100 review image is dark of course but, after adding +2EV exposure compensation in the converter, it becomes the same brightness as the ISO 400 review image.

[Brownbear]

Christina told me to use high ISO in sunny conditions when photographing birds, sometimes using the Auto ISO does it by itself...I am used to using manual exposure so that was strange for me for a while even if it changes with the light or lack of it...

Izzie - I've sent you a private message to clarify what I meant... (which was basically that the iso's needed when photographing birds in flight is often higher than one might think is needed even in sunny conditions.

With respect to ISO's used with my Nikon D7100 viewing full size.
up to 800 with no worries
frequently up to 1600 is just fine with a little noise reduction in the background (blue skies)
On rare occasion, most reluctantly up to ISO 3200 has worked with some images. (lighter coloured subjects)

[Tringa]

I use the lowest 'normal' (ie 200) ISO of my camera (Pentax K5) if it, plus the aperture I want to use, will give me a workable shutter speed. I will happily use anything up to 1600 at anytime and sometimes 3200. The shot of the waxwings in this thread -

Waxwings


was at 3200 and I don't think it suffered too much.

As has been often said - you can, or at least have a chance of, doing something with a noisy image; there is not much you can do with a blurred one.

Dave

[Geoff F]

Are you saying you wouldn't take the shot if you had to use a higher iso?

Yes, if I want to print the image, or show it on a site like this, once I get beyond Iso 1200 I just walk away.

In good light, where I'm requiring a high shutter speed and there aren't any serious shadow areas I might try a fraction higher. Or when shooting wildlife just for identification purposes and I'm not displaying the image in public.

I have wasted far too much time attempting to shoot dark scenes by increasing the Iso; then ditching all the results!

ps. When I start to get noise in the shadows around Iso800 I often do two Raw conversions with different noise reduction settings then combine them so the higher noise reduction is only applied to the problem areas.

The same effect can be used by creating a duplicate image layer and merging them together with masking after extra noise reduction has been applied to the layer.

Here is an example of an image which I shot at Iso 800 which, after this noise reduction process, I would regard as being just acceptable.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...2/original.jpg

[Loose Canon]

Stunning!

What Camera, please?

WW

Thank you Bill.

Paul was right and the EXIF didn't lie. It was a 5DIII.

[William W]

. . .you must get exhausted . . .

Hilarious !
you have a great Christmas, I have sent a good report to Santa. I understand he is calling into Kiwiland this year and you are on the top of his list. . .

[victor]

Iso 12800 5D Mark 3 Cambridge jazz festival

https://flic.kr/p/BiTFxi

Very low light...

[Shadowman]

Iso 12800 5D Mark 3 Cambridge jazz festival

https://flic.kr/p/BiTFxi

Very low light...

Just had a session where those settings were pretty much necessary, the slow shutter speed was risky but worked for the most part.

[Black Pearl]

Yes, if I want to print the image, or show it on a site like this, once I get beyond Iso 1200 I just walk away.

In good light, where I'm requiring a high shutter speed and there aren't any serious shadow areas I might try a fraction higher. Or when shooting wildlife just for identification purposes and I'm not displaying the image in public.

I have wasted far too much time attempting to shoot dark scenes by increasing the Iso; then ditching all the results!

ps. When I start to get noise in the shadows around Iso800 I often do two Raw conversions with different noise reduction settings then combine them so the higher noise reduction is only applied to the problem areas.

The same effect can be used by creating a duplicate image layer and merging them together with masking after extra noise reduction has been applied to the layer.

Here is an example of an image which I shot at Iso 800 which, after this noise reduction process, I would regard as being just acceptable.

http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/imag...2/original.jpg

You're shooting with a Canon 7D MkII
Something you are doing, some process you are applying, something somewhere is going horribly wrong because you shouldn't see anything like that amount of noise at 800iso. In fact once the image has been down sampled (like the example you link to) it should be completely invisible.

[Donald]

You're shooting with a Canon 7D MkII

Just to endorse Robin's comments, Geoff. For this new distance-learning course I'm doing, I've been shooting with my 7DMkII at ISO1600 and 3200 over the last couple of days, with absolutely no problem whatsoever. At ISO800, the 7DMkII shouldn't even get into 2nd gear so far as dealing with noise is concerned.

[Shadowman]

You're shooting with a Canon 7D MkII
Something you are doing, some process you are applying, something somewhere is going horribly wrong because you shouldn't see anything like that amount of noise at 800iso. In fact once the image has been down sampled (like the example you link to) it should be completely invisible.

I've seen this much noise at ISO 800 when shooting a backlit or overcast scene.

[Geoff F]

That is fairly typical of the sort of noise levels I get when using a higher Iso, to cope with poor light levels.

Nothing excessive applied to the image during processing.

7D Mk II with Canon 70-200 (F4 model with IS on) handheld at 1/400 F8 Iso 400. But fairly poor overcast light and a bit of water vapour from spray in the air. Facing roughly south about 2 pm.

Just basic editing in ACR. But it is cropped to around one third of the original size.

Brightness +0.6
Highlights -10
Whites -10
Clarity +20
Vibrance +20
Sharpening (in ACR) amount 40; detail 30; masking 10; noise reduction 20

Then a little bit of final unsharp mask in CC. Not sure of the exact values but no more than 60% radius 2 threshold 2

Just out of interest, here is the image straight from camera except for the crop. And resized for internet use with straight bicubic interpolation.

[RBSinTo]

I know mancanon was talking about the ISO levels available in Digital cameras, but I thought as a Film-only shooter I'd throw in my two cents anyway.
I shoot in normal daylight at nothing higher than 100 ISO, and did so even in the days when films were available with speeds up to 3200.
I just never understood the need to do so for the kind of photography I normally do.
The exception to that is when I'm indoors, I'll take 400 ISO colour slide and set the camera's meter at 800, and have the film push processed one stop.
Works well enough for me.
Robert

[Manfred M]

I know mancanon was talking about the ISO levels available in Digital cameras, but I thought as a Film-only shooter I'd throw in my two cents anyway.
I shoot in normal daylight at nothing higher than 100 ISO, and did so even in the days when films were available with speeds up to 3200.
I just never understood the need to do so for the kind of photography I normally do.
The exception to that is when I'm indoors, I'll take 400 ISO colour slide and set the camera's meter at 800, and have the film push processed one stop.
Works well enough for me.
Robert

Robert - while I generally prefer the look and feel of digital to prints, the one area where I feel that film has an edge over digital is in noise. I find I prefer the look of high ISO film grain to digital noise. I remember shooting high ISO film (mainly high ISO B&W negative film, although I tried it with slide film as well) to get grainy images. I found it resulted in particularly interesting images when shooting sports and in some street photography, where it gave the images a nice and gritty look.

I suspect that the reason I found slide film not working as well for me is that it has such a low dynamic range to begin with. I preferred shooting low ISO slides. I remember how disappointed I was when Kodak discontinued Kodachrome 25; which was my favourite reversal film.

[William W]

. . . I get nervous at 800 and 1200 is the absolute limit for me, when the shadows begin to show excessive noise.

Are you saying you wouldn't take the shot if you had to use a higher iso?

Yes, if I want to print the image, or show it on a site like this, once I get beyond Iso 1200 I just walk away.

You're shooting with a Canon 7D MkII. Something you are doing, some process you are applying, something somewhere is going horribly wrong because you shouldn't see anything like that amount of noise at 800iso. In fact once the image has been down sampled (like the example you link to) it should be completely invisible.

Just to endorse Robin's comments, Geoff. For this new distance-learning course I'm doing, I've been shooting with my 7DMkII at ISO1600 and 3200 over the last couple of days, with absolutely no problem whatsoever. At ISO800, the 7DMkII shouldn't even get into 2nd gear so far as dealing with noise is concerned.

I concur with Robin and Donald. There is/are flaw(s) in the photographic procedure – OR - the 7DMkII is faulty – OR – there is an unacceptable degree of cropping to refine the FoV.

As comparison to and contrast with the sample images that you’ve posted, please see post #11 where there are three samples made with an EOS 5D; a camera which was released 2005.

Here is (one sample of many) of a JPEG edit, (not edit from raw conversion), of an image made with an EOS20D, low light and with some back lighting at ISO “H’ (aka ISO 3200). The EOS 20D was released 2004. This image also prints fine at 14~16” at the long side:



The EOS 7D MkII eats ISO 1600 for breakfast and is still hungry for ISO3200 as a mid-morning snack.

To make any reasonable assessment of photographic procedures, it will be necessary to interrogate the raw files. This point is important, because, in my experience investigating procedures, more often than not there are errors at the capture, which then, either cannot be corrected, or are exacerbated by the Post Production.

WW
All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

[RBSinTo]

Robert - while I generally prefer the look and feel of digital to prints, the one area where I feel that film has an edge over digital is in noise. I find I prefer the look of high ISO film grain to digital noise. I remember shooting high ISO film (mainly high ISO B&W negative film, although I tried it with slide film as well) to get grainy images. I found it resulted in particularly interesting images when shooting sports and in some street photography, where it gave the images a nice and gritty look.

I suspect that the reason I found slide film not working as well for me is that it has such a low dynamic range to begin with. I preferred shooting low ISO slides. I remember how disappointed I was when Kodak discontinued Kodachrome 25; which was my favourite reversal film.

Manfred,
With respect to the Film grain/Digital noise business, we Filmsters often considered the grain of high ISO film as a positive thing as it added character to a shot, while today, the Digivolk seem to detest it and in my experience with Club Competitions or Clinics mark down photos that have it.
As for Kodachrome, it never did anything for me and as soon as I was introduced to Kodak and Fuji E-6 stocks, switched immediately and never went back.
I've still got a ton of Kodachrome (25, 64, and 200) in my freezer donated to me by the Digivolk , but alas the film will never get used, unless I bother to have it cross-processed as I understand it can be.
Robert

[Shadowman]

Manfred,
With respect to the Film grain/Digital noise business, we Filmsters often considered the grain of high ISO film as a positive thing as it added character to a shot, while today, the Digivolk seem to detest it and in my experience with Club Competitions or Clinics mark down photos that have it.
As for Kodachrome, it never did anything for me and as soon as I was introduced to Kodak and Fuji E-6 stocks, switched immediately and never went back.
I've still got a ton of Kodachrome (25, 64, and 200) in my freezer donated to me by the Digivolk , but alas the film will never get used, unless I bother to have it cross-processed as I understand it can be.
Robert

I think our preferences has more to do with our introduction to the medium, most of my early viewings of images taken with film were through Time or Life magazine, didn't equate the grainy look to the processing or surface material. the first digital images looked horrible to me, however I did compare the digital captures to images taken with film, I didn't make the conversion to digital until the quality began to equal the output of film and the holdback was color capture and resolution.

[Mancanon]

If I recall correctly, you just bought an EOS 5D.

This is an EOS 5D used at ISO “H” (‘equivalent’ ISO3200):



*

This is another from the EOS 5D at “H”:



*

This is the EOS 5D at ISO1600, I regularly used/use the EOS 5D at ISO 1600:




These all are fine for printing at 14~16” by the long side, probably also 20~24" if needed.

WW
All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

Wow! I'm syc'd! Time to start snapping.

[Manfred M]

we Filmsters often considered the grain of high ISO film as a positive thing as it added character to a shot, while today,

Agree. to a point as the value of grain depends on the subject matter as it adds a grittiness to the image. I found that a high level of grain okay for sports photography and street photography, for instance. Generally not as good for baby shots or wedding photography.

As for the digital photographers; generally chromatic noise does not add to an image, but then grain does not look like chromatic noise to film shooters. I have shown some high grain images to people who grew up on digital and would agree with you as they don't quite know what to make of it and the gut reaction is" grain = chromatic noise - BAD.

That being said, I've always tended to be a low ISO (= low grain) shooter. In many circumstances my solution to handling low light situations was to "add light", i.e. flash.

.
As for Kodachrome, it never did anything for me and as soon as I was introduced to Kodak and Fuji E-6 stocks, switched immediately and never went back.

We are different in our tastes. I shot Kodachrome and some of the Agfachrome films but never did like Ektachrome and downright detested Fujichrome. I occasionally shot GAF (formerly Anscochrome), but they got out of the film business. The GAF chemistry was downright inexpensive when compared to the E4 / E6 chemistry.

I started shooting more and more colour negative film and would only shoot reversal films when traveling (again to print on Cibachrome / Ilfochrome papers). I've been a print orient shooter for a long time.