High ISO weekend - aim to get "usable images".

Phil, I haven't said much in this thread, but have followed it right from the start. It's been interesting to say the least.

I appreciate you are testing what CAN be done, so following on from your last post, I'd like you to shoot your next paid job in this manner, and show us the results from it. I'd also like to know how long it takes you to process each image that you present to the client.

Cheers
 
Next task is to do a paid shoot with the lens cap on and see how much can be recovered :LOL:
 
Aye, I gave up on this. I was interested to see what could be done and to see the comparisons, as I'm far too lazy for testing. But, in the end I'd still much rather get the exposure right, by pushing the ISO when needed, than have to pull back to the extreme in post.

It's not proven anything to me. And as for the higher ISO levels, I'll still never bother to go above 6400 native. I mean,, if it gets any darker I'll just pull exposure back in post ... right ;)
 
Lol it cracks me up everytime; mention wedding and everyone causes a fuss like they are REALLY hard to shoot and special courses of the highest degree are needed.

I would do it at a paid wedding for a few shots just to prove it would give the same results but I can see it doesn't matter what I do, some folk are too stuck in their ways to budge an inch.

Please, everybody read CAREFULLY I will state again:

This technique will give the same results as shooting at ISO 1600-6400. Difference being; it takes longer to process and the image will be under exposed before processing.

It will give the same same detail and same level as noise so the point is not weather you decide it’s for you but if you just wanted to shoot everything on phrase setting and adjust in PP you could and get the same results as you would if you adjust ISO.

It won't work if; you go over your cameras threashold for detail preservation.

It isn't useful if; you don't want to spend extra time in PP.

It will not; give better results but equal to.

It will; give you a well exposed shot of you should have shot 4 stops in ISO higher than you actually did but mistakenly didn't.

Lastly; I never ACTUALLY said I would shoot a wedding like this, I said I would do it one day this weekend...but as I said, seems like I'm battling with at least one caveman...perhaps no point.

What have I learned from this? Not to worry if I've drastically under s the exposed a shot providing its in the ISO 100-800 band. If I underexposed 1000 and above I would expect a loss in IQ when pulling back.

Take from that what you will but there's nothing to argue against, use it or don't use it but the fact still remains - an underexposed shot in the detail preservation threashold does not mean it needs to be deleted.
 
But it's not the same result. Any comparisons you've posted clearly showed the higher ISO images as being cleaner with better contrast than the pulled back ones.
 
Cagey75 said:
But it's not the same result. Any comparisons you've posted clearly showed the higher ISO images as being cleaner with better contrast than the pulled back ones.
Click to expand...
Is this aimed at me, If so then to me the higher iso ones did have slight edge over the pulled back ones, phils look very simular but who knows maybe a slight difference in full frame and crop. but eitherway it proves what can be done and how good these beasts are.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
Is this aimed at me, If so then to me the higher iso ones did have slight edge over the pulled back ones, phils look very simular but who knows maybe a slight difference in full frame and crop. but eitherway it proves what can be done and how good these beasts are.
Click to expand...

Phils do look similar. I can't tell the difference at 200%.

I'm afraid for what it's worth, the science is right and the above is correct.
 
Cagey75 said:
But it's not the same result. Any comparisons you've posted clearly showed the higher ISO images as being cleaner with better contrast than the pulled back ones.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Some are too blind to see this.
 
Phil Young said:
Lol it cracks me up everytime; mention wedding and everyone causes a fuss like they are REALLY hard to shoot and special courses of the highest degree are needed.
Click to expand...

No. Just common sense. Good techniques and sensible features. And let me remind you ... These are your words:

" For weddings christenings or anything where I need to be quicker it just stays on A and then I'd just worry about composition. "

You should listen to your own advice!
 
Last edited:
I think a new forum should be set up for Phil and Joe to argue in so the rest of can carry on in peace!!
 
joescrivens said:
No. Just common sense. Good techniques and sensible features. And let me remind you ... These are your words:

" For weddings christenings or anything where I need to be quicker it just stays on A and then I'd just worry about composition. "

You should listen to your own advice!
Click to expand...

Joe you are the worst broken record ever.

I don't know WHY you are arguing?!

If you can't see thag I have said its not the best way to shoot because of efficiency then you are either ignorant or on another planet.

Somebody help me out, have I said this is the way to shoot or that you can claw back exposure leaving the sake results as normal shooting at 6400?!

Listen to my own advise? My advise is not to worry if you have under exposed at ISOs below 800...what planet are you on to keep arguing that I'm suggesting this is the way to shoot?

Seriously Joe: READ MY POSTS OR DON'T REPLY, clearly you are putting words in my mouth and it's unfair to the thread, unfair to me and it makes you look like a negative old fart that just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

Rant over.
 
Rapscallion said:
I think a new forum should be set up for Phil and Joe to argue in so the rest of can carry on in peace!!
Click to expand...

I think Joe should leave the thread as the main instigator of the arguments...personally.

Sorry Joe I do.

This was supposed to be an open minded debate and investigation with concluded results.
 
Phil Young said:
I think Joe should leave the thread as the main instigator of the arguments...personally.

Sorry Joe I do.

This was supposed to be an open minded debate and investigation with concluded results.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there have been some very silly things written in this thread about what can and can't be done, and what should and shouldn't be done. It's a bit silly that you can't just debate with me without resorting to personal comments,

I'll leave you to it. Good luck to you all if you do decide to use this technique on a paid shoot.

(y)
 
joescrivens said:
Well, I think there have been some very silly things written in this thread about what can and can't be done, and what should and shouldn't be done. It's a bit silly that you can't just debate with me without resorting to personal comments,

I'll leave you to it. Good luck to you all if you do decide to use this technique on a paid shoot.

(y)
Click to expand...

I have tried to debate, but lack of willingness to see what is in front of you makes me want to put my finger up my nose and into my brain as I suspect that will give me less of a headache...

I welcome good conversation and I'd like to think I'm open-minded enough to see a point of its there in front of me...I just can't waste my energy try-writing everything that is written or defend myself for something, I really shouldn't be defending myself for.
 
Phil Young said:
I have tried to debate, but lack of willingness to see what is in front of you makes me want to put my finger up my nose and into my brain as I suspect that will give me less of a headache...

I welcome good conversation and I'd like to think I'm open-minded enough to see a point of its there in front of me...I just can't waste my energy try-writing everything that is written or defend myself for something, I really shouldn't be defending myself for.
Click to expand...

like I said, I'll leave you to it. Good luck (y)
 
This has been a very interesting thread Phil and I thank you for it. It's a shame it's generated so much negative comment but I am sure that more people than just me have enjoyed your input and are inspired a little... maybe... and feel the need to experiment a little more ourselves!

Well done for persisting and producing an interesting thread and interesting results.
 
woof woof said:
This has been a very interesting thread Phil and I thank you for it. It's a shame it's generated so much negative comment but I am sure that more people than just me have enjoyed your input and are inspired a little... maybe... and feel the need to experiment a little more ourselves!

Well done for persisting and producing an interesting thread and interesting results.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback mate, I've learned a lot from it myself! I’m a big believer in knowledge of your subject and I feel like I know a heck of a lot more than I did 2 weeks ago, just because I took the time to run a few tests.

I think there is a lot of concern surrounding noise levels, which in my opinion is practiced by too many people and to the extremes of limiting your skills.

Who says 25k can't be a useable ISO number? Nikon didn't so why should we?

If we want to be better at what we do, then we should look to utilize the tools given to us effectively...not find excuses of why we "can't".

Thanks for the feedback, appreciated.
 
It would have been nearer two pages without the antagonists...
 
ding76uk said:
Really, 13 pages! All to prove you can shoot at a higher ISO and pull back an underexposed image to be more usable in PP?
Click to expand...

2 pages of the original on topic discussion and the rest is people asking why!

Coming from a film background, I'm still amazed at being able to change sensitivity from shot to shot!
 
interesting thread! Took some photos today and have a few underexposed ones at low ISOs that could of potentially been decent shots.

Gonna try and pull the exposures back...and test the theories.

P.S. Just for fun!!! :)
 
Guys, I've got an issue - shooting with flash and often in program mode and my images are Comjng in excess of 3200 ISO. It's with flash. Does, anyone shoot people in side venues and rooms in aperture mode?
 
Got a replacement D7000 for my broken one, here's an image taken in manual mode at ISO800 (dialed in shutter and aperture and thought "I'll worry about it in PP").

Results are exactly the same as what would have come out of a 6400 exposure.

Before:
DSC_0214_Small_.JPG


After:
DSC_0214_copy_Small_.JPG
 
What a charming little cat! I hope he/she never needs rescuing - although you're the man to do it if you can do as good a job on him/her as you have on that photo!
 
Phil Young said:
Got a replacement D7000 for my broken one, here's an image taken in manual mode at ISO800 (dialed in shutter and aperture and thought "I'll worry about it in PP").

Results are exactly the same as what would have come out of a 6400 exposure.

Before:
DSC_0214_Small_.JPG


After:
DSC_0214_copy_Small_.JPG
Click to expand...

I imagine all of these examples are shot in RAW and not jpeg? cause that would be a disaster to recover back.
 
Of course, getting the exposure correct in the first place would have made JPEG a possibility and avoided all that time in PP!!! ;)
 
scottthehat said:
have you never not had a flash not go off for reasons like battery low, just dint recycle fast enough which can cause this.
Click to expand...

Good point, never thought of that!

I could have exposed correctly and 97% of the time I am well within working parameters...its just nice to know that I can still get a useable image out of nearly a black screen.

The interesting sciency part is that bar some contrast loss, the IQ is almost identical to what you get from upping the ISO.

Imagine you have just 5 seconds to set up a shot - you'll know you can wack your ISO on 800, stick a relatively low aperture and reasonably fast shutter speed and if it doesn't cone out correct, you can get it back (to the same IQ that it would have been shot at for the correct ISO number!).

You could just set it on P mode but then you're taking some gambles on shutter speed.

I think I'll put one of my user settings to shoot like this, I'm sure it will come in handy some day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top