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

[Phil Young]

I'd expect more noise but more detail.

I'd also expect a cleaner, more detailed image after pp from the theory that is in the current debate.

 

[joescrivens]

Joe you are seriously the most negative person!

Open your mind sir.

I think you'll find I'm the opposite. My middle name is "positive". If I were one part of a salt compound I'd be the sodium ion.

This is just such a simple case inmo

 

[Cagey75]

No you are wrong.

You'll have to dial in some crazy negative compensation to get your camera to meter it properly.

try it, leave your camera at 0 compensation and then put it in Av mode and point it at a dark scene, your shutter will drop - up your iso to 25600 and you'll get a lovely fast shutter. Thats exactly why the photographer above for pearl jam uses 6400 instead of 800 - the noise may well be the same but the shutter will not unless you dial in crazy negative exposure compensation.

What on earth would be the point? You'd end up with black images you couldn't check until you processed all of them - so it's extra PP work for no gain.

I think you're the wrong one here. I'm talking about manual mode. Exp comp has no effect as I'm controlling the shutter , aperture and ISO. We know it's going to be dark, that's what the guys are talking about! Saying a shot at 800 ISO can be dragged back to properly exposed image, and look almost as good as a shot taken properly exposed to begin with. Are you not actually reading posts or what?

 

[scottthehat]

I think you're the wrong one here. I'm talking about manual mode. Exp comp has no effect as I'm controlling the shutter , aperture and ISO. We know it's going to be dark, that's what the guys are talking about! Saying a shot at 800 ISO can be dragged back to properly exposed image, and look almost as good as a shot taken properly exposed to begin with. Are you not actually reading posts or what?

in manual on nikon if you use exposure compensation is does have an affect,
it will tell you what the correct shutter speed is needed for the correct exposure, be if you set ec to 0 or + or - 1 this will affect the shutter speed if you have auto iso off,
if you have auto iso on then it will change the iso instead.

 

[joescrivens]

I think you're the wrong one here. I'm talking about manual mode. Exp comp has no effect as I'm controlling the shutter , aperture and ISO. We know it's going to be dark, that's what the guys are talking about! Saying a shot at 800 ISO can be dragged back to properly exposed image, and look almost as good as a shot taken properly exposed to begin with. Are you not actually reading posts or what?

what on earth is the point?you end up with an image that is dark, has to be processed more and takes more time as a result.

All for what? An image that is no better but maybe a little worse than taking it at the right Iso in the first place.

Surely I can't be the only person here thinking this system is beyond nuts?

 

[scottthehat]

what on earth is the point?you end up with an image that is dark, has to be processed more and takes more time as a result.

All for what? An image that is no better but maybe a little worse than taking it at the right Iso in the first place.

Surely I can't be the only person here thinking this system is beyond nuts?

From my results i have found i wont be using it, I hate p&p at the best of times. Even if there was the slightest jump in quality, give me less p&p everytime.

But will be interesting to see what others find.

 

[Cagey75]

what on earth is the point?you end up with an image that is dark, has to be processed more and takes more time as a result.

All for what? An image that is no better but maybe a little worse than taking it at the right Iso in the first place.

Surely I can't be the only person here thinking this system is beyond nuts?

Um, read back, think you'll find I asked similar, You're mixing yourself right up son. I questioned it too. But I was willing to see results/comparisons. This wasn't my idea

 

[joescrivens]

Um, read back, think you'll find I asked similar, You're mixing yourself right up son. I questioned it too. But I was willing to see results/comparisons. This wasn't my idea

we've seen results and comparisons. So I ask you or anyone - really what is the point?

I'm not being obtuse - I am geniunely wondering what some of you think is going to achieve. The difference is zilch so I just don't see what you are thinking is a good idea about it :shrug:

 

[Cagey75]

in manual on nikon if you use exposure compensation is does have an affect,
it will tell you what the correct shutter speed is needed for the correct exposure, be if you set ec to 0 or + or - 1 this will affect the shutter speed if you have auto iso off,
if you have auto iso on then it will change the iso instead.

Look up ANY tutorial by any decent instructor online and they will tell you exp comp = waste of time in manual.

 

[Cagey75]

we've seen results and comparisons. So I ask you or anyone - really what is the point?

I'm not being obtuse - I am geniunely wondering what some of you think is going to achieve. The difference is zilch so I just don't see what you are thinking is a good idea about it :shrug:

I never said it was a good idea.

 

[joescrivens]

I never said it was a good idea.

Wha?

What about this?

These tests then, are proving we may as well just not bother with higher ISO- just shoot at 800 and process the bejaysis out of them

Why would you say that we may as well not use higher iso if you thought it was a bad idea? This post is where our individual discussion began.

 

[scottthehat]

Look up ANY tutorial by any decent instructor online and they will tell you exp comp = waste of time in manual.

I dont need some one to tell me whats what,.

I have used it pleanty of times, for start i always set it to 0.7 to start with(AS STANDARD)ALSO if im shooting a bird and its in a tree or on a post with tricky lighting its eay to adjust the ec so it changes the iso as i dont want to change the shutter speed or apature.

 

[Phil Young]

I will test and for me to make the extra time in pp worthwhile it will have to be a significant positive difference.

 

[specialman]

This has become a monster of a thread.

In these threads, I usually tell people to actually out an take photographs instead of arguing the toss....

....although in this case it seems every man and his dog is snapping away. Taking underexposed photographs of random house junk

 

[Cagey75]

I dont need some one to tell me whats what,.

I have used it pleanty of times, for start i always set it to 0.7 to start with(AS STANDARD)ALSO if im shooting a bird and its in a tree or on a post with tricky lighting its eay to adjust the ec so it changes the iso as i dont want to change the shutter speed or apature.

Ok know-it-all. You should write a book, money to be made

joe, if you can't read something right, don't wet yer knickers over it. I was saying/questioning - as in "So, we may as well not bother exposing right if it worked as good as people on here are making out?" I don't actually think it does. Can you not see you're now arguing with someone who also thinks it is not a fix? You're arguing for the sake of arguing now.

 

[gad-westy]

From my results i have found i wont be using it, I hate p&p at the best of times. Even if there was the slightest jump in quality, give me less p&p everytime.

But will be interesting to see what others find.

This is the way I see it too to be honest. I doubt anybody in this thread thinks this technique or whatever you want to call it would be of any use whatsoever in reality but I don't see any reason not to experiment with it for curiosity's sake. No harm done.

 

[Phil Young]

This is the way I see it too to be honest. I doubt anybody in this thread thinks this technique or whatever you want to call it would be of any use whatsoever in reality but I don't see any reason not to experiment with it for curiosity's sake. No harm done.

+1

 

[joescrivens]

Ok know-it-all. You should write a book, money to be made

joe, if you can't read something right, don't wet yer knickers over it. I was saying/questioning - as in "So, we may as well not bother exposing right if it worked as good as people on here are making out?" I don't actually think it does. Can you not see you're now arguing with someone who also thinks it is not a fix? You're arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Well, if that's what you meant then we're in agreement. But it does not read that way so bare that in mind with your communication next time. No harm done. Cheers

 

[Cagey75]

I shouldn't have to over explain myself though, your not supposed to take ANY post personal, for starters none of mine were aimed at you so I don't see why I even had to explain to you. But how and ever ...

I think some people on here just pop in to slam anything that goes against what they learned or think they know. Been seeing it for weeks here, disgruntled people arguing over nothing ... if you don't want to try it, then don't. I question the methods and ideas, but I'm all for trying or at least seeing other's results.

 

[specialman]

Look up ANY tutorial by any decent instructor online and they will tell you exp comp = waste of time in manual.

I generally use my eyes and the histogram/binkies to gauge the exposure anyway, regardless of the mode I'm in, but it's not to say it's not a useful way of shooting. People who shoot in manual, of which there are probably a lot (and who still refer to the meter while shooting) will probably find some use in 'fooling' the meter via exposure compensation to give them a base exposure to work from...

 

[joescrivens]

I shouldn't have to over explain myself though, your not supposed to take ANY post personal, for starters none of mine were aimed at you so I don't see why I even had to explain to you. But how and ever ...

who said anything about taking things personal. i certainly haven't been. And you need to explain yourself if you did a poor job explaining it in the first place, that's just the way communication works.

Anyway, lets stop flogging a dead horse, smile and eat more cake - whadya say - you like angel cake?

 

[scottthehat]

Ok know-it-all. You should write a book, money to be made

Im certainly not a know it all, theres lots i dont know quantum physics being 1 of them,
I dont need to right a book, i know that ec works as it should and im not the only one to say that lots of nikon owners do.

 

[scottthehat]

This is the way I see it too to be honest. I doubt anybody in this thread thinks this technique or whatever you want to call it would be of any use whatsoever in reality but I don't see any reason not to experiment with it for curiosity's sake. No harm done.

yeah totaly agree, the best thing is to try it your self, its fun and also your learning, its all good, thats why we all love photography aint it.

 

[Phil Young]

ISO 200 + unsharp mask

ISO 3200 + unsharp mask

Considering there is 4 stops of ISO the difference is so negligible.

I did bring the 3200 up by 2 stops though which brings me to my next test...

 

[Phil Young]

ISO 200 pulled back 5 stops

ISO 3200 pulled back 4 stops

What does this tell me?

I have a LOT more margin for error with a lower ISO number. If you don't hit the exposure at high ISO then you're done for but if you don't hit it with a lower ISO then you can bring it up to what the high ISO should have been...

That is the thing to take away from this test I think - it is safer to shoot at a low ISO number and bring up to a high ISO number equivalent but as seen in the previous tests during the earlier part of the thread - high ISO has to be very well exposed before commencing PP.

So it's true - in certan situations such as weddings etc, gigs etc - you might as well just leave it on a lower ISO and bring it up to whatever the exposure should have been, it will most likely yield the same results.

Interesting...

 

[Phil Young]

Here's a few more. #1 and # 2 are pulled back 5 stops and #3 is 3.5 stops (note the significant increase in IQ).

It's pretty cool actually because it's one less thing to worry about if you intend on editing them anyway. They are roughly what I would expect at higher ISO's in terms of IQ.

Actually, for scenarios where you need the best IQ and lowest noise, this is probably a very safe way to shoot.

These shots were performed on the X10 but I reckon I would get the same results from using a base ISO of 800 on my D7000 instead of 200.

Take the wedding situation.

Sometimes you will be at 200, 400, 800, 1600, 6400 so on an so forth.

If you shoot at 6400 in a 800 scene, the noise is already there but you could always shoot at 800 and then pull back to a 6400 exposure.

pull back 800 to a 1600 exposure and the noise increase is minimal, reduce a 6400 shot to a 1600 scene and possible IQ loss from dynamic range reduction is possible.

So it is good in the way that you know if you underexpose "that shot" you don't need to worry about setting it up again.

The downsides (major one) is that every RAW file will need to be processed to correct exposure...which is not the best way to manage time.

Conclusion; probably fair to say due to the time it takes to bring exposures up in each shot, I wouldn't use it for weddings etc...but it's nice to know just how much range the lower ISO numbers have in terms of pulling back exposure!

Bottom line: you can pull back a ISO800 shot 4-5 stops but you'd be lucky to get any movement on your upper ISO numbers.

Images:

#1

#2

#3

 

[Phil Young]

Last post - I'm going to bed! Have to be up early for a 7am client, what am I doing!?!?!

I thought it would be fair to shoot something at 3200 (my X10's upper limit) and then match the exposure with a pull back from 200, see what the results are...I'm happy to say they are pretty much the same. What does this prove? It proves that it's not the end of the world if you drastically underexpose what you should have been on a much higher ISO for

ISO 3200, A mode - spot metered.

ISO 200 - manual mode. 3.7 pull back.

CROPS

3200

200

Goodnight!

 

[tiler65]

Phil, you need to get your sen a bird.

 

[Phil Young]

Phil, you need to get your sen a bird.

Lol I do but she's away in the Caribbean (where she comes from) until November so that's how long I have to be sad! Lol

Got to make the most of it as she doesn't appreciate photography like I do haha.

 

[joescrivens]

So it's true - in certan situations such as weddings etc, gigs etc - you might as well just leave it on a lower ISO and bring it up to whatever the exposure should have been, it will most likely yield the same results.

Interesting...

Phil, you are really missing something important here. You say that in weddings you might as well just leave it on a lower ISO and bring it up - do you not see the major flaw in this sentence?

A wedding where things are always changing is shot in Av mode - you even do this yourself, so we aren't talking about manual here where you can do this bizarre high shutter black image weird method.

You are saying that when shooting a wedding you may as well leave your camera on a low ISO because you can pull it back anyway - aren't you forgetting the shutter speed? Leaving your camera on a lower ISO is going to drop your shutter and result in more chance of subject movement/camera shake. For what? So that you can pull it back anyway to achieve the same noise?

No, no no. It is not "ok" to just leave your camera in a lower ISO for a wedding. Surely you can understand the reasons why?

 

[joescrivens]

So it is good in the way that you know if you underexpose "that shot" you don't need to worry about setting it up again.

Thats not entirely true either. What if you underexposed it using too fast a shutter speed. Lets say you took a shot at ISO 800 shutter of 1/3000 and it was underexposed. By your reckoning, its fine because you can push the image up to equivalent ISO 6400 and it will be all good.

Not really, because had you shot the scene at iso 800 and a shutter of 1/250 in the first place you'd have a much cleaner image. You can't just concentrate on ISO, it all fits together in the exposure traingle, you've got to look at all three together at all times. You can only look at one in isolation when your other two are the limiting factor i.e. lowest aperture possible and lowest shutter possible to freeze the action enough.

 

[Phil Young]

Phil, you are really missing something important here. You say that in weddings you might as well just leave it on a lower ISO and bring it up - do you not see the major flaw in this sentence?

A wedding where things are always changing is shot in Av mode - you even do this yourself, so we aren't talking about manual here where you can do this bizarre high shutter black image weird method.

You are saying that when shooting a wedding you may as well leave your camera on a low ISO because you can pull it back anyway - aren't you forgetting the shutter speed? Leaving your camera on a lower ISO is going to drop your shutter and result in more chance of subject movement/camera shake. For what? So that you can pull it back anyway to achieve the same noise?

No, no no. It is not "ok" to just leave your camera in a lower ISO for a wedding. Surely you can understand the reasons why?

In theory you can just set your shutter speed to whatever you require and then you will have 2 stops down 5 stops up to play with.

I don't see a major flaw in that respect.

I did go on to say that the major flaw isn't actually the shooting but the PP. Its OK for a handful of shots but after completing a set of 900 shots last weekend, I probably wouldn't want to adjust all the raw files.

 

[Phil Young]

Thats not entirely true either. What if you underexposed it using too fast a shutter speed. Lets say you took a shot at ISO 800 shutter of 1/3000 and it was underexposed. By your reckoning, its fine because you can push the image up to equivalent ISO 6400 and it will be all good.

Not really, because had you shot the scene at iso 800 and a shutter of 1/250 in the first place you'd have a much cleaner image. You can't just concentrate on ISO, it all fits together in the exposure traingle, you've got to look at all three together at all times. You can only look at one in isolation when your other two are the limiting factor i.e. lowest aperture possible and lowest shutter possible to freeze the action enough.

You have to know your limits with the exposure but as above, you effectively have a 7 stop leeway.

Just to add to that; if it was underexposed and that high a shutter speed, it would have been noisy anyway because you were shooting at the "wrong" ISO. So really it should have been 6400.

 

[joescrivens]

In theory you can just set your shutter speed to whatever you require and then you will have 2 stops down 5 stops up to play with.

I don't see a major flaw in that respect.

in Av mode you don't touch your shutter, thats what the camera metering is for, your shutter changes all the time based on your conditions, so setting it constantly all day would not be a wise choice - surely you can see this? It's not just about the amount of PP at the end of the day, you are setting yourself up for a fail by making life harder for yourself in the actual shooting.

 

[scottthehat]

I use manual with auto iso when doing weddings, set shutter and apature to what i want and let the camera do the iso,(range from 200-12800)

 

[Phil Young]

in Av mode you don't touch your shutter, thats what the camera metering is for, your shutter changes all the time based on your conditions, so setting it constantly all day would not be a wise choice - surely you can see this? It's not just about the amount of PP at the end of the day, you are setting yourself up for a fail by making life harder for yourself in the actual shooting.

Joe I'm sure you're in your own little world.

We have said numerous times, this technique would be done in manual mode.

Just to add: nobody has said they will shoot this way but clearly it can be done and underexposure is not the end of the world as long as you are in your limit for detail threashold.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

in Av mode you don't touch your shutter, thats what the camera metering is for, your shutter changes all the time based on your conditions, so setting it constantly all day would not be a wise choice - surely you can see this? It's not just about the amount of PP at the end of the day, you are setting yourself up for a fail by making life harder for yourself in the actual shooting.

I though Phil was saying what could be done not what should be done?

Keep your wig on Joe!!

 

[joescrivens]

Joe I'm sure you're in your own little world.

It's called the world of common sense!

We have said numerous times, this technique would be done in manual mode.

And as I said above, it's already been addressed that shooting a wedding in manual mode isn't really the best idea - unless you use auto ISO.

Just to add: nobody has said they will shoot this way but clearly it can be done and underexposure is not the end of the world as long as you are in your limit for detail threashold.

I think it's really dangerous to suggest that it "can be done". Setting a shutter, an aperture and an ISO of 800 and then just shooting all day at a wedding isn't fesible. It's such a bad idea, it really is. Saying it can be done will make some newbie reading this thread go and try it and screw up someones wedding.

 

[Phil Young]

It's called the world of common sense!

And as I said above, it's already been addressed that shooting a wedding in manual mode isn't really the best idea - unless you use auto ISO.

I think it's really dangerous to suggest that it "can be done". Setting a shutter, an aperture and an ISO of 800 and then just shooting all day at a wedding isn't fesible. It's such a bad idea, it really is. Saying it can be done will make some newbie reading this thread go and try it and screw up someones wedding.

What if I do it, and produce my usual high standards, will you consider changing your way of thinking that it can't be done???

I'll dedicate a weekend day to pulling back exposures for 2 reasons;

A) to prove to myself it can be done.
B) to show people like you that there are other ways to get an image besides what you think is the only way.

 

[joescrivens]

What if I do it, and produce my usual high standards, will you consider changing your way of thinking that it can't be done???

I'll dedicate a weekend day to pulling back exposures for 2 reasons;

A) to prove to myself it can be done.
B) to show people like you that there are other ways to get an image besides what you think is the only way.

firstly I have to doubt your high standards given what you said earlier in the thread about what the customer expects compared to what I would, and that you hapilly gave a couple wedding images that were all soft due to a fault with your camera

Secondly, are you seriously going to try this at someones wedding? Maybe if you are a second shooter where your shots aren't needed, then I'd like to see it. But please don't go trying this on someones wedding this weekend.

thirdly, if you are just doing it not at a wedding, then no, it won't make me change my mind because you are in a no pressure environment where you can play around with whatever you want