|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 11, 2010, 9:23 PM
Post #26 of 42
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Rudmin wrote: pico23 wrote: First, look at the purple noise in the midtown areas. do you not see the vertical banding? Second look at the noise in the background. See the much more prominent blue noise? Third, the focus is off. Sorry but the left image is soft, not just from noise reduction, from either shake or other movement. For slow shutter speeds you need either a cable release or IR remote, even touching the shutter introduces shake. What camera are you shooting? The ISO 1600 was awful to begin with... BTW, if your camera is to hard to change shutter speeds than you need a new camera. I realize in a digital age we change shutter speeds much more often but you shouldn't need to change shot to shot, if you are than you need a camera with solid external controls. Now I am confused. Are you talking shutter speed or ISO? I am usually changing shutter speed on every shot. The camera is hard to change ISO on, but I don't have $$ to shell out on a higher level DSLR. I will try the suggestion of reprogramming the timer button.
I was talking about the two images you posted, one is clearly in focus (sort of) the other is not.
WHen you press on the shutter release it introduces movement in the camera, even if it's on a tripod or a couch cushion.
So one shut is in fact in focus, and the other is not.
Your sharpness is not a factor of the ISO (in your example anyway) but a factor of missed focus.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 12, 2010, 3:57 AM
Post #27 of 42
(3991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
I fully understand that taking a well exposed shot is always important. However, is it always the most important thing?
I was shooting at an indoor climbing competition on Saturday. The light was not existant and I was using an 55mm F1.2 lens to try to shoot a very dynamic move.
No matter what I did I could not get the shutter speed fast enough in the tough lighting conditions. I had it set to ISO 1600 which is the absolute tolerable limit for my camera.
So I eventually resorted to stopping the exposure down 2/3s of a stop in order to increase the shutter speed to 1/500 of a second.
So is lowering exposure always a bad idea? What if you have reached the usable limits of the camera and your only option for getting a non-blurry shot is to under-expose?
My thought process was that I can at least attempt to correct high noise and under exposure in post processing. However, I can't fix a blurred picture of a moving subject with any software that I know of.
Is there anything else I could have done in that situation?
(This post was edited by JasonsDrivingForce on Apr 12, 2010, 3:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 12, 2010, 1:13 PM
Post #28 of 42
(3975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Extra lights?
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Apr 12, 2010, 1:23 PM
Post #29 of 42
(3973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
pico23 wrote: Rudmin wrote: photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: gosharks wrote: Looks like a mis-focus? Same focus, had the camera propped on a couch arm. That really doesn't matter, just cause you had it propped doesn't mean it had the same focus, that could have stopped the camera shake but not necessarily. I'm not sure what kind of pictures you take that you can not take the 10 secs to change the iso, you don't need to change it for each shot. If you want to be lazy that is your deal, if you forget once in a while this will help you save the images. Yet no one will agree with you to not shoot it right. Do it right its simple and you seem to know what to do just don't be lazy and do it. If the camera is on manual focus, and has two shots from the same location of the same subject, how does the focus change? And why so angry at me? I asked a single straight forward question. I never argued that shooting an underexposed picture will be better. I asked if it would be equivalent to shooting a high ISO picture. I got two different answers and eventually just did the test to find out for myself. I never called anybody stupid, or made crazy claims, but half of the responses are along the lines of "Learn to use a camera newb" Why so angry, most people that will comment on this post are passionate about photography, and it just sounds like you are being lazy. Imagine if you just said will a two piece anchor be as good as a three piece I don't like to take the time to do it right. Every one would say your going to die noob. Now cutting this corner wont result in death or injury (unless you are shooting a wedding and mess up) Asking if it is all right to cut the corner just makes you look lazy and like you don't know what you are doing. You don't need our approval do what every you want. I will be shooting right in my camera cause I care about my images I think many would say that it depends. Having all of the knowledge is what will let you make the right choice. In some situations going fast is safer than maximizing safety at every belay. Sometimes two anchors is good enough, like almost every bolted anchor. Sometimes it is important to know what the trade offs are between choices, instead of just saying, this is the right way, only do it this way. If I know what the trade off is between high ISO and underexposure, I can judge for myself whether it is worthwhile to hunt through a menu, and maybe miss a shot or end up with a slightly grainy shot. Not all photos are destined for art galleries. Hey, if putting your name on garbage is what you want to do, I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with you. If you change ISO that frequently it's time to man up and buy a real camera. Changing ISO shouldn't involve more than a few button presses totaling 2-3 seconds. This is why I feel like while there are MANY good digital only photographers, people that started with film, or decided to learn how to shoot film recently are significantly better at the fundamentals of photographic technique. In the old days you put a roll of 100 ISO in and you lived with it, unless you did a mid roll rewind or had a second camera with faster film. you figured out how to make it work. If you really use ISO that much as a variable to exposure, you should get a camera with an auto ISO mode, at the very least.
This whole thread was about asking if it is possible to leave the ISO on 100, which is exactly what you just said people had to do in the "olden days". I originally asked what the consequences were to doing exactly that, and was told by several photographers that, regardless of situation or context, not changing the ISO is lazy. If it takes 2-3 seconds to change the ISO and whatever action or shot happened already by then, then tough luck. Shooting something on the wrong ISO is not an option apparently.
If good photographers managed to get by with whatever film they had in the camera back in the "olden days" why is it now such a photographic crime to do the same thing with a digital?
Edit: Obviously I am going to do whatever I want with my camera regardless. And knowing more about the specific consequences of ISO vs exposure correction helps me take photos. But I guess it just chaffs to get flak for asking a question about not changing an ISO, and then getting flak again about changing the ISO too much, the exact opposite thing.
(This post was edited by Rudmin on Apr 12, 2010, 1:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 12, 2010, 1:37 PM
Post #30 of 42
(3966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
petsfed wrote: Extra lights?
That is a good thought. However, you can’t add extra lights because it will blind/distract the climbers that are competing. It also was about 90 degrees in that part of the gym even with the lights basically off. Adding anymore light would have cooked the climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
Apr 12, 2010, 2:31 PM
Post #31 of 42
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
Rudmin wrote: pico23 wrote: Rudmin wrote: photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: gosharks wrote: Looks like a mis-focus? Same focus, had the camera propped on a couch arm. That really doesn't matter, just cause you had it propped doesn't mean it had the same focus, that could have stopped the camera shake but not necessarily. I'm not sure what kind of pictures you take that you can not take the 10 secs to change the iso, you don't need to change it for each shot. If you want to be lazy that is your deal, if you forget once in a while this will help you save the images. Yet no one will agree with you to not shoot it right. Do it right its simple and you seem to know what to do just don't be lazy and do it. If the camera is on manual focus, and has two shots from the same location of the same subject, how does the focus change? And why so angry at me? I asked a single straight forward question. I never argued that shooting an underexposed picture will be better. I asked if it would be equivalent to shooting a high ISO picture. I got two different answers and eventually just did the test to find out for myself. I never called anybody stupid, or made crazy claims, but half of the responses are along the lines of "Learn to use a camera newb" Why so angry, most people that will comment on this post are passionate about photography, and it just sounds like you are being lazy. Imagine if you just said will a two piece anchor be as good as a three piece I don't like to take the time to do it right. Every one would say your going to die noob. Now cutting this corner wont result in death or injury (unless you are shooting a wedding and mess up) Asking if it is all right to cut the corner just makes you look lazy and like you don't know what you are doing. You don't need our approval do what every you want. I will be shooting right in my camera cause I care about my images I think many would say that it depends. Having all of the knowledge is what will let you make the right choice. In some situations going fast is safer than maximizing safety at every belay. Sometimes two anchors is good enough, like almost every bolted anchor. Sometimes it is important to know what the trade offs are between choices, instead of just saying, this is the right way, only do it this way. If I know what the trade off is between high ISO and underexposure, I can judge for myself whether it is worthwhile to hunt through a menu, and maybe miss a shot or end up with a slightly grainy shot. Not all photos are destined for art galleries. Hey, if putting your name on garbage is what you want to do, I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with you. If you change ISO that frequently it's time to man up and buy a real camera. Changing ISO shouldn't involve more than a few button presses totaling 2-3 seconds. This is why I feel like while there are MANY good digital only photographers, people that started with film, or decided to learn how to shoot film recently are significantly better at the fundamentals of photographic technique. In the old days you put a roll of 100 ISO in and you lived with it, unless you did a mid roll rewind or had a second camera with faster film. you figured out how to make it work. If you really use ISO that much as a variable to exposure, you should get a camera with an auto ISO mode, at the very least. This whole thread was about asking if it is possible to leave the ISO on 100, which is exactly what you just said people had to do in the "olden days". I originally asked what the consequences were to doing exactly that, and was told by several photographers that, regardless of situation or context, not changing the ISO is lazy. If it takes 2-3 seconds to change the ISO and whatever action or shot happened already by then, then tough luck. Shooting something on the wrong ISO is not an option apparently. If good photographers managed to get by with whatever film they had in the camera back in the "olden days" why is it now such a photographic crime to do the same thing with a digital? Edit: Obviously I am going to do whatever I want with my camera regardless. And knowing more about the specific consequences of ISO vs exposure correction helps me take photos. But I guess it just chaffs to get flak for asking a question about not changing an ISO, and then getting flak again about changing the ISO too much, the exact opposite thing.
In the old days if you didn't have the right iso film in your camera you just had to let some shots go. You can't push or pull film as much as you can digital. If you way underexposed it, it would be unusable. Simply as that. Yet how often do you need to change the ISO? You shouldn't be changing it for every shot. You should evaluate your shooting conditions pick the best ISO for the shots you want and then shot manipulating the shutter speed and f stop for exposure, DOF, speed of object/camera shake. Its simple. Not picking the right ISO will change every thing and then when you get done you have to make all these changes in the computer. So taking 5 sec to change the ISO once should be easier and take less time then changing the exposure on 50 shots. I'm not going to change your mind, I guess you just like using the computer more then the camera.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Apr 12, 2010, 3:27 PM
Post #32 of 42
(3952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: pico23 wrote: Rudmin wrote: photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: photoguy190 wrote: Rudmin wrote: gosharks wrote: Looks like a mis-focus? Same focus, had the camera propped on a couch arm. That really doesn't matter, just cause you had it propped doesn't mean it had the same focus, that could have stopped the camera shake but not necessarily. I'm not sure what kind of pictures you take that you can not take the 10 secs to change the iso, you don't need to change it for each shot. If you want to be lazy that is your deal, if you forget once in a while this will help you save the images. Yet no one will agree with you to not shoot it right. Do it right its simple and you seem to know what to do just don't be lazy and do it. If the camera is on manual focus, and has two shots from the same location of the same subject, how does the focus change? And why so angry at me? I asked a single straight forward question. I never argued that shooting an underexposed picture will be better. I asked if it would be equivalent to shooting a high ISO picture. I got two different answers and eventually just did the test to find out for myself. I never called anybody stupid, or made crazy claims, but half of the responses are along the lines of "Learn to use a camera newb" Why so angry, most people that will comment on this post are passionate about photography, and it just sounds like you are being lazy. Imagine if you just said will a two piece anchor be as good as a three piece I don't like to take the time to do it right. Every one would say your going to die noob. Now cutting this corner wont result in death or injury (unless you are shooting a wedding and mess up) Asking if it is all right to cut the corner just makes you look lazy and like you don't know what you are doing. You don't need our approval do what every you want. I will be shooting right in my camera cause I care about my images I think many would say that it depends. Having all of the knowledge is what will let you make the right choice. In some situations going fast is safer than maximizing safety at every belay. Sometimes two anchors is good enough, like almost every bolted anchor. Sometimes it is important to know what the trade offs are between choices, instead of just saying, this is the right way, only do it this way. If I know what the trade off is between high ISO and underexposure, I can judge for myself whether it is worthwhile to hunt through a menu, and maybe miss a shot or end up with a slightly grainy shot. Not all photos are destined for art galleries. Hey, if putting your name on garbage is what you want to do, I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with you. If you change ISO that frequently it's time to man up and buy a real camera. Changing ISO shouldn't involve more than a few button presses totaling 2-3 seconds. This is why I feel like while there are MANY good digital only photographers, people that started with film, or decided to learn how to shoot film recently are significantly better at the fundamentals of photographic technique. In the old days you put a roll of 100 ISO in and you lived with it, unless you did a mid roll rewind or had a second camera with faster film. you figured out how to make it work. If you really use ISO that much as a variable to exposure, you should get a camera with an auto ISO mode, at the very least. This whole thread was about asking if it is possible to leave the ISO on 100, which is exactly what you just said people had to do in the "olden days". I originally asked what the consequences were to doing exactly that, and was told by several photographers that, regardless of situation or context, not changing the ISO is lazy. If it takes 2-3 seconds to change the ISO and whatever action or shot happened already by then, then tough luck. Shooting something on the wrong ISO is not an option apparently. If good photographers managed to get by with whatever film they had in the camera back in the "olden days" why is it now such a photographic crime to do the same thing with a digital? Edit: Obviously I am going to do whatever I want with my camera regardless. And knowing more about the specific consequences of ISO vs exposure correction helps me take photos. But I guess it just chaffs to get flak for asking a question about not changing an ISO, and then getting flak again about changing the ISO too much, the exact opposite thing. In the old days if you didn't have the right iso film in your camera you just had to let some shots go. You can't push or pull film as much as you can digital. If you way underexposed it, it would be unusable. Simply as that. Yet how often do you need to change the ISO? You shouldn't be changing it for every shot. You should evaluate your shooting conditions pick the best ISO for the shots you want and then shot manipulating the shutter speed and f stop for exposure, DOF, speed of object/camera shake. Its simple. Not picking the right ISO will change every thing and then when you get done you have to make all these changes in the computer. So taking 5 sec to change the ISO once should be easier and take less time then changing the exposure on 50 shots. I'm not going to change your mind, I guess you just like using the computer more then the camera.
I asked if using the computer would produce the same results. Is that such a terrible question? Am I a bad person for asking it? Maybe good old fashioned photographers never asked questions. I got different answers and did the test myself. The definitive result was that the photo edited on the computer was much noisier. I never claimed anything otherwise. I concluded that if I am not trying to catch something happening very fast (like pulling the camera out to get a photo of an animal or something while hiking), I will take the time to set the ISO if necessary before I take a photo (or series of photos).
Now that the OP was answered on the first page, I am wondering why you jump on me for daring to be curious about such a question.
In conclusion, I asked a question. I learned something. And you just want to be a jerk. FU
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Apr 12, 2010, 4:02 PM
Post #33 of 42
(3945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Rudmin wrote: In conclusion, I asked a question. I learned something. And you just want to be a jerk. FU
You're being too sensitive. Maybe you need to set yourself to a lower ISO.
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
Apr 12, 2010, 4:31 PM
Post #34 of 42
(3939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
Rudmin wrote: I find that when shooting in low light, I am always making the trade off between blurry photos or noisy photos. One thing I have realized, is that if I use a low ISO and underexpose a photo (fast shutter speed) and then ramp up the exposure of the RAW file in post production, it looks roughly the same (in terms of noisiness) as if I take the same photo with the same fast shutter speed and a high ISO. Is there actually any difference? So is changing the ISO before you take a photo effectively the same as tweaking the exposure after you take a photo? I ask because I have to go through menus to get to the ISO setting and I frequently forget to change it to what I need. It would be easier if I could just leave it on 100 and then just underexpose shots rather than change the ISO setting
I read your original post again, and you already know you can use the computer to fix and underexposed picture if you forget to change the iso. You have been told its not a good idea to just leave the iso on 100 and shot, I think you understand that. Ok here is why I'm worried, I love to teach photograph and I know it so hard to fix bad habits. Ok here is the deal that I'm not sure you full understand. If you change ISO it will change the way your camera picks the shutter speed and or f stop, unless you are shooting on full manual. If you are shooting in low light with a low ISO you camera will open the f stop as wide as it goes and slow the shutter speed down. So even if you pump it up later you still had the shutter speed there is no way to change that. Ok again I don't know what mode you shoot on but that's how it works on anything thing but full manual. Now you said you are worried about quick shooting situations, ok I have been there but you don't have time to correct for the cameras slow shutter speed here, you just shoot. You are total right in the fact that if you mistakenly underexpose a picture, wrong shutter speed, iso, or f stop you can increase the exposure on the computer and get ok results. However I see this as a last resort to save a picture, if you have the time try to do it right is all. Watch you histogram when you shoot, bracket, get that nice middle hump. You will be overall more pleased and get more usable and have more fun. Again I'm very sorry if I came across as a jerk, I'm just trying to convey that more goes on when you don't change the iso. Again best of luck and I hope you get the great shots you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 13, 2010, 3:20 AM
Post #35 of 42
(3904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I think most people were replying to the fact that from the original post it could be assumed that the OP was basically saying, "Can I just leave the camera on ISO 100 and adjust in post processing, since it's RAW and it's basically the same thing."
The answer is no because it's not the same thing. Although it's RAW the file does under go a certain amount of processing to create a viewable image. You aren't truly working with the original data.
As far as not getting the shot, sometimes you just cannot get the shot. It sucks but it's true.
A good example, you try to cover all your bases, and you buy a super zoom with marginal optical qualities, such as an 18-250mm lens, only it's god awful slow on the long end. You see something across the way, you have the 250mm reach but the aperture maxes out at f/6.3. While the guy with a 70-200 gets the shot at f/2.8.
The bottom line, you cannot get every shot, us old school film guys understand that. No matter how simple you try to make your photography you will always miss shots.
I think what most people were trying to emphasize to you is quality over quantity. Good technique over laziness, or maybe more aptly technique over expediency.
I still cannot imagine a situation where you would need to shift between ISO 100 and 1600 regularly on the fly. I'd pick the best ISO for the general lighting and adjust your shutter speed or aperture to fit your needs.
sorry if you were offended by the replies, yeah, they were pretty direct, but I don't think anyone intended to be insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
pdx_climber
Apr 23, 2010, 12:31 AM
Post #36 of 42
(3856 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2005
Posts: 110
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: petsfed wrote: Extra lights? That is a good thought. However, you can’t add extra lights because it will blind/distract the climbers that are competing. It also was about 90 degrees in that part of the gym even with the lights basically off. Adding anymore light would have cooked the climbers.
$1000 on some good strobes is money well spent if you're shooting indoor or outdoor climbing.
(This post was edited by pdx_climber on Apr 23, 2010, 12:32 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 24, 2010, 10:19 AM
Post #37 of 42
(3811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
Rudmin wrote: Here is a comparison of 1600 ISO vs 100 ISO underexposed. Same shutter sped and aperture on both photos. Shot on a Nikon D60. Exposure was adjusted with UFRAW. At full scale it is impossible to tell the difference. At 100% scale, you can see that the under exposed shot has more noise, but is also a bit sharper. It also has vertical line artifacts. The conclusion, is that if I am in a hurry to get a shot, I will just leave the ISO at 100. If I have time to set up, I will probably pick a proper ISO setting for the lighting. [image]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3433/isoexposure.jpg[/image]  I am glad I have Cannon. My Cannon 40D looks WAY better at 1600 ISO then that D60. 
(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 24, 2010, 10:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 25, 2010, 5:23 AM
Post #39 of 42
(3787 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
kriso9tails wrote: USnavy wrote: Damn, that Nikon camera looks like shit. I am glad I have Cannon. My Cannon 40D looks WAY better at 1600 ISO then that D60. That's a decent fanboy impression. Emoticons? Pass. Basic Grammar mistakes? Pass. General nonsense? Pass. Deliberate and less than clever misspelling of brand under ridicule? Fail. Perhaps you could have gone with Ni CON, for higher marks.
Great reply, I knew he was joking, but your reply made his post actually worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 26, 2010, 11:18 AM
Post #40 of 42
(3766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
kriso9tails wrote: USnavy wrote: Damn, that Nikon camera looks like shit. I am glad I have Cannon. My Cannon 40D looks WAY better at 1600 ISO then that D60. That's a decent fanboy impression. Emoticons? Pass. Basic Grammar mistakes? Pass. General nonsense? Pass. Deliberate and less than clever misspelling of brand under ridicule? Fail. Perhaps you could have gone with Ni CON, for higher marks. 
Lets review.
Cannon 40D @ 1600 ISO:
Rudmans Nikon:
The choice is clear, Cannon is a brand of professionals.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 26, 2010, 11:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Apr 26, 2010, 5:52 PM
Post #41 of 42
(3748 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Sorry man, but I did some testing on my own. I set up the tripod and took a shot of myself at night. As you can see, it's late at night, very dark between the trees and the subject brightness range is just ridiculous, but it's still an even exposure.
Nikon D300
ISO 3200 (check the exif data if you don't believe me)
no noise
Also, I make 100% of my income off of photography, so I'd say I qualify as a professional photographer.
Also also, Canon only has one 'n' in the middle. Even the trees know that much.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Apr 26, 2010, 6:11 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
3200_ISO.jpg
(72.6 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 27, 2010, 2:35 AM
Post #42 of 42
(3705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
You do realize the difference between high key and low key scenes right?
The Nikon scene was low key (lots of shadows), and really not properly exposed in either shot.
On the flip side the Canon 40D shot is a fairly high key scene, in very good natural lighting. I don't see any significant shadows in your scene which is why I would classify it as high key. The histogram of it should be overwhelmingly towards the middle right side.
Anyway, awesome comparison, it reminds me of the Dave Black strobed shots for the Nikon D3. Oh my, impressive, but since most people shooting the same subjects DON'T have that type of artificial lighting at their disposal those images were best case scenarios.
That said, I'm not picking on the D3s IQ, just pointing out that the lighting/key of the scene has a huge role in the way noise looks. With proper flashing you could make the worst 4/3s sensor look amazing at 1600, certainly a low res 24x36mm sensor should be flawless with professional strobing and no shadow areas.
I'd recommend shooting a dark something or another in a shadow and underexpose it, and then not being so impressed by your 40D which actually doesn't do quite as well as you might believe vs. the competition.
It's one thing to be a fanboy, it's another do disseminate false or misleading information. People should be loyal to whatever works for them, but being misleading is just wrong.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Apr 27, 2010, 2:37 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
