Phase at hi-ISO

[eronald]

Hi Folks,

 I have been playing with underexposing my brand new *replacement* Phase One back.

 It actually tolerates extreme underexposure pretty well. I've recovered imagery from what the camera meter said was 6 stops under at ISO 400 (!) although I'd rate it at 3-4 stops under only.

 Although indications are one can go pretty far down and have usable pictures, it would seem that ISO 1600 is better reached by underexposing ISO 100 than by underexposing from ISO 400.

 Am I reading this right ? Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

 I like push and underexposure, it's a creative choice. I think I do realize that images taken at ISO 3200 with a dialed down 2400 degree K halogen light will not compete with ISO 50 captures taken with studio flash, but somewhere in between comes the idea of shooting with modeling lights only ...

 When I was a kid I would push, push, push my self-loaded HP3 film, and you know what thet say about the difference between men and boys

 I learnt photography using antique travel compact view cameras intended for glass plates -I had a supply of such cameras, and replacement film holders, contact frames, and no enlarger- and somehow the "look" of MF brings me back to those days

Edmund

[Panopeeper]

I've recovered imagery from what the camera meter said was 6 stops under at ISO 400 (!) although I'd rate it at 3-4 stops under only

Finally, you admit it  

[Ray]

Although indications are one can go pretty far down and have usable pictures, it would seem that ISO 1600 is better reached by underexposing ISO 100 than by underexposing from ISO 400.

 Am I reading this right ? Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund,
I find it a bit odd that underexposing ISO 100 by 4 stops should give a better result than underexposing ISO 400 by 2 stops. But, whatever works best....

Whenever I've compared RAW converters for highlight recovery (with Canon DSLRs), Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser, RSP, C1 lite, I've always found ACR to be at least marginally better and sometimes significantly better, although the comparison with C1 was done some years ago. As I recall, C1 provided marginally more detail elswhere in the image, but not in the recovered highlights.

Sorry, just realised that's irrelevant. You're underexposing, not overexposing   .

[clawery]

Edmund,

There was an earlier thread that Steve Cole had written in about high ISO shooting.  He has/ had a P30 (non P+ at the time) and was shooting at 800 ISO and getting great results.  He would do all his sharpening and tweeking in post.  I tried to find the thread, but couldn't find it.  You could PM him offline and ask him his workflow.

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com

[PatrikR]

I like push and underexposure, it's a creative choice. I think I do realize that images taken at ISO 3200 with a dialed down 2400 degree K halogen light will not compete with ISO 50 captures taken with studio flash, but somewhere in between comes the idea of shooting with modeling lights only ...

When I was a kid I would push, push, push my self-loaded HP3 film, and you know what thet say about the difference between men and boys

 I learnt photography using antique travel compact view cameras intended for glass plates -I had a supply of such cameras, and replacement film holders, contact frames, and no enlarger- and somehow the "look" of MF brings me back to those days

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good to hear that it works now great but do you really need a 40.000 euro kit for this? Are clients actually paying for this "style"?

I'm a bit confused. I would execute all gimmickry in post rather than in camera. But of course your money and your call.

[Natasa Stojsic]

Hi Folks,

 I have been playing with underexposing my brand new *replacement* Phase One back.

 It actually tolerates extreme underexposure pretty well. I've recovered imagery from what the camera meter said was 6 stops under at ISO 400 (!) although I'd rate it at 3-4 stops under only.

 Although indications are one can go pretty far down and have usable pictures, it would seem that ISO 1600 is better reached by underexposing ISO 100 than by underexposing from ISO 400.

 Am I reading this right ? Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

 I like push and underexposure, it's a creative choice. I think I do realize that images taken at ISO 3200 with a dialed down 2400 degree K halogen light will not compete with ISO 50 captures taken with studio flash, but somewhere in between comes the idea of shooting with modeling lights only ...

 When I was a kid I would push, push, push my self-loaded HP3 film, and you know what thet say about the difference between men and boys

 I learnt photography using antique travel compact view cameras intended for glass plates -I had a supply of such cameras, and replacement film holders, contact frames, and no enlarger- and somehow the "look" of MF brings me back to those days

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes Edmund,

but where are the images?

[eronald]

Yes Edmund,

but where are the images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

None yet, of course

At the moment I can run the usual images of my bookshelf

I don't think I will be doing any non-personal photography for several months now, as I'm going into one of my maths modes writing some profiling software.


Edmund

[eronald]

Finally, you admit it 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why shouldn't I admit it ? When the camera is ok, it works great  
Look at my smile !

Edmund