High ISO shooting

[Jeremy Payne]

Which Nikon? I don't know of any such, but I don't have any raw files from the D3S.

The shot I posted is a sample JPEG from Nikon of the D3s.  It has 'real' ISO up to 12,800 ... looks like 12,800 on the new one is as good as 6400 on the D3/700.

Whatever your definition of 'effective' is, I think Nikon pushed the sticks 1 stop down field with this new one.

[Panopeeper]

The shot I posted is a sample JPEG from Nikon of the D3s.  It has 'real' ISO up to 12,800 ... looks like 12,800 on the new one is as good as 6400 on the D3/700

The D3's highest real ISO setting is 6400. However, 6400 is not better than 3200 (it does not reduce the noise compared to 3200); that's what I call "ineffective".

I am very interested for the D3S, if its sensor is really relevantly better than the D3.

[BJL]

I suppose there are numerous examples for such development, right?

First, I used the word hypothetical, to show that I was not talking about actual sensors, but illustrating one way your claim fails to be a necessary, universal truth.
Secondly, my next paragraph, which you did not quote, suggested that there could be some degree of this in the well-size difference between CMOS and FF CCD.
Thirdly, my previous paragraph [edit] illustrated a more likely real word counterexample to your claim about better high ISO equals better DR at minimum ISO: higher QE.

[Ray]

This is BS. I suggest you to read thoroughly The Source Of Noise.

Higher ISO is less noisy than lower ISO with the same exposure....

Of course it is, but the purpose of using a higher ISO is to allow a shorter exposure, not the same exposure, assuming one abides by the principles of ETTR. Total read noise may be less at higher ISO, but the signal is also less by an even greater degree, resulting in image degradation.

[Ray]

That's even better. ISO 12800 underexposed and still a very usable noise related image.

This might also be a trick. It could be a full ETTR that has been pulled back in the RAW converter to make it appear as though it's underexposed.

[Panopeeper]

Of course it is, but the purpose of using a higher ISO is to allow a shorter exposure, not the same exposure, assuming one abides by the principles of ETTR

Just the opposite. Increasing the ISO while keeping the exposure is a way to achieve ETTR, when the exposure can not be increased.

[Ray]

Just the opposite. Increasing the ISO while keeping the exposure is a way to achieve ETTR, when the exposure can not be increased.

I've never come across a situation where the exposure cannot be increased. It may not be desirable to increase it. There may be unwanted consequences, but that's different from 'can not be increased'. Any exposure less than a full ETTR at base ISO will result in some image degradation whether significant or not.

[Daniel Browning]

I've never come across a situation where the exposure cannot be increased. It may not be desirable to increase it. There may be unwanted consequences, but that's different from 'can not be increased'.

As an aspiring pedant myself, I salute your impressive contribution here.

Any exposure less than a full ETTR at base ISO will result in some image degradation whether significant or not.

That's true. Increasing ISO improves SNR in the circumstance when it is "undesirable" to increase exposure, and there is still plenty of room on the histogram.

[eronald]

I know this OT, but I use hi-iso mostly to get decent shutter and aperture for handheld shots. And I like the sharp 1600 ISO daylight shots the D3x is giving me - which I cannot get from digital MF 80% of the year (morning, sunset spring, autumn, winter). In sunny summer weather MF blows anything else away. I guess for nights I should have a D3s

Edmund

[Ray]

As an aspiring pedant myself, I salute your impressive contribution here.



That's true. Increasing ISO improves SNR in the circumstance when it is "undesirable" to increase exposure, and there is still plenty of room on the histogram.

Not with all models and makes of digital cameras. Many MFDBs will produce as good a result underexposed at base ISO as a full ETTR at a higher ISO using the same exposure. I recall Edmund once stated he was actually getting slightly better results with a P45+ when underexposing 3 stops at ISO 100 (or maybe that was ISO 50) instead of a full ETTR at ISO 800 (or 400).

However, one method of ensuring no reduction in SNR in circumstances where a fast shutter speed is required, is to sacrifice DoF and stop up, provided one is not already using maximum aperture, of course.

Juggling these 3 variables can sometimes be a problem which is why I appreciate the Nikon approach of ISO bracketing.  In manual mode you set the aperture you think will produced the desired DoF, the shutter speed you think will be sufficient to freeze any movement of the subject or camera, and then bracket ISO for a perfect ETTR.

[dwdallam]

I use hi-iso mostly to get decent shutter and aperture for handheld shots.

Edmund

Ditto! Except with the 1DS MK III I don't like going over ISO800, underexposed one stop max.

[bjanes]

Not with all models and makes of digital cameras. Many MFDBs will produce as good a result underexposed at base ISO as a full ETTR at a higher ISO using the same exposure. I recall Edmund once stated he was actually getting slightly better results with a P45+ when underexposing 3 stops at ISO 100 (or maybe that was ISO 50) instead of a full ETTR at ISO 800 (or 400).

Which means that it is the exposure and not the appearance of the histogram that is the critical factor here. Micheal's original ETTR essay stressed that by exposing to the right, one made use of the increased number of levels in the upper reaches of the histogram, but the real rationale of ETTR has to do with the improved signal to noise ratio with increasing exposure which was also mentioned by Michael and explained in detail by Emil Martinec. In the case discussed by Ray above, the histogram at base ISO would be to the left, but the image quality would be the same as with higher ISO where the histogram would be to the right.

With dSLRs, the situation is more complex, since readout noise is highest at base ISO and decreases as the ISO is increased, at least up to a certain point. As Emil explains, with the Canon 1D3 one gets basically the same results at ISO 1600 as with ISO 3200, and the higher ISO serves only to limit headroom for the highlights. With this camera, read noise approaches a minimum asymptotically and the curve is relatively flat beyond ISO 1600.  Below that ISO, it makes sense to increase the ISO when shooting constraints prevent full exposure at base ISO. Increasing the ISO up to a certain point improves the appearance of the histogram, but the improved S:N is due to decreased read noise and the appearance of the histogram is only coincidental.

The increased readout noise at base ISO with dSLRs has to do with amplifier noise as Emil explains. With the CCDs used in MFDBs, the amplification and analog to digital conversion is done off chip by separate components and it is possible that the MFDB maker may be able to improve performance by using higher quality amplifiers and ADCs. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) of an ADC is limited by the bit depth as explained here. By using a 16 bit ADC at a lower readout rate (it is diffucult to design a high bit ADC that also has a high readout rate), the MFDB maker could improve performance.

[BJL]

Not with all models and makes of digital cameras. Many MFDBs will produce as good a result underexposed at base ISO as a full ETTR at a higher ISO using the same exposure.

The main noise control advantages of higher sensitivity ("ISO") at equal exposure seems to come from applying greater gain in the analog signal processing, not from a "bit shifting" brightness adjustment in the digital domain. However, I believe that many MFDB's do most or all sensitivity adjustment in the digital domain, and so miss a good part of the ETTR advantage.

One hint is that I have not seen an ISO speed range or range of usable gain factors in the spec's for Kodak and Dalsa FF CCD sensors, even though those sensors come in packages that include amplifiers. But maybe I need to read more closely.

[250swb]

The truth is that technical advances raise the bar of what a competent photographer can achieve, and anyone who is content to merely do what he has always done the same way he always has deserves to be left behind.

But this assumes photography automatically gets better each time a new camera is introduced with more features, which for anybody with half an ounce of the grey cells knows is bullshit. In fact its so much bullshit its hard to know where to start by pointing out the flaws in the 'argument'.

But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see. But if you assume photography is an art that is a measure of self expression then it doesn't matter what the latest camera can do, because you take yourself forward in whatever aspect of photography you are exploring, be it via a P&S or a 8x10. But if you assume the latest camera raises your bar, then you are only responding like a lab rat experiment, where the stimulus is the reason to act, a patsy in other words, waiting for outside impetus to activate the ability to make a photograph. Thats not being a photographer, thats waiting for orders.

Steve

[Ray]

But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see.

Are you referring to infra-red photography? If so, then that would be a feature which one would have the choice of using in circumstances where one might want to know more than one can see, or simply to create a particular 'effect'. It really has nothing to do with usurping the intellect, but rather extending the intellect. We send a Hubble Telescope into space so that we can see what we cannot see with a telescope on the ground.

I hardly think we are anywhere near being able to produce a camera so sensitive that it will record the light spectrum of normal vision in circumstances where the eye sees darkness. The eye has an adjustable pupil which dilates almost instantly to take in more detail in the darker parts of a scene, then contracts almost instantly as one's gaze shifts to a brighter part of the scene, such as a street lamp at night. The camera struggles to capture the entire scene with a fixed aperture.

However, it is very true that the camera already may capture more detail that one noticed at the time the shot was taken, which of course is different from 'more detail than one is able to see'.

The fact is, computers and computerised gadgets often have far more features than one is interested in using. Many such features are described as bells & whistles. But some features, such as high ISO capability are tremendously useful technological improvements. One should be aware of the features of one's camera and their potential use. There's no choice available if you are not aware.

[BernardLanguillier]

But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see. But if you assume photography is an art that is a measure of self expression then it doesn't matter what the latest camera can do, because you take yourself forward in whatever aspect of photography you are exploring, be it via a P&S or a 8x10. But if you assume the latest camera raises your bar, then you are only responding like a lab rat experiment, where the stimulus is the reason to act, a patsy in other words, waiting for outside impetus to activate the ability to make a photograph. Thats not being a photographer, thats waiting for orders.

Well, it is a known phenomena that we, sheeps, always end up focusing on the grass that is right on the opposite side of the fence, isn't it?

Now to be fair, it is true that photographic vision should drive the content of what we do, and there are enough cameras outthere already to enable amazing creativity without waiting for the next stuff, but there are indeed valid photographic applications that do benefit from various technical enhancements.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RobertJ]

Let's not forget about how important high ISO performance is for VIDEO.  The performance of Canon's high ISO for motion is probably the best performance so far at 1080P (even better now with the 1D4, but yeah, it doesn't shoot 4K video ).

In terms of stills photography, I personally have my camera locked at ISO 50 or 100, but that's because I create my own light.

There is good photography to be done with High ISOs, but I am mostly seeing blurry, detail-less images that are generally free of only CHROMINANCE noise (cough, Nikon's secret to JPG processing, cough) and are "pretty clean for ISO 100048448585483898459889.  Wow!"

[250swb]

Are you referring to infra-red photography?

No.

I'm refering to such things as the new Nikon D3s with the possibility of 102,400 ISO. So if you go back and read what I wrote in the context of what I thought we were talking about (new high ISO cameras) it may be clearer for you.

At such high ISO what the human eye see's is exceeded by what the camera is able to record. True, look hard enough at a dark scene and all sorts of detail starts to be seen by the eye. But it isn't immediately avialable to the eye, which needs to become accustomed to the dark, yet the high ISO camera becomes an instant 'super-eye', able to record what we don't see. So the question is does this take the photographers art any further (other than being a snooper or in MI5 or the CIA), or is the photographer a patsy waiting for new developments in a lab to further his development in the field? Who will you be communicating with as a photographer if there is no human limitation in the photograph, other than to exhibit otherwise unseen aspects of natural history, or in surviellence work? High ISO images will be a sideline in photography just as Man Ray's solarization experiments were, because other than a technique it is devoid of human relevence, or what people really see.

Steve

[Ray]

At such high ISO what the human eye see's is exceeded by what the camera is able to record. True, look hard enough at a dark scene and all sorts of detail starts to be seen by the eye. But it isn't immediately avialable to the eye, which needs to become accustomed to the dark, yet the high ISO camera becomes an instant 'super-eye', able to record what we don't see. So the question is does this take the photographers art any further (other than being a snooper or in MI5 or the CIA), or is the photographer a patsy waiting for new developments in a lab to further his development in the field? Who will you be communicating with as a photographer if there is no human limitation in the photograph, other than to exhibit otherwise unseen aspects of natural history, or in surviellence work? High ISO images will be a sideline in photography just as Man Ray's solarization experiments were, because other than a technique it is devoid of human relevence, or what people really see.

Steve

No. You are creating problems where none exist. It's true the eye takes a while to adjust to extremes of changes in brightness, such as entering a dark room from a well-lit room, or when coming out of a theatre into bright sunlight. However, once that broad adjustment has taken place, the eye will respond almost immediately to less extreme changes in brightness within a particular scene.

The idea that a photographer would enter a dark room and feel compelled to start shooting before his eyes had adjusted to the lighting conditions simply because his camera had a high ISO facility, is absurd. If you need to take photos of scenes that are so dark you can't see what's going on, then a good, external flash unit is a better tool.

The usual processes for photographers are to shoot what they see. The high ISO capability of cameras like the D3s simply allow the photographer to get a sharper and better image when poor lighting conditions, combined with subject or camera movement, require a fast shutter speed.

The real benefit of the high ISO capability of cameras like the D3 and the D3s is not so much that one can take noisy shots lacking in detail at ISO 12,800, (then claim it's not too bad considering it's ISO 12,800) but take reasonably sharp and clean shots at more moderate ISOs of 1600 and 3200 that don't need to be excused..

The image degradation (lack of fine detail, noise on smooth skin etc) in the D3s samples at Imaging Resources, taken at ISO 8,000 and 10,000, is quite apparent.

[Jonathan Wienke]

But this assumes photography automatically gets better each time a new camera is introduced with more features, which for anybody with half an ounce of the grey cells knows is bullshit. In fact its so much bullshit its hard to know where to start by pointing out the flaws in the 'argument'.

Your arguing against a strawman here.  Just because a camera has some new capability is no guarantee that any given photographer will use that feature or capability competently. I've said as much more than once; go back and read my previous posts again.

But put in simple terms, if you assume photography is simply the ability to record the real world as accurately as possible, then high ISO ability is usurping your intellect, because it can record more than you see.

I have never said or implied any such thing. High ISO capability is simply another creative tool that a skilled photographer can use to shoot under conditions that previously disallowed photography.

But if you assume photography is an art that is a measure of self expression then it doesn't matter what the latest camera can do, because you take yourself forward in whatever aspect of photography you are exploring, be it via a P&S or a 8x10.

The camera ALWAYS matters. Try capturing a dancer in mid-leap, or shooting insect macros with an 8x10 view camera. You'll quickly discover it is far from the ideal tool for the task. If your chosen artistic genre is urban street shooting at night, high-ISO capability is essential, as is fast glass. The capabilities of the equipment are an integral part of realizing the artistic/creative vision. This true of every profession that relies equipment to accomplish a goal; you don't see too many Ford Festivas competing on the Formula One race circuit. No matter how skilled the driver may be, a Festiva is never going to seriously challenge a Formula One race car when the Formula One car is being driven by a competent driver. And no matter how skilled the photographer, shooting insect macros with an 8x10 is not going to deliver particularly good results.

But if you assume the latest camera raises your bar, then you are only responding like a lab rat experiment, where the stimulus is the reason to act, a patsy in other words, waiting for outside impetus to activate the ability to make a photograph. Thats not being a photographer, thats waiting for orders.

You're raising more strawman bullshit here. As I've said several times, increasing a camera's capabilities increases the ways in which the camera may be used to achieve one's creative vision. But it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the photographer to use his tools' capabilities intelligently and creatively. Giving a bad photographer a state-of-the-art camera will not guarantee good results any more than giving a bad writer a word processor instead of a manual typewriter. But a good writer can express his creativity through the word processor with less hassle and frustration than the typewriter; it may only take him two days to write a chapter instead of five.

The ultimate flaw in your argument is that you have no basis for decisively defining how much camera capability is "enough". Is ISO 400 enough for a Real Photographer®, or should we draw the line at 100? Maybe 100 is too much of a crutch; should we draw the line at 25, or 10, or 1? What about viewfinder technology? Is an optical viewfinder OK, or should Real Photographers® be limited to upside-down images on ground glass? Or a rangefinder? Is film OK, or should Real Photographers® use hand-coated glass plates? What about lenses? Should they be allowed, or should Real Photographers® limit themselves to pinholes?

Then there's the small matter of who died and put you in charge of deciding which photographers need what capabilities? Who the hell are you to judge the merits of any other photographer's choice of tools, or whether they are using them effectively to achieve their creative vision?