Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Martin Kristiansen on September 08, 2018, 08:52:28 am
-
As a film shooter for over 20 years it was all very exciting when DSLR cameras moved to CMOS and high ISO capabilities began to surface. The Canon 1DS had I think a maximum iso of of 1600 and by todays standards was truly appalling. But by film standards it was incredible. Way higher speed than TriX and the noise was much lower than any film I had seen at those high speed ratings. No reciprocity to deal with so detail was available into the department shadows.
Of course by todays standards what the 1DS had to over was really awful. Today what can be done with IBIS, fast lenses and High ISO is really wonderful. I was expecting to go out in all sorts of conditions and times of the night and shoot stuff I had never shot before. It didn't happen. I still tend to stubbornly shoot low ISO and seldom venture over 800 other than when doing tests.
I started looking around and noticed I wasn't seeing much shot at these very high ISO's. I understand that we all want best quality but what about stuff that happens after dark, and in dark places? Why not keep shooting? Tripods aren't always practical, sometimes we want to shoot at faster shutter speeds to freeze movement. I recently looked at some images shot by Weegee. Yes with flash but with slow sheets of film. Some fascinating images. Better than much of what I am seeing today.
So lets see what people are doing. Images shot at over 800 ISO lets say but the higher the better. Stuff we couldn't easily shoot 10 or 20 years ago. I don't care what genre, colour or monotone. I don't care if noise reduction was used or not.
The image below was shot hand held in a monastery in Tibet on the original 1DS. 800 ISO. Prints very well to A2
-
1250 ISO Kathmandu also on the 1DS
-
I started looking around and noticed I wasn't seeing much shot at these very high ISO's. I understand that we all want best quality but what about stuff that happens after dark, and in dark places? Why not keep shooting? Tripods aren't always practical, sometimes we want to shoot at faster shutter speeds to freeze movement. I recently looked at some images shot by Weegee. Yes with flash but with slow sheets of film. Some fascinating images. Better than much of what I am seeing today.
I'm often still using camera gear from before WW2, and really most of what I photo doesn't move so shutter speed really doesn't matter. I've taken shots at night with a 1904 Kodak Brownie using Ilford FP4, ISO 125, f16, 5s. My "special niche" is shooting trains at night, and those move pretty fast. Put me in the "Weegee" camp though--I use flash. I have up to 10,000ws at my disposal. :D Almost always I shoot that at ISO 800. There are a few times I do need ISO higher than 1600 even with my set of mostly f1.4 lenses. I will dial it up as needed on my D800E, mostly as a last resort though.
Kent in SD
1. Jasper, MN. Kodak Brownie & FP4 ISO 125
2. Flandreau, SD. D7100, ISO 3200
3. Manley, MN D800E & flash, ISO 800
-
Martin, I think there may be a connection between pre-digital photographers using digital, and a possible lack of the use of high ISO.
Could it be that we still tend to think in film-possible terms? Or is it that we might be conditioned to expect a dark place to look dark, even in a photograph? To make it otherwise is to strip it of its own ambience, the very thing that drives us to soot it in the first place. We have all seen bright pictures of nighclubs; most of the ones that the younger I visited were never bright to the level that you could see anyone too clearly. One of the principal purposes of nightclubs is to ensure that you go home with a 10 and wake up with what turns out to have been a 3, at best. All the 9s and 10s are pre-booked; especially the 35-24-36 ones. We shoud know that, or have Mum explain it to us early on in life; Dad would be hopeless at such facts of life stuff; by gender definition, too optimistic.
In the spìrit of knowing better next time - a pointless hope? - I think that making pìctures look like they were shot in daylight when they are not is silly, and most decidedly counterproductive. Going the opposite way can work quite nicely.
Rob
-
800 ISO!? Meh.
Xmas 51,200 ISO
Guitar 25,600
Drummer 20,000
Singer 12,800
-
Windows 10,000 ISO
Skull 8,000
Girl 6,400
Miami 6,400
-
Some interesting images Slobodan. And brave with the high ISO. Exactly what I was hoping to see.
Rob I agree totally with what you say about film shooters being less brave with the ISO. Even more so regarding dark places needing to look dark. I tend to like the shadows to hold less colour as well. Something to do with us not having colour vision below a certain luminance level. Sometimes I use a mask and desaturated shadow areas.
-
Got to reply to this thread 8) I've put in three pictures taken in the late 1960's all squeezing more than 800ASA out of film. The cowboy one was taken with kodak 2475 recording film and the others 2 film shots with heavily pushed Tri-X or Ilford HPS. The colour one was taken with a Fuji XPro1, 23mm f/1.4, 1/60 sec f/1.6, ISO3200
-
Well that’s interesting. I was wondering why we are seeing so few images shot on digital at high ISO and now it seems the film guys are far more prepared to take risks with this than digital even though digital is actually far ahead of film in this regard.
It seems to me digital really is driven by technical quality and less by a desire to experiment and focus on content. That is of course a broad generalization.
-
Here's a handheld pic I took of the partial lunar eclipse on 27 September 2015. ISO 51200. I was about to give up due to cloud cover, but then the sky cleared just enough for ~40 seconds.
I used to take lots of high ISO photos when cameras/sensors were noisier. They're mostly too clean nowadays. :D
-Dave-
-
Well that’s interesting. I was wondering why we are seeing so few images shot on digital at high ISO and now it seems the film guys are far more prepared to take risks with this than digital even though digital is actually far ahead of film in this regard.
It seems to me digital really is driven by technical quality and less by a desire to experiment and focus on content. That is of course a broad generalization.
And digital conversation is almost exclusively about tech. too.
Perhaps it's because film was basically simple to understand, with not a heap to chat about unless you were a developer-type-testing compulsive, whereas digital has so many more internal games people can play whilst sitting at the computer. The content gets pushed aside in honour of the games available. The solution - if there is one - is to make your camera as close to manual as you can and let it doze with one eye open whilst you work. That one eye, allowed mine, is auto ISO. Maybe it's a benefit of Nikon's Matrix being so hot.
;-)
-
Martin, I think there may be a connection between pre-digital photographers using digital, and a possible lack of the use of high ISO..
....
I think that making pìctures look like they were shot in daylight when they are not is silly, and most decidedly counterproductive. Going the opposite way can work quite nicely.
Rob
Ah, Rob, you happen on one of my pet peeves! Images made of dark things that look like they're under Kleig lights. They do look silly. And most often, ugly. The take on the look of surveillance cameras—which is, I suppose, a creative option, but certainly wouldn’t be my choice.
What is wrong with darkness? My whole life I’ve admired the way photographers like Gene Smith let large areas of an image be dark, but put a world of meaning into the bits the light struck—and they did it all wit( about 7 stops of DR. Now we have 13 stops or so, and we can’t seem to let one of them be black.
ETTR is going to kill photography if photographers don’t learn to PTTL (print to the left).
-
+1
-
I prefer to limit the ISO to 1600 and adjust exposure in post.
Edit: and underexposing
-
Ah, Rob, you happen on one of my pet peeves! Images made of dark things that look like they're under Kleig lights. They do look silly. And most often, ugly...
Which of the pics posted so far fall into that category?
-
Which of the pics posted so far fall into that category?
None of them, and I wasn’t implying that they were. But the internet’s are a treasure trove of pics by people”testing” their new high iso cameras with shots of the neighborhood nighttime block party exposed as if it were high noon!
-
The high iso of digital has brought to me "Hail Mary Lighting" down to size. For years using film, it was an occasional hit and many misses. Even with the small, quiet M43, it is spectacular compared to the best films from 20 years ago. And though I love the high-iso quality of the files of my D3s & other Nikons, it's large, loud, and heavy after a few hours. They just don't travel as well as my m43 and are much more intimidating and disruptive where I now shoot. Digital and high-iso capability has opened up the dark and an entire new world I could barely scratch not too many years ago.
Greece, ISO 3200. Panasonic GX7
Jackson, Calif, ISO 2500, Olympus 5-II
Third Lake, Ill, ISO 4000, Olympus 5-II
Jackson, Calif. ISO 12,800, Olympus 5-II
-
Great stuff, Larry, especially coming from m43.
-
Хвала, Слободан! I can always expect good images when I see one of your postings!
-
All I can say Larry is you nailed it.
-
Projection over a building, photo taken during Melbourne White Night last February.
ISO 3200 + 1.5 Stop exposure adjustment in LR (equivalent to ~9000)
-
Park station central Johannesburg. People waiting for a bus. Long distance busses run all the up to the Congo from Park Station. A harrowing three or four day journey. This was shot on a Sony APSC at 1600 ISO.
-
Great stuff, Larry, especially coming from m43.
Very nice. Some of them even look like they were taken in another time.
JR
-
Thanks Martin & John!
Indeed, they were taken on a different track of time. It's part of my lifetime of blessings to be able to witness my faith.
Do they have noise and other image degradation? You bet. But, it's about pictures, not pixels. Emotion trumps the technique, but when they come together to create a synaxis...
Here's three more from this year in California, Olympus 5-II with the Oly 12-40 and Panasonic 35-100. Blending in the background and reverent silence was key. Had to fight for every photon at ISO 12,800... then there was the candles "burning out" and off the scale... Thank goodness for IBIS and nearly 45 years of practice! :-)
-
Larry, these really are wonderful photos.
-Dave-
-
Larry, these really are wonderful photos.
-Dave-
Yes, they are.
-
Thanks Dave & Eric!
-
Another very lovely set of images. Exactly the kind of work I was hoping to see. I like the execution and the subject matter.
-
I was traveling for work last week and for our client events, I'm the default photographer. I like doing it and it gives me something to do besides drink and schmooze which both can become tiresome.
These were shot at ISO 6400 at our Luau themed client event. The K-1 mk2 is definitely the best high ISO shooter I have used. Handy for when I need it although I don't shoot above 1600 all that often unless I'm shooting starscapes or something like this without a flash.
I also agree that for the most part, dark photos should look dark!
-
I was scouting for viewpoints in Miami. Finding a parking spot took much longer than anticipated, so I ended up running around, shooting handheld, with no time to set up a tripod. Hence the ISO 2500:
-
I posted this one earlier in the User Critique forum, without mentioning that it was taken at ISO 10,000:
-
More often my higher ISOs happen for shots like this selfie. 3200 here.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/850/42171102560_964bfa6a1f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27fvVzb)IMGP7107-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/27fvVzb) by Matt Burt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbnet/), on Flickr
-
Some really good images I think Slobadan. I remember the portrait you posted on the other thread. I like it very much.
Astro I have never really tried. Driving up to Botswana and Zimbabwe next week. Enetering the rainy season now but if it’s clear I should give it a go.
-
I prefer to limit the ISO to 1600 and adjust exposure in post.
Edit: and underexposing
I agree. Pushing the ISO beyond that, most likely achieves nothing else than reducing the dynamic range and amplifying noise.
Underexposing (and pushing in postprocessing) allows to keep exposure times short, and improve the exposure headroom for highlights (typically a lot of those under low-light conditions).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I prefer to limit the ISO to 1600 and adjust exposure in post.
Edit: and underexposing
It isn't at all possible to adjust exposure in post. Exposure takes place at time of capture alone and is the sole attribute of how much light (photons) strike the sensor based on shutter and aperture.
You can adjust brightness in post.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=56906.new%23new
In terms of ISO (high or otherwise), this is a necessary read:
https://photographylife.com/iso-invariance-explained
-
Park station central Johannesburg. People waiting for a bus. Long distance busses run all the up to the Congo from Park Station. A harrowing three or four day journey. This was shot on a Sony APSC at 1600 ISO.
Like this one!
-
It isn't at all possible to adjust exposure in post. Exposure takes place at time of capture alone and is the sole attribute of how much light (photons) strike the sensor based on shutter and aperture.
You can adjust brightness in post.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=56906.new%23new
In terms of ISO (high or otherwise), this is a necessary read:
https://photographylife.com/iso-invariance-explained
ISO invariance is the key, yes.
-
It isn't at all possible to adjust exposure in post.
But then, why is the slider control of the Raw converter labeled as such? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
But then, why is the slider control labeled as such? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6172.S_ren_Kierkegaard)
;)
-
There's another problem: some people have always believed that they magically up the ASA of film by exposing at a higher rating. They never do. They get an underexposed latent image. All they do with pushed processing is overdevelop the highlights and add nothing to the shadows other than push them into higher contrast. You don't record what the film can't sense. You can only screw with what it has caught, and generally not very nicely.
If blocked highlights are your thing, empty shadows turn you on, then way to go!
-
I used to work with Fuji NPH and for night shots I used a aperture of f8 and exposed about 4 minutes. As long as highlights were kept out of the frame, the results were often stunning. Playing with a blue filtered speed light made it complete.
-
I used to work with Fuji NPH and for night shots I used a aperture of f8 and exposed about 4 minutes. As long as highlights were kept out of the frame, the results were often stunning. Playing with a blue filtered speed light made it complete.
And why not? As long as you expose enough you shouldn't have a problem with the shadows.
-
And why not? As long as you expose enough you shouldn't have a problem with the shadows.
Yep
And the nice thing was to walk over the scene and flash left and right. Thanks to the slowness of the film only the flashed area appeared on the negative and not the operator.
-
There's another problem: some people have always believed that they magically up the ASA of film by exposing at a higher rating. They never do. They get an underexposed latent image. All they do with pushed processing is overdevelop the highlights and add nothing to the shadows other than push them into higher contrast. You don't record what the film can't sense. You can only screw with what it has caught, and generally not very nicely.
If blocked highlights are your thing, empty shadows turn you on, then way to go!
If my memory is correct.
C41 is different. I pushed it not by longer development but developed at a higher temperature
-
If my memory is correct.
C41 is different. I pushed it not by longer development but developed at a higher temperature
All the colour work I did was at the maker's recommended speed and times and temps. The one thing we wanted from colour darkrooms was consistency to a known standard. The most colour negative I dealt with was when I worked in engineering; out in commercial life it was almost exclusively transparency work. It made no sense to run my own colour line. The few times I had to offer prints were terrible experiences for me because, as I'd pretty much run the engineering company's colour department on my own, I knew that commercial labs worked to a thin margin, and would not go that extra colour filtration test beyond their budget, whatever that was.
I detested working with external suppliers of photographic services, but when it came to big prints, there was no alternative for me.