High ISO

[Martin Kristiansen]

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

[Martin Kristiansen]

1250 ISO  Kathmandu also on the 1DS

[Two23]

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.   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

[Rob C]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

800 ISO!? Meh.

Xmas 51,200 ISO
Guitar 25,600
Drummer 20,000
Singer 12,800

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Windows 10,000 ISO
Skull 8,000
Girl 6,400
Miami 6,400

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Dave Rosser]

Got to reply to this thread    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

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Telecaster]

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. 

-Dave-

[Rob C]

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.

;-)

[D Fuller]

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).

[RSL]

+1

[fdisilvestro]

I prefer to limit the ISO to 1600 and adjust exposure in post.

Edit: and underexposing

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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?

[D Fuller]

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!

[langier]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Great stuff, Larry, especially coming from m43.

[langier]

Хвала, Слободан! I can always expect good images when I see one of your postings!

[Martin Kristiansen]

All I can say Larry is you nailed it.