The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

MF High ISO Image Thread

mtomalty

New member
Pretty scary looking at the image in separate R,G,and B channels, as well.

Did you deliberately delete the camera capture info or is CS4 not able to extract
file info from the P65+ Raws ?

Mark
 
I'm on my travels for a few days so won't be able to contribute until Monday.

I have a great test shot in mind lined up in low light... None of this namby pamby feline stuff at 50 billion Lux. ;-)

Nice shot there Stuart.

David
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Wanted to add one shot at ISO 800 with a 80mm at F4 but I had to push this a extra stop in C1 so effective ISO is 1600 with strong blue channel which is the worst for noise and still held on very well. In C1 luminance 0 and color noise 40. Not a lot . Again the P25 plus back
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Okay copied the settings from the previous one and applied the 1 stop push . Now when you get the deep shadows you start seeing the noise. This was shot at 2.8 with a 80mm . I guess these lenses can't do wide open. :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Any more color noise applied than I will start the smearing some. So you can get pretty high but you have to be careful and in this case the light was very low and went under a stop. Obviously no in Nikon territory but very respectable for a older back with 9 microns. I think the 6.8 and 6 microns sensors maybe better at the higher noise levels. The big trick is watching your backgrounds and when they get deep in the shadows than things start picking up with noise
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Looks good Guy. I agree about noise reduction -- color noise reduction does wonders, but I think luminance noise reduction almost always diminishes the quality of the image (unless you want smooth, detail-free photos). Also, I find that sharpening can be problematic with these high exposures...any sharpening just accentuates the noise without doing that much to the detail....at least capture sharpening anyway. Sharpening at the output size still works.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Really ran into a wall this week . Did a corporate gig and the lighting was just flat out low. I really pushed my back . I shot these on a monopod which I HIGHLY RECOMMEND . Shot with the 150 mm D lens at ISO 800 and 2.8 wide as she can go. BTW little tired how MF lenses CAN'T do wide open. Sorry that is some mythical idiot that can't shoot his way out of a paper bag that started this stupid logic. I honestly don't know where it came from but let them keep thinking that one out when we do it for real. Sorry i just keep breaking these limitations on a daily basis that some actually think exist. Now I am picking up some noise and especially the blue lighting since noise is the worst in this area but still very acceptable. Now ISO 1600 would have been handy here no doubt
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I really should have started with this image since this was the first speaker and in his infinite wisdom told the lighting guy to bring the lights to 25 percent and after he left the stage I made the lighting guy go back to 50 percent the top image. This one ISO 2.8 and it was a stop under so i had to pull the rabbit out of the hat to get a effective 1600 or more. Now this is in the dumpster as far as i was concerned shooting it and I shot some like this than pulled out the ultimate no no a Metz flash and covered my preverbal butt with a couple shots I knew would cut it. I heard about it later, trust me. But he put me out on a very thin tree limb and he was the CEO so I had to break the rules and get the shot but looking at it now it is not too bad and acceptable. To me I am over the limit but for there needs it works. I could probably play a little more in C1 and maybe bring it into D-Fine or Noise Ninja but that is extra work and when processing in a hotel on a laptop not something you really want to do
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
As you can see pushing it to 1600 or more it really might have been more at a 100 percent crop you can obviously see the noise
 

LJL

New member
Guy,
I think this worked, but honestly, I would think its utility to be marginal. Not saying you did not do your best part, just that even with all the pixels and ability to print large, this type of shot would not merit that consideration in my book. Again, not your lack of trying....just the overall result would limit its use. Now, if this is the only shot of this special speaker or something, then you got it, and that is all that matters.

To me, this seems like the perfect setting for a DSLR that has higher ISO capabilities. I know, I know, you would prefer to work with just one system, and I am with you on that part. But to take advantage of overall image use, it would need more DOF to get the podium (maybe), so f4-5.6 might not be out of the need zone here. I personally like the more isolated, shallow DOF myself, but just thinking about how the image might be used. So, going to ISO 1600 would give you one more stop, and that would help if it was clean (very low noise), but the 35mm DSLR shooting at ISO 1600, but f4 or 5.6 would probably yield a bit better shot....not as many overall pixels maybe, but something that would still hold its own for use. Just my opinion here. I love seeing the boundaries pushed and the "knowns" challenged, so keep after it.

LJ
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea this was the first time in a really long time i hit such low light levels and it was not fun. Any slower shutter speed which I could have done but 1/90 is about the slowest you can go without speaker blur. So this gig I hit a wall and pushes me into looking at a back that can do 1600 which i am looking into as we speak. Luckily this will be used small and mostly on screen stuff. So I got away with it but this was too close for comfort. BTW this guy was the absolute worst of it, the rest are fine
 

LJL

New member
Then not to worry. Run it through Dfine or whatever NR you use, sharpen it up a bit, and deliver a "Web ready" image for their use ;-)

The ISO 1600 seems like it is needed for folks like us that do shoot more challenging lower light stuff as much out of habit as is dictated by our business. (I do blame my needs as much on old PJ habits, and thus my other need for faster glass....but I digress.)

With respect to the client side of things....if they really wanted and needed images from the event, then they should be more flexible for lighting needs. Either they tolerate flash, or they need to crank up the lights more so that photogs can get good shots. Lower light ambiance is nice and all, but they need to understand the resulting product limitations and expectations. Yeah, another losing battle.....you can explain it to them, but you cannot understand it for them ;-)

LJ
 

Dale Allyn

New member
As you all say, I think we lose any "edge" that MF files might have when we have to work in low light like this last one. I'm not criticizing here at all, in fact I'm impressed that you achieved focus in such low light. I just think it illustrates how tough it is to do these kinds of events with MF. It seems like your clients can love your work with any modern DSLR file because they won't see the micro-stuff you see, but they will see noise and the more obvious stuff from MF in very low light, etc.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes you don't really need the MF stuff for this stuff but I still love shooting it and when i went for other stuff it is awesome and one reason is the file is well behaved and I don't have to screw with blown highlights and such as nearly as often. So one hand it is not good but on the other it is.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Also like to show the good the bad and the ugly. That is what this place is for , to learn from others.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I know, Guy, I agree. But if we can prod you to get a new DSLR kit it's almost as good as the rest of us going shopping for gear too! Except the bill never shows up for us.

:D

(Highlight control really is a fantastic benefit of MF.)
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
That 150mm really does a nice job wide open ... I personally don't mind the separation shooting that shallow with medium format produces. It puts the focus squarely on the speaker. But everyone's tastes are different.
 
Top