Just going thru some older images, and I came across this one. I had forgotten this was shot at ISO 800, but it was. This image really prints wonderfully, nice color and detail. I have a MF ISO 400 shot from this exact same location, and the D2X shot at ISO 800 makes the MF look like crap. I had posted this about a year ago I think, but thought maybe someone would be interested.
... Indeed, the bane of digital noise is good exposure. I'm generally pushing the envelope a little just for that reason
Yes, an excellent shot indeed! I find that if you nail exposure, ISO 800 (and higher) on the D2X is excellent with little noise. Jack's shot just show us what this camera can do in the hands of a capable photographer!
Great shot Jack. But let's be realistic...an ISO 800 photo in a perfectly lit situation that doesn't even call for ISO 800, really doesn't prove much. We've all shot or at least seen the lilly white guy and dark skin black guy under the hoop in a poorly lit high school gym shot at ISO 800+ and no matter how you slice it, out of the camera...it ain't pretty.
As a newspaper staffer and longtime Nikon user myself, I simply accept the fact that they generally just don't perform all that well under low light conditions...even with spot on exposure. Yes, some situations will look better than others...but for the most part, I just use Noise Ninja or strobes and call it a day.
I think the D2X is usable at ISO 800 as long as the exposure is good. Here's a 100% crop from a recent shot in available light, 50mm f/1.4 wide open, hand-held, ISO 800. I did't apply any noise reduction in post, but in-camera high-ISO noise reduction was set to normal. I think this shot is quite useable, especially if one doesn't intend to make a wall-sized print.
Ray C. wrote:
Great shot Jack. But let's be realistic...an ISO 800 photo in a perfectly lit situation that doesn't even call for ISO 800, really doesn't prove much. We've all shot or at least seen the lilly white guy and dark skin black guy under the hoop in a poorly lit high school gym shot at ISO 800+ and no matter how you slice it, out of the camera...it ain't pretty.
As a newspaper staffer and longtime Nikon user myself, I simply accept the fact that they generally just don't perform all that well under low light conditions...even with spot on exposure. Yes, some situations will look better than others...but for the most part, I just use Noise Ninja or strobes and call it a day. ...Show more →
Sorry Ray, but it's just as realistic to require high ISO for stopping action as it is for you to require it in a dimly lit venue (it's a shutter speed thing). So, I am being realistic, because these images wind up being large prints and the camera delivers. Not trying to "prove" anything, just trying to demonstrate what the camera can do.
Most of the "bad" high ISO shots I've seen were not "spot on" exposures, even though the person that took them would argue the point. I have ISO 3200 shots taken in a dimly lit room, and they do look quite good, comparitively speaking. I seem to be able to get by with Captures NR, and haven't had to break out the Ninja's yet. Not that it won't be necessary from time to time.
mdborland wrote:
I think the D2X is usable at ISO 800 as long as the exposure is good. Here's a 100% crop from a recent shot in available light, 50mm f/1.4 wide open, hand-held, ISO 800. I did't apply any noise reduction in post, but in-camera high-ISO noise reduction was set to normal. I think this shot is quite useable, especially if one doesn't intend to make a wall-sized print.
--Michael
Michael, good exposure is certainly key to higher ISO shots. FWIW, I have ISO 100 shots that are not usable, because they were underexposed. From my experience, and for whatever reason, I think you must be even more careful with exposure when in dimly lit places, e.g., it's extremely hard for a meter to average a scene when there's dark shadows and very bright lights.
You my be surprised just how well shots like this will print
I simply accept the fact that they generally just don't perform all that well under low light conditions...even with spot on exposure. Yes, some situations will look better than others...but for the most part, I just use Noise Ninja or strobes and call it a day.
Ray, by "they" I take it you are including Tri-X, Ektachrome 200 or 400, and any other film that had a higher ISO than about 180? I hope so, because I have book after book after book that has images shot in full daylight that used the above mentioned films and they too had grain structure. Where they differ from Jack's image, is that the FILM had MUCH more grain structure at ISO 400 than the X does at 800. So, if Jack WAS trying to prove anything, my suspicion would be that the X handles better than many films at twice many film's ISO's. If that is what he wanted to prove, I'd go along with it.
Regardless though, why was ok for high speed film to have noticeable grain structure in the printed image, but not digital? Should we perhaps be calling this "The Plastic Age" instead of "The Digital Age"?? Not sure for my landscape work I'd want plastic images to be honest. Hhhhmmmnn.
Nice shot Jack. I do remember that one, and it's nice to see it again .
is that the FILM had MUCH more grain structure at ISO 400
Glenn:
Yes! Those of us who came from film clearly understand this.
Jack:
Keep them coming! When John started publishing his fantastic steam engine images, I started to get more interested. Then you (in particular) keep giving us truly wonderful shots. All of this has me planning a trip out to the "Loop" in Tehachapi, CA just to shoot trains. (I drove through there yesterday, but it was raining hard above 2,000' elevation)
Glenn01 wrote:
Nice shot Jack. I do remember that one, and it's nice to see it again .
Glenn
Thanks Dude Check your mail
I've got two photo mags, and there's an article in each one about grain/noise. In one mag, the guy is saying that "if there's noise in your picture, there's something wrong with your camera. It's something that's not in the original scene, so it's wrong to have it there". In the other mag, the guy was talking about film grain vs digital noise, and he says, "hey, it looks good if dealt with properly. Deal with it". Man, we be so crazy.
I'm just tickled spitless that we have what we have, and I actually get to SELL these things. It totally amazes me.
Marc Kurth wrote:
Glenn:
Yes! Those of us who came from film clearly understand this.
Jack:
Keep them coming! When John started publishing his fantastic steam engine images, I started to get more interested. Then you (in particular) keep giving us truly wonderful shots. All of this has me planning a trip out to the "Loop" in Tehachapi, CA just to shoot trains. (I drove through there yesterday, but it was raining hard above 2,000' elevation)
Marc
Thanks Marc. Oh man, one day when I grow up, I'm going to get to "shoot the loop". I hope you get some good shots there. Hmmm, maybe this year, hehe.
And man, speaking of John's steam engine shots, I've yet to find any that come even close. Makes me hate diesels sometime
Jack,
You have posted some pictures that have amazed me even though I have similar equipment. It is nice to push the envelope especially since there are times when you need to, or your won't get the shot that you want.
Where do you generally set you ISO as a routine? I start seeing noise on my images when above ISO 400, so that is my "routine."
To get "spot on meetering," are you doing this with the camera meter, or do you hand held spot and switch to manual settings?
Thanks in advance and have a great new year!
David
I've got no problems with ISO 800 and think that even that high the camera does amazing things. This shot was taken in a dark room with only a little light coming in from the door and what was coming out of the kiln
dashley wrote:
Jack,
You have posted some pictures that have amazed me even though I have similar equipment. It is nice to push the envelope especially since there are times when you need to, or your won't get the shot that you want.
Where do you generally set you ISO as a routine? I start seeing noise on my images when above ISO 400, so that is my "routine."
To get "spot on meetering," are you doing this with the camera meter, or do you hand held spot and switch to manual settings?
Thanks in advance and have a great new year!
David
Thanks David I always start at base ISO if I can possibly do it. Naturally, sometimes lighting just doesn't permit base ISO. I'm not nearly as scared of the higher ISO's once I saw how well the images print. I have stopped being so critical of noise when viewed at 100%, because that is just not how the print will look.
As to metering, if I have the time (I'm waiting ) then I will either take an incident reading with my Sekonic (which I prefer to do), or, I will take an average of the scene using matrix metering, then evaluate that using the histogram. I always shoot manual, because the headlights of a locomotive are several thousand candlepower, and will totally screw up any kind of auto metering. By the time the locomotive has fully come into the frame, the exposure meter will be changed by five stops or more, so manual is imperative.
I always try to "shoot to the right" especially with higher ISO's, and just because you have the "blinkies" doesn't necessarily mean the highlights are actually blown.
When I don't have time to setup, I'll turn the camera toward a medium toned part of the scene and meter. There's usually always something green to meter off of , then usually bump it up by EV +.6, but I'm still shooting manual. Of course, when I'm shooting portraits, it's completely different, but you get the idea HTH
