Upload & Sell: Off
Steady Hand wrote:
What would I see if someone posted an action scene or scene that showed the following:
1. Original Image shot at f2.0 and ISO 6400 in a DIM ambient light scene (it may appear dark or underexposed.
2. ISO6400 Image that has been edited to adjust for underexposure (and possibly noise in a variation).
3. HIGHER ISO image shot at same place, same lens, same aperture, BUT at the 12,800 ISO.
Well basically the samples I posted come a long way to your request #1 and #2, when it comes to the shadows that I lifted and then corrected. As for request #3, I also have an ISO 6400 image from the same scene that is underexposed somewhat. The corner of this room was quite dark already, albeit white, and it's an example of what I wrote in an earlier post, where I said I could make any dark scene look very clean just by exposing carefully (to the right a little) and use appropriate PP technique.
You know instead of requesting the shots you did, you could also make them yourself, with your own camera, in the venues that you shoot in. Then post the images to show us. If you like you can send us a couple of RAW files for us to clean up using our workflow (I would gladly help out) and post them back on this topic.
If you like this idea, just shoot a bunch @6400, different exposure -1, -0.5, 0, +1 and do the same @12800. I know shooting ISO12800 +2/3 has the same EV as @6400 -1/3 and might not make much sense to you, but slightly overexposed images clean up so much better, even if the ISO setting is higher.
I suppose my interest at this moment is how the higher ISO (12,800) of a typical scene would look compared to the "adjusted" ISO6400 shot.
I could post one of my underexposed ISO6400 shots of the same scene (original and lifted) if that is helpful to you....
Because I have enjoyed seeing many BW images that were very grainy (film days) that I would probably not like if I only saw one square centimeter of grain. Where I see the entire scene, I may even LIKE the grain (or possibly noise now). In fact, in some images I MISS the grain and in some I LIKE the grain.
Absolutely true. Using noise in an image (not taking it all out on purpose) can work very well, if the pattern of the noise reminds ignorant people (clients for instance ) of the film days. In wedding photography, most of those are B/W converted, because it adds even more to the film days and because obvious noise in a colour image looks (well to a client, e.g. a wedding couple) a bit like it's been shot by an incompetent photographer. Yes I know there are exceptions, but this is generally my opinion.
I would rather see something different than test squares.
Test squares never tell me much except a quantitative measurement of differences between two or more cameras on high ISO performance. What is important to me always is how it will look:
- on print
- at the actual print size
That is why I always try to:
- avoid 100% crops when showing samples here on FM
- export JPEGs to the size that I intend to print them
- use the actual noise removal and sharpness settings I would also use for print
- view those JPEGs on my 30" LCD
For example, the most critical print size when it comes to noise or sharpness imperfections is a 24" spread in a 12" wedding album. The clients watch a huge image from very close range (very large angle of view, they have to turn their heads to see the entire image because they are holding in their hands a picture size that is big enough to hang on a wall and would normally be viewed from much larger distance.
Then on top of this, I found that some little amounts of noise left in an image don't show in prints, or at least they are hardly visible, not substantial enough for a client to notice. Yes I notice them, because I've worked on those images and I know where they hurt to my eyes, but clients never complained about it.
Anyway I'm known for talking too much and I just hope that all of this helps you. You are very communicative about the help you get and that activates me to take more effort to help.