Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)
  
 
gowhow
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


I took a few test shots when I got my 5dIII a few months ago. Nothing great but you might find them useful




















Sep 20, 2012 at 06:17 AM
waldr_p
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


I don't usually shoot at ISO 12800 on my 7D, but in the case below it was the only possible way to get the photo (flash was not allowed) and as it was my first time seeing a Pine Marten I thought I'd give it a go. This image was shot through glass, it was so dark I had real trouble getting a focus lock.

Canon 7D, Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 HSM OS, 1/20s f/2.8 at 120.0mm iso12800







Topaz DeNoise selectively applied - heavily to the background and in a lighter way to the infocus area of the animal.

Paul.



Sep 20, 2012 at 09:26 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


Steady Hand wrote:
Now, how about some shots with lower ambient light levels?

You don't necessarily want lower ambient light levels. You want:
1. darker exposed images
2. images with lots of dark areas

I can make 12800 look like ISO800 in any light level provided I:
- overexpose a little bit, and/or
- avoid dark subjects

I assume this is for your gym 85 vs 100 mm question?



Sep 20, 2012 at 09:53 AM
Roger Ramjet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


Wahoowa wrote:
Yeah, I think that's the case. And that's what I kept hearing when I was there too. "No photo! No photo!', while several people were trying to sneak a few shots. I wanted to take some too, but I had to resist my urge. I understand that flash photography is what that ruins these stuffs. However, my principle is that, if I tried to take photos, I might encourage people around me to take some too. And there are always people who don't know how to disable flash. Also, this might not be the reason. Maybe, they probably just want
...Show more

Personally, I believe the reason has more to do with funneling everyone through the gift shop at the end where you can purchase shots of the ceiling. It wasn't the highlight of my trip, but I enjoyed it well enough...



Sep 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Steady Hand
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


rabbitmountain wrote:
You don't necessarily want lower ambient light levels. You want:
1. darker exposed images
2. images with lots of dark areas

I can make 12800 look like ISO800 in any light level provided I:
- overexpose a little bit, and/or
- avoid dark subjects

I assume this is for your gym 85 vs 100 mm question?


Somewhat about that earlier question. The issue is somewhat related. Due to need to shoot in low light levels with fast action. Example is outdoor night time sports.

I agree that images with lots of dark areas would be fitting, such as at an outdoor sports event where the night sky is also shown along with a human figure (e.g. night football or soccer).

Or, indoors where the light levels are low (museums, etc.) and no flash is allowed.

Or, at events or places where the light is dim and no flash is allowed for some reason or for choice.
____________

Mostly, I have never shot at 12,800 and just wondered how the images look with different subjects and photographers.

Obviously with some of the photos posted here, the images look good to VERY good.




Sep 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Steady Hand
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


TO EVERYONE:

Thank you all for continuing to add photos to this discussion.

I enjoyed seeing them all.

Some are very nice and I also liked seeing the ones that are obviously in low light conditions.

Please continue to add more photos as you wish.

One thing though, I think that some photos showing obvious light sources in the picture (such as backlit subjects or people) do not really show what I had in mind seeing.

Imagine a dimly lit playing field or court with people playing soccer or football or running or other things like that where motion is captured and the light is NOT from on camera flash etc.



Sep 20, 2012 at 04:38 PM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


I've been reluctant to use ISO as high as 12800 with my 7D or 5D2. Having just gotten the 5D3 last month I have used 6400 much more than in the past. Again, this pic isn't exactly what you are looking for but it's what I have currently. This is my daughter, taken in her gym during a practice. I was asked by the owners to take some pictures for their website. The gym is very dark with cycling lights, just awful to shoot. The image is cropped about 50%, pushed 0.75 stop in LR4. I would prefer a higher ss for gymnastics, especially tumbling. No NR or sharpening added in LR4 but standard for screen sharpened when resized and exported. 5D3 with 135 F2.0. I think the 5D3 does great at 6400 ISO. No flash used obviously.






  Canon EOS 5D Mark III    EF135mm f/2L USM lens    135mm    f/2.0    1/640s    6400 ISO    0.0 EV  




Sep 20, 2012 at 05:17 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


OK today I shot a couple of images in a city hall where weddings take place. I never shot in this room before so I wanted to get a feel of the lighting conditions and shooting positions.

These images were shot @12800 on a 5DmkII, imported in LR4.1, then cleaned up in Photoshop using Topaz DeNoise 5, using "light" or "moderate" settings. "Moderate" is borderline for me because you lose detail when noise removal gets too aggressive. "Moderate" is quite agressive already. You won't notice that in web sized jpegs like these, but you will notice in 24" wedding album spreads. I usually pick "Light" but with ISO12800 shots, "Light" can be too light in fact.

5D2 bare ISO12800





5D2 moderate ISO12800





Same image, shadows lifted in LR4.1 +40:





Then processed with Topaz DeNoise 5 - Moderate:





5D2 bare ISO12800





5D2 light ISO12800





5D2 moderate ISO12800






Because you won't see much at web size, I will add links for download to full size jpegs (currentely uploading).
Edit: here it is:
http://www.gigasize.com/get/rhlr877z7rc

Steadman: Just forgot to add: I know you have a 7D and not a 5DmkII, but I figured you might like to see what Topaz can do for your 12800 images. It cannot work miracles, but at small to medium final output sizes it works quite well and you won't see its limitations.



Sep 20, 2012 at 06:47 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


This one can be cleaned up a little further, hope you don't mind reposting it:







or even:








Sep 20, 2012 at 09:08 PM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


Oh, I know. I posted the photo for the most part, out of camera. I didn't apply any NR or much sharpening. I wanted the OP to see the image before any corrections. I chose that picture because I have a release for the model (lol) and it doesn't show her face. It's not the best photo in the set be far. Those cycling lights play havoc with exposure. I shoot in manual and even overexpose some but if I catch the lights at a low point I need to push it in post. How much NR one chooses to use is always subjective. I certainly would have applied some to use the photo in some other way. But your corrections show how much these files can be cleaned up at high ISO. Just a few years ago it would have been very difficult to take decent shots in the gym where she has practice.


Sep 20, 2012 at 09:32 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Steady Hand
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


To Rabbitmountain:

Thanks for the note at bottom of your post.

I understand.

Your photos are examples I enjoyed seeing.

Yes, I expect there may be differences in 7D and other bodies.

Still, it is instructive (for me) to see how other photographers are "pushing the limits" when using the higher ISO of THEIR bodies.

What follows is "musing" and not to define things, simply to share some thoughts.

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.

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.

Yes, these may have already been done by some lens testing site that shoots still life scenes.

When I have seen those tests before, they show "actual pixels" crops (100%) that show the noise or more noise. But, I don't think looking at a tiny patch of pixels is the only answer.

Why?

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.

I would rather see something different than test squares.

Hope that makes sense to you all!




Sep 20, 2012 at 10:27 PM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


I'll be back in the same gym this weekend and will bring my 7D and try to get a few action shots at 12800 ISO.

edit. I didn't know the 7D could go to 12800 but then I always keep ISO expansion off.



Sep 20, 2012 at 11:06 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


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.

Stay good,
Ralph.



Sep 21, 2012 at 05:49 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


Some of my ISO 12800 work from a few different bodies, most low light. Exif intact for you to determine what EV level.

7D 12800 basement shot with ambient lighting


7D 12800 night football game


7D 12800 Indoor basketball game, crowd shot


1D4 12800 same venue different date, indoor game



1D4 25600 basement


1D4 12800 Candlelight graduation and dusk shot





Sep 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


Teamspeed, some great shots there! The first shot (girl in basement) is my favourite, because it has this intimate feel and the aperture setting is spot on. May I ask which lens you used and at which aperture?

To the OP: When I have an occasional high ISO shot that is important to clean up thoroughly, I used Photoshop and apply a multi-layer cleanup. I create a copy of the base file and use an aggressive level ("moderate") of Denoise5 on that. Then I create another copy of the base file and apply a mild level ("light") of Denoise5. The base image comes on top and by using a layer mask on the 2 top layers I apply the "light" level to the subject and the "moderate" level to the background. This works especially well if the background is OOF. It takes about 5 minutes per image so it's not useful for let's say 100 sports photo's. Unless it's an assignment.



Sep 21, 2012 at 01:32 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


Thanks!

I used the 100L macro on the 7D. When I have the chance, I run the sharpest glass I have on the 7D, in order to get the most of the IQ. My 70-200L (MKI) doesn't do well on the 7D, but the 100L is very sharp.

Here is another one I like with the 1D4 at 12800 at an indoor water park. Again, lighting at those hotel waterparks aren't very good, mostly outdoor ambient lighting through side windows.



This was at 25600, and I had to bring up the shadows which really brought out obnoxious noise, but still I wanted the shot.




Sep 21, 2012 at 01:34 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


yeah, underexposure, even ever so slightly, is devastating at these high sensitivities. But what can you do, if you want the shot you want the shot There is a massive difference between #1 and #2. Still #2 might benefit from some noise treatment. If you work your way around the face very carefully, and at max resolution, you might be able to preserve detail in the face.

I have had my 5DmkII just for 5 days now and I must say I think it's very good at ISO12800. The only downside is banding in the shadows from 12800 and up, but Topaz Denoise 5 takes care of most of this banding problem. As long as I remember to expose to the right and not to use 12800 but in emergencies, it's very useful to have.

I'll be getting a 5DmkIII later on, say in 1.5~2 years. I'd be interested to see ISO12800 improvement from the II to the III.



Sep 21, 2012 at 02:57 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


As an afterthought, I'd like your opinion on this: In many topics about high ISO IQ, I notice that many use fairly high shutter speeds. For comparable shots like yours above at 25600, I see 1/500 used for example.

So for argument's sake, let's assume that your shot was taken at 1/500. Now if the shot had been taken at 1/125~1/200 (very feasible if you're holding a lens with IS), there would have been a massive reduction in noise and ISO could even have been set to 12800, using spot metering on the face or just overexposing +1 or so from evaluative. Of course there will be some images with motion blur, but with a mkIV you could take short burst sequences of 3~5 shots @8fps, and chances are that you've got a good many usable shots.



Sep 21, 2012 at 03:08 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


rabbitmountain wrote:
yeah, underexposure, even ever so slightly, is devastating at these high sensitivities. But what can you do, if you want the shot you want the shot There is a massive difference between #1 and #2. Still #2 might benefit from some noise treatment. If you work your way around the face very carefully, and at max resolution, you might be able to preserve detail in the face.

I have had my 5DmkII just for 5 days now and I must say I think it's very good at ISO12800. The only downside is banding in the shadows from 12800 and up,
...Show more

The 5D2 is good, about 1 stop better than the 7D, and the 1D4 is better yet, by about 1/2 stop or so.

We were very actively discussing 7D noise prep over on another thread. I do some training on other boards regarding how to reduce noise on the 7D (and other bodies). You might like some things found in this thread.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1143454/3#10918516


Edited on Sep 21, 2012 at 03:23 PM · View previous versions



Sep 21, 2012 at 03:10 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · ISO 12,800 Images (post your examples here)


rabbitmountain wrote:
As an afterthought, I'd like your opinion on this: In many topics about high ISO IQ, I notice that many use fairly high shutter speeds. For comparable shots like yours above at 25600, I see 1/500 used for example.

So for argument's sake, let's assume that your shot was taken at 1/500. Now if the shot had been taken at 1/125~1/200 (very feasible if you're holding a lens with IS), there would have been a massive reduction in noise and ISO could even have been set to 12800, using spot metering on the face or just overexposing +1 or so
...Show more

At slower shutter speeds, water splash, etc would have all been a blur. I wanted to make sure I stopped all action (water included) the best I could, so I just pushed up the ISO to get an aggressive shutter speed. I don't do alot of burst shooting either, but that might have helped, still would have been a gamble with kids all splashing around in the pool.

Even at 1/1000th, you don't stop water movement, here is where I was messing around a bit to see what limits I needed for the different shots of the kids.



or 1/1250th


I went with a really fast shutter on this and then brought the exposure up after the fact.



Sep 21, 2012 at 03:13 PM
1      
2
       3       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password