dorian wrote:
that's what i'm saying lars, that if your have to push to some ridiculously high iso it might be worth spending the time doing something else! for me there is a very high opportunity cost to being out taking pictures - i am scientist and i need as much time in my lab as possible to generate data. this is why i wait until there is good light before i head out. i can only be out ~10 hrs / week so i need to make sure i hit good light when i get out there! yes, having high iso capabilities never hurts, but i would rather put less money into that technology if i had the option and instead put it into more reach from my lenses.
i realize much of my thinking is dictated by my 70+ hour work week though!
That is certainly your opinion, but many of us don't wait for better lit situations to shoot what we like. You are missing many other opportunities to shoot. Not only is time of day an issue, but if you go hiking and shoot wildlife off the trails, you will NEVER have good enough lighting to shoot at lower ISOs, unless you go out in the winter when there are no leaves.
I am fortunately to live off a pond, and the wildlife is abundant only in the morning and then again in the evening. This duck and her brood would only venture out near the evening from the nest, and I would go out to the back yard to shoot at high ISO.
This is a 9pm at night at high ISO. From many accounts here, there just wasn't enough light to justify shooting (assuming you don't like high ISO), but I refuse to live by that train of thought. I have instead learned how to set up the camera for high ISO shooting, and invested my time and money in software tools during the digital dark room part of my photography.
Sometimes you just have to get out of your comfort zone
Great photo? Nope, but a very nice snag before she ran off with her ducklings that I otherwise would never have been able to capture.
I actually sold this print as a 16x20 recently from the same shoot.
Don't badrap high ISO performance. My wife and I travel extensively. I like to
take candid street photos and photos of folklore performances. I use a Canon
5D3 with a prime lens such as the Canon 135L, a combination far less
conspicuous than one using a Canon white L lens, 600 flash, 1D4, etc.
Often I have gotten shots no one else in our tour group got.
Many venues prohibit flash entirely. Churches in Europe often
prohibit flash photography even though they are poorly lit.
Lol at those who think im trolling. I never said it wasnt useful. My op was more focused on the content of what is produced by many of these high iso threads and then some ppl like to turn it into a twisted account of what my opinion of those images are to me. My opinion is different than some, so crucify me for it.
Harsh words above. I am pretty sure Peters english is good enough to understand what you wrote.
To your posted pictures:
Even if you used ISO 6400 on a 5D II, the light conditions in your shots are easy to handle. Its a well and regular lit hall. I am pretty sure you did not use less than 1/250 shutter speed. Try to shoot at ISO 6.400 if you only have one lighsource and watch the shadow areas. I would wonder if the banding would not destroy most of the shots. This is why I do not use 5D II over ISO 3200 and often have to fight with 1/15 or 1/30 handheld for it. Any possible and higher usable ISO setting is welcome.
One thing I learned here was to improvise. I almost never have a tripod on me today but I'm good at finding other things to use. If I was in a church today, I could probably get by with a telescoping cane or even one of those canes with 4 prongs for stability. When I'm hiking I have a set of telescoping walking sticks (essential for getting up and down steep grades) that can double as a poor-man's monopod. If you take some time to tie them both together with some rope, you can make a bipod which is one step above a monopod. Of course everything is relative, none of these are 'as good' as a nice heavy tripod but you can often do an acceptable job with the things you already have.
"Even if you used ISO 6400 on a 5D II, the light conditions in your shots are easy to handle. Its a well and regular lit hall. I am pretty sure you did not use less than 1/250 shutter speed. Try to shoot at ISO 6.400 if you only have one lighsource and watch the shadow areas. I would wonder if the banding would not destroy most of the shots. This is"
Yes this is huge. Noise is not fixed per ISO but depends on many variables including the shutter speed. There's a difference between shooting at ISO 6400 in a reasonably well lit area to freeze motion (like shutter speed 1/800, 1/1600 or above) and using ISO 6400 in a dimly lit area at 1/60 shutter speed. Last year when I was using ISO 102400 for some shots, shutter speed was around 1/50, 1/60; these photos needed a lot more noise reduction than shots using ISO 102400 to freeze motion. The difference is quite dramatic.
Kodachrome Color slide film used to be ASA 8. Imagine the complainers when it went up to ASA 25. Who would have a use for such a high ASA!
Sometimes 25600 comes in handy. This was in a local theater with lights out except for a blue spot that was very weak, and DSLR's do not do well with blue in any event. I had to dim the background exit lights, I considered removing them totally, but decided not to.
RogerC11 wrote:
Lol at those who think im trolling. I never said it wasnt useful. My op was more focused on the content of what is produced by many of these high iso threads and then some ppl like to turn it into a twisted account of what my opinion of those images are to me. My opinion is different than some, so crucify me for it.
Roger your op was just dismissive.
Websters defines this as 'Feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration.'
It's not necessary to call out others, their personal shared images, to make a point.
Your doing so just demonstrated an lack of thought, feeling for other possibilities then your own experience and that's what folks are objecting to.
That type of prose is just not necessary.
Civility should be the norm on a creative forum, not attack.
StillFingerz wrote:
Roger your op was just dismissive.
Websters defines this as 'Feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration.'
It's not necessary to call out others, their personal shared images, to make a point.
Your doing so just demonstrated an lack of thought, feeling for other possibilities then your own experience and that's what folks are objecting to.
That type of prose is just not necessary.
Civility should be the norm on a creative forum, not attack.
Jerry
Jerry, I agree with you and my apologies to anybody who felt that way. In no way am I trying to single anybody out or put somebodys work down. As already illustrated here, there are several ways to make compelling images using high iso. Just shooting in a dark living room of a cat or family member is not my idea of one. And for some reason people jumped on this as if it is worse than if I created a 7d noisey camera thread. It is a noisey camera in some ppl opinion. Does that make them ignorant or close minded? No, its just their opinion that they are entitled to.
A camera is a photographers tool. Clean high ISO capabilities add more flexbility for many shooters as you already mentioned. IMO your thread is more about ranting of people shooting random stuff around the house and the assumption that they are using high ISO as a crutch to replace poor lighting. Although I agree with you that some threads you see showing their high ISO shots/test of random snapshots are not appealing, but like any gear forum/thread people are excited to share their results. I personally like to see high ISO examples of night landscapes, wedding and street.
RogerC11 wrote:
Jerry, I agree with you and my apologies to anybody who felt that way. In no way am I trying to single anybody out or put somebodys work down. As already illustrated here, there are several ways to make compelling images using high iso. Just shooting in a dark living room of a cat or family member is not my idea of one. And for some reason people jumped on this as if it is worse than if I created a 7d noisey camera thread. It is a noisey camera in some ppl opinion. Does that make them ignorant or close minded? No, its just their opinion that they are entitled to. ...Show more →
Sometimes though those situations make for great testing material for high ISO. The camera doesn't care about the content of the photo, and nor do many people that do these random tests at high ISO and then post them. When doing test shots to figure out 1) whether you like high ISO and 2) how to best handle similar low light situations, just shooting family members or pets in low light/artificial light is a great way to learn.
I guess I am saying that photo content doesn't have to be interesting when simply discussing technical capabilities of a camera. It would certainly make for more interesting posts to have well composed interesting subject material, but quite honestly not required to discuss high ISO merits and management.
Your portrait reminds me of a manger scene...the small gift (stuffed cow) and fatigued parents with concern for their child. I am saddened by their loss and literally teared up when reading the history of the portrait.
Your photo captures the moment with dignity and respect. It's a photo worth sharing and one that I doubt I ever forget.
