Here is one of my high ISO images from Tuesday's experimental shoot. High ISO is manageable if you expose correctly and limit the amount of post-processing you do.
What do you guys think?
[
attachment=5684]
Nikon D80, Manual mode, 1/2000 sec, f11, ISO 1250, 54mm Lens equivalent.
I have set my dimensions to Philip's values of width: 1400 max and height: 900 max, to see how it goes.
(Feb 25, 2016, 07:20)Jocko Wrote: [ -> ]Here is one of my high ISO images from Tuesday's experimental shoot. High ISO is manageable if you expose correctly and limit the amount of post-processing you do.
What do you guys think?
Nikon D80, Manual mode, 1/2000 sec, f11, ISO 1250, 54mm Lens equivalent.
I have set my dimensions to Philip's values of width: 1400 max and height: 900 max, to see how it goes.
Nice image John...Did you use a tripod or hand held?...Wes
(Feb 25, 2016, 12:43)WesMal Wrote: [ -> ]Nice image John...Did you use a tripod or hand held?...Wes
Hand held. At 1/2000 sec I could have thrown the camera in the air and still got a sharp image.
It is a pleasant scene, John, a nice composition and good colours for the time of day. The image appears rather dark, so I would brighten the mid-tones - but that is just for my taste.
It is always interesting to experiment, but I'm not sure how this particular test is helpful. Despite the noise smoothing effect that down-sampling the image would give, there is still noise visible, particularly in the darker clouds and in the darker sea surface. Less noise would be expected in the wall and the cliffs, as they are well-lit, and any noise there and in the trees would probably be masked, in an image of this size, by their textures.
There would appear to be plenty of daylight around, and exposing correctly implies getting as much light as possible (i.e. without over-saturation) into the sensor. So this shot would have worked well, and with minimal image noise, hand-held at e.g. ISO 200, f/11, 1/160s (i.e. much more light).
Perhaps for an informative test of the usable limits of high ISO for shooting at hand-holding shutter speeds (and with the advantage of a stabilised lens), the scene would need to be generally not well lit - e.g. outdoors under heavy cloud cover, or in the later evening, or indoors - perhaps a church interior.
Having written that, perhaps it's just me not understanding the purpose of your experiments! (Takes me back to school - aim, method, results, conclusion.
)
Cheers.
Philip
Personally, that is how I like my mid tones, but each to his own.
After trying earlier Hi ISO shots, a couple of weeks back (top of the cooker hob in natural light), and deciding that anything above ISO 200 was useless (the reason I bought my VR lens), I wanted to see how the D80 performed when pushed to the max on real images. I have hundreds of pictures of Dysart (2 miles along the coast) so these images were just throw away. I took them at and near the max ISO the camera can produce, and with the Hi ISO Noise Reduction switched off. The results were not bad with high contrast shots but there was banding for low contrast shots. My conclusion is that, at a push, I can go higher than ISO 200.
I tend not to go above 400I SO, unless desperate, but my equipment is not top class.
Tend to agree with Philip, although Monitor may play a part.
This looks good to me, to you?
Settings are 2000 Pxls, largest side. Cheers. Ed.
Nothing wrong with your version, Ed, though it is a bit brighter than the image I had in mind when I took the shot. The cliffs are deep red sandstone and the woods looked dark and foreboding.
I too would never consider going above ISO 400, unless it was a dire emergency, preferring to slow the shutter speed down instead. However, the exercises I am following, from Robin Whalley's book, suggest I explore every possibility from the camera. This includes Hi ISO shots, even when not appropriate. You have to try everything to see what works and what doesn't.
Regarding the monitor. My 27" LED monitor is calibrated, to the best of my ability and having run umpteen test cards and such like, appears very well set up. The images look the same on my new 40" Samsung television, so I am happy with the calibration. My laptop, however, is darker and suits your version better. The issue there is, it is never at the same angle twice and is very viewing angle dependant.
It is very much a case of each to his own where colour saturation and luminance is involved. I try to reproduce what I saw and felt when I pressed the shutter. Someone standing beside me may have seen and felt something entirely different. Neither one is right or wrong.
The cliffs are deep red sandstone and the woods looked dark and foreboding.
That sums it up John, what you seen, what you want, and got, as far as you are concerned. To each his own, sounds familiar, seen it somewhere!.
Have you tried Photoshop's own Calibration, had mine done with a friend's expensive outfit, he said I was 98/99% accurate. Regards. Ed.
It is the calibration in Photoshop I used initially. I have just used the other test cards to confirm the Photoshop calibration results.
(Feb 26, 2016, 01:50)Jocko Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the monitor. My 27" LED monitor is calibrated, to the best of my ability and having run umpteen test cards and such like, appears very well set up. The images look the same on my new 40" Samsung television, so I am happy with the calibration. My laptop, however, is darker and suits your version better. The issue there is, it is never at the same angle twice and is very viewing angle dependant.
John, I agree that viewing angle is a factor influencing the appearance of an image on a screen. Many years ago I made a JPEG file that is a rectangle of all black. I load it at the start of a photo viewing/editing session, and tilt the screen until the reflection of my eyes is centralised. This ensures a consistent view.
Cheers.
Philip
My monitor doesn't suffer from that complaint only the laptop. That's the reason I don't use it for image work.
Just trying to be helpful to anyone using a either a laptop or a desktop monitor that does depend on angle of view.
Cheers.
Philip
Got to keep your head still? Ed.
Well, I'd rather not lose it, Ed!
Cheers.
Philip
At one time, we had a head clamp that was used in the studio where I worked, wonder if it's still around. Ed.