What do you think about this article?

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Interesting. I'd never thought that using high ISO was such a bodge. I've
rarely raised the ISO setting in my camera, always preferring to pull the
darks up or lights down in LR or equiv.

--

Pablo

http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
https://paulc.es/
https://paulc.es/piso
https://paulc.es/elpatio

Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Interesting. I'd never thought that using high ISO was such a bodge. I've
rarely raised the ISO setting in my camera, always preferring to pull the
darks up or lights down in LR or equiv.


Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

--

Pablo

http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
https://paulc.es/
https://paulc.es/piso
https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 2015-04-06 16:48:15 +0000, Pablo said:

Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Interesting. I'd never thought that using high ISO was such a bodge. I've
rarely raised the ISO setting in my camera, always preferring to pull the
darks up or lights down in LR or equiv.


Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

....er, OK!

Now, regarding your words; I think the bottom line with that article is
dealing with high contrast light conditions rather than just high ISO.
It certainly gives you a technique to use to meter and expose for
highlights while still being able to push ISO in the shadows. Then when
in LR or ACR, or whatever you might be using, further selective
adjustment is still available. Effectively you have increased the DR in
a tricky exposure environment. In typical low light situations this
approach wouldn't be needed as the high ISO would be needed for the
entire image.

I can certainly see where this ISOless concept would be goo in many of
the situations I end up shooting in. I would imagine that you might
have to deal with similar lighting issues in sunny Southern Spain.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/04/2015 10:49 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Monday, 6 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC-4, Pablo wrote:
Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Interesting. I'd never thought that using high ISO was such a bodge. I've
rarely raised the ISO setting in my camera, always preferring to pull the
darks up or lights down in LR or equiv.


Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

--

I tested this stuff with a camera a few years ago. Low ISO images pulled up didn't retain the colour or the contrast of high ISO images not pulled. It may differ with different cameras.

But which camera?
As I understood it, there's an ISO setting where above which signal
amplification is the only difference between different ISO settings, so
could be called "ISO-less". I understand that this is called, rightly or
wrongly, unity gain ISO.
But I do not believe the "fujilove" article that this point is at "base
ISO" in either the Fuji or the Nikon D750 as he implies, or that those
cameras are unique WRT that topic.
He seems to only consider shot noise - but at low ISO performance of the
sensor/ADC/electronics contribute read noise - which you don't want to
amplify.
But in practice, it's "about right" with some cameras. If I take a raw
image of a grey target at ISO800 using a D800, then same target and
settings but ISO 100, then adjust the ISO100 raw file "bumped up" 3
stops, for all practical purposes it looks identical. Not so with a
D700, or a Canon dslr.
It's neither a Nikon or Fuji innovation (low read noise sensors) but
Sony. Even if Nikon implementation of the Sony derived sensors beats
Sony's implementation hands down (and for which the issue is probably
mainly Sony poor raw encoding method). Nothing is new to the D750
either - except highlight protection metering he mentions - which simply
automates what you should or could be doing anyway.
Then ask yourself whether you want to just leave your camera on low ISO
and PP later, no useful histogram, dark image review, raw processing
with default ISO dependent settings wrong. Sounds like a major PITA to
me, when histogram and lost highlight "blinkies" at correct exposure
seem to do the job well with very little effort.

I just spent a few days shooting sunrise/landscape with two friends with
Canon 5D3. Difficult lighting, and they're ****ing around with
bracketing, tripods to hold the camera steady, or using the jpeg
in-camera HDR feature. They didn't "get it" that there's as much DR in
a single correctly exposed D8*0 base ISO raw file than in a three frame
set bracketed -1/0/+1 from a 5D3. They were both planning to buy 5DS/R
as soon as they're available - which will not solve that problem.

Me wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC-4, Pablo wrote:
Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

But in practice, it's "about right" with some cameras. If I take a raw
image of a grey target at ISO800 using a D800, then same target and
settings but ISO 100, then adjust the ISO100 raw file "bumped up" 3
stops, for all practical purposes it looks identical. Not so with a
D700, or a Canon dslr.

Hence those photos taken with my Canon. One's at 200, bumped up 3 stops in
LR and the other is at 1600 left alone (well, both had a tiny bit of PP).

So I for one have accidentally learned something that should see me produce
some more acceptable photos of big pink birds.

--

Pablo

http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
https://paulc.es/
https://paulc.es/piso
https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 8/04/2015 2:04 a.m., Pablo wrote:
Me wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC-4, Pablo wrote:
Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

But in practice, it's "about right" with some cameras. If I take a raw
image of a grey target at ISO800 using a D800, then same target and
settings but ISO 100, then adjust the ISO100 raw file "bumped up" 3
stops, for all practical purposes it looks identical. Not so with a
D700, or a Canon dslr.

Hence those photos taken with my Canon. One's at 200, bumped up 3 stops in
LR and the other is at 1600 left alone (well, both had a tiny bit of PP).

So I for one have accidentally learned something that should see me produce
some more acceptable photos of big pink birds.

If you're going to get really fussy with many or most canon dslr
sensors, to minimise noise in boosting shadows/maximise dynamic range,
then when using ISO settings below about 800, avoid using the
"intermediate" ISO settings - stick to 100/200/400/800. It's not a huge
difference, but there is a difference.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:04:50 +0200, Pablo wrote:

Me wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC-4, Pablo wrote:
Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

But in practice, it's "about right" with some cameras. If I take a raw
image of a grey target at ISO800 using a D800, then same target and
settings but ISO 100, then adjust the ISO100 raw file "bumped up" 3
stops, for all practical purposes it looks identical. Not so with a
D700, or a Canon dslr.

Hence those photos taken with my Canon. One's at 200, bumped up 3 stops in
LR and the other is at 1600 left alone (well, both had a tiny bit of PP).

So I for one have accidentally learned something that should see me produce
some more acceptable photos of big pink birds.

See http://tinyurl.com/polz9qj :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-04-08 00:47:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:04:50 +0200, Pablo wrote:
Me wrote:
On Monday, 6 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC-4, Pablo wrote:
Pablo wrote:
RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

But in practice, it's "about right" with some cameras. If I take a raw
image of a grey target at ISO800 using a D800, then same target and
settings but ISO 100, then adjust the ISO100 raw file "bumped up" 3
stops, for all practical purposes it looks identical. Not so with a
D700, or a Canon dslr.

Hence those photos taken with my Canon. One's at 200, bumped up 3 stops in
LR and the other is at 1600 left alone (well, both had a tiny bit of PP).

So I for one have accidentally learned something that should see me produce
some more acceptable photos of big pink birds.

See http://tinyurl.com/polz9qj :-)

Aaaagh!!!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Me wrote:

On 8/04/2015 2:04 a.m., Pablo wrote:
Me wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC-4, Pablo wrote:
Pablo wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://fujilove.com/isoless-photogra...film-x-series/

Feeling a bit peckish, so decided to eat my words:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8150.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e/IMG_8151.jpg

But in practice, it's "about right" with some cameras. If I take a raw
image of a grey target at ISO800 using a D800, then same target and
settings but ISO 100, then adjust the ISO100 raw file "bumped up" 3
stops, for all practical purposes it looks identical. Not so with a
D700, or a Canon dslr.

Hence those photos taken with my Canon. One's at 200, bumped up 3 stops
in LR and the other is at 1600 left alone (well, both had a tiny bit of
PP).

So I for one have accidentally learned something that should see me
produce some more acceptable photos of big pink birds.

If you're going to get really fussy with many or most canon dslr
sensors, to minimise noise in boosting shadows/maximise dynamic range,
then when using ISO settings below about 800, avoid using the
"intermediate" ISO settings - stick to 100/200/400/800. It's not a huge
difference, but there is a difference.

Heh. I have that restriction forced upon me. Only have 100,200,400,800,1600.

--

Pablo

http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
https://paulc.es/
https://paulc.es/piso
https://paulc.es/elpatio

Pablo wrote:

So I for one have accidentally learned something that should see me
produce some more acceptable photos of big pink birds.


Well, no birds, just my cat.

It seems there's no substitute for being capable of focussing properly.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8164_small.jpg

Back to the drawing board.

--

Pablo

http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
https://paulc.es/
https://paulc.es/piso
https://paulc.es/elpatio