What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?

On 08/02/2016 10:40, RichA wrote:
Remember when people were pushing cameras to the limit, shooting images 5-6 stops underexposed at the highest ISO to see if they could form some kind of image? That happened about 7 years ago and I think one model (Nikon D3?) managed to show something at the equivalent of 1 million ISO. They should be capable of going beyond that now. It's not to produce anything worth keeping, just an exercise to see what the sensors can do. You'd get something like Fox Talbot's first shot of cityscape or window. A high contrast image helps.

ISO 409600 with Sony A7s looks pretty reasonable. There's probably a
few stops left in that to take it to ISO 2 or 4 million or so before all
detail turns to mush.
The comparison viewed with other cameras there "normalised" to the A7s
native 12mp probably helps.
Despite the smaller pixels, it's only above about ISO 51,200 that the
A7s shows an advantage over the A7R or the Canon 5dIII.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/461...non-eos-5d-iii

Not sure if there's anything else in the way of mirrorless or dslr to
compete with the A7s, quantum efficiency of sensors isn't improving much
any more, so that might be as good as it gets.

On 09/02/2016 16:00, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 8 February 2016 02:35:06 UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 08/02/2016 10:40, RichA wrote:
Remember when people were pushing cameras to the limit, shooting images 5-6 stops underexposed at the highest ISO to see if they could form some kind of image? That happened about 7 years ago and I think one model (Nikon D3?) managed to show something at the equivalent of 1 million ISO. They should be capable of going beyond that now. It's not to produce anything worth keeping, just an exercise to see what the sensors can do. You'd get something like Fox Talbot's first shot of cityscape or window. A high contrast image helps.

ISO 409600 with Sony A7s looks pretty reasonable. There's probably a
few stops left in that to take it to ISO 2 or 4 million or so before all
detail turns to mush.
The comparison viewed with other cameras there "normalised" to the A7s
native 12mp probably helps.
Despite the smaller pixels, it's only above about ISO 51,200 that the
A7s shows an advantage over the A7R or the Canon 5dIII.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/461...non-eos-5d-iii

Not sure if there's anything else in the way of mirrorless or dslr to
compete with the A7s, quantum efficiency of sensors isn't improving much
any more, so that might be as good as it gets.

I think even at 25,600, the A7s shows superior detail quality in darker areas of the image.

Could be. Looking at different parts of the image in some cases the
higher MP cameras show more detail.
All of them look a hell of a lot better at ISO 25600 than the D70 I once
owned did at ISO 1600.

On 02/09/2016 12:32 AM, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 8 February 2016 22:54:10 UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 09/02/2016 16:00, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 8 February 2016 02:35:06 UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 08/02/2016 10:40, RichA wrote:
Remember when people were pushing cameras to the limit, shooting images 5-6 stops underexposed at the highest ISO to see if they could form some kind of image? That happened about 7 years ago and I think one model (Nikon D3?) managed to show something at the equivalent of 1 million ISO. They should be capable of going beyond that now. It's not to produce anything worth keeping, just an exercise to see what the sensors can do. You'd get something like Fox Talbot's first shot of cityscape or window. A high contrast image helps.

ISO 409600 with Sony A7s looks pretty reasonable. There's probably a
few stops left in that to take it to ISO 2 or 4 million or so before all
detail turns to mush.
The comparison viewed with other cameras there "normalised" to the A7s
native 12mp probably helps.
Despite the smaller pixels, it's only above about ISO 51,200 that the
A7s shows an advantage over the A7R or the Canon 5dIII.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/461...non-eos-5d-iii

Not sure if there's anything else in the way of mirrorless or dslr to
compete with the A7s, quantum efficiency of sensors isn't improving much
any more, so that might be as good as it gets.

I think even at 25,600, the A7s shows superior detail quality in darker areas of the image.

Could be. Looking at different parts of the image in some cases the
higher MP cameras show more detail.
All of them look a hell of a lot better at ISO 25600 than the D70 I once
owned did at ISO 1600.

Speak of a Devil.

http://www.pbase.com/image/162529793



I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.

On 2/9/2016 12:20 PM, philo wrote:

snip


I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.


My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.


--
PeterN

On 2016-02-09 22:34:52 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/9/2016 12:20 PM, philo wrote:

snip


I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.


My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.

Noise ain't grain.
Not even close to the simulated grain created in any of the plug-ins.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 02/09/2016 04:34 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/9/2016 12:20 PM, philo wrote:

snip


I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.


My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.





Thanks for the feedback.

I might have mentioned that for the past few months I've returned to the
world of film. Though it's doubtful I will use it again I spent nearly
three continuous months scanning my film archives and my father's slides.

Because quite a few were exposed improperly I never printed them, so
essentially I am only now seeing them for the first time.
Most of them are easily correctable and I am happy with their look.


One in particular is of a well known and loved Milwaukee musician who
passed away a little more than a year ago.

One of the images did require a lot of work for it as it was severely
under exposed...but it was worth the effort.

On 02/09/2016 04:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-09 22:34:52 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/9/2016 12:20 PM, philo wrote:

snip


I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.


My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.

Noise ain't grain.
Not even close to the simulated grain created in any of the plug-ins.




Put it this way:

Concerning my hi-ISO shots
When a friend of mine (who's entire family ran a photo lab) saw my
prints, he immediately said, " Tri-X"

When I said "Nope, digital" he was shocked.

He told me that a friend of his had worked extremely hard to give his
digital images the look of Tri-X, so he wanted to know what technique I
used.

I told him the truth, that I had no idea, I just set the ISO high,
converted to gray scale, then played with the brightness and tone until
I got something I liked.


One thing I do know, I did not use any plug-ins or "simulated grain"
effect. I am almost too embarrassed to tell you that my main photo
editor is ACDsee 3.0 that I purchased in 2001 or so.

BTW: Now that I am scanning film, I find Photoshop invaluable though and
the healing tool especially. It allows me to easily repair some glaring
errors such as a small nick in the film right in the middle of someone's
face.

OTOH: I am in no way trying to get the print perfect and really like
small blotches or scratches in the negative...it gives the print a
wonderful look.

On 2016-02-09 22:47:03 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-02-09 22:34:52 +0000, PeterN said:
On 2/9/2016 12:20 PM, philo wrote:

snip


I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.


My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.

Noise ain't grain.
Not even close to the simulated grain created in any of the plug-ins.

Here is an example using AlienSkin's 'Exposure X'
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/ to simulate Tri-X 400 grain.
https://db.tt/Imf1ha5n


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 02/09/2016 05:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On
My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.

Noise ain't grain.
Not even close to the simulated grain created in any of the plug-ins.

Here is an example using AlienSkin's 'Exposure X'
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/ to simulate Tri-X 400 grain.
https://db.tt/Imf1ha5n





Real nice, it certain does have that Tri-X look to it.

Since I have a lot of my hi-ISO images nearby I just now had a 2nd look
at the ones my friend initially thought were Tri-X


The ones he saw were printed at 13" x 19" and yep, they do have that
Tri-X look to them and there is nothing in the images that looks like
simply noise.

OTOH: I have one printed from the series, a bit larger approx 18" x 27"

where there is a hint of digital noise. OTOH: If I told someone that it
was Tri-X and said so firmly, they very well might believe me.


Bottom line is that I love those images and whether you interpret what
you see as grain or digital noise, it helps convey the darkness and the
mood.


Side note: As long as I was scanning film , I decided to scan the
negatives I took with my Brownie camera when I was a kid, in the Army in
1969 just prior to getting my Pentax. I even shot one roll as late as
1981 or so... Some of them are quite interesting and one of them is
going into my latest book that should be out next month.

I find that an inexpensive self-publish book is the 21st century
equivalent to a business card.

On 2016-02-09 23:05:54 +0000, philo said:

On 02/09/2016 04:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-09 22:34:52 +0000, PeterN said:
On 2/9/2016 12:20 PM, philo wrote:

snip


I do a lot of low light shooting so typically have the ISO setting
maxed. Though the color images look horrible, when converted to
gray-scale have very much the look of Tri-X

I'm quite happy with the results.


My theory is better a noisy image than no image at all.
Most of the work you have posted is in BW, and shows low light mood
scenes. A noisy or grainy look compliments your images. According to
some here, and with apologies to Proctor & Gamble, I am noise blind.

Noise ain't grain.
Not even close to the simulated grain created in any of the plug-ins.


Put it this way:

Concerning my hi-ISO shots
When a friend of mine (who's entire family ran a photo lab) saw my
prints, he immediately said, " Tri-X"

When I said "Nope, digital" he was shocked.

Ther were times Tri-X could be very grainy, especially when pushed and
it would be easy to mistake noise for grain. However, grain has a
different quality to digital noise and when a B&W conversion has been
made to camoflage high ISO noise it is not the same are simulatd grain,
or true emulsion grain.


He told me that a friend of his had worked extremely hard to give his
digital images the look of Tri-X, so he wanted to know what technique I
used.

That is quite possible, but it would be nice to know what the failed
techniques were. There are several plug-ins which allow various degrees
of introduction of simulated grain. Those include, but are not limited
to NIK Silver Efex Pro, On1 B&W, AlienSkin Exposure X, Tonality Pro
(Mac only). i am sure there are othere, but those are the ones I am
familiar with and which in their own way do a great job.

I told him the truth, that I had no idea, I just set the ISO high,
converted to gray scale, then played with the brightness and tone until
I got something I liked.

As I have said in the past, a straight gray-scale B&W conversion, while
quick and simple, does not, in my opinion produce the best B&W
rendition of digital color originals.

One thing I do know, I did not use any plug-ins or "simulated grain"
effect. I am almost too embarrassed to tell you that my main photo
editor is ACDsee 3.0 that I purchased in 2001 or so.

Nothing wrong with that if it works for you, but it can be limiting.

BTW: Now that I am scanning film, I find Photoshop invaluable though
and the healing tool especially. It allows me to easily repair some
glaring errors such as a small nick in the film right in the middle of
someone's face.

OTOH: I am in no way trying to get the print perfect and really like
small blotches or scratches in the negative...it gives the print a
wonderful look.

....and some of that character can be found in most of the plug-ins.

https://db.tt/EgNBPdzs

--
Regards,

Savageduck