If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizable image?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizable image?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizableimage?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is the highest ISO your camera will produce a recognizable image?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best P&S digital camera with highest zoom level | Danny | Digital Photography | 2 | October 30th 05 06:06 AM |
Why can't the Russians produce a world class camera? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | January 25th 05 08:02 PM |
what's the cheapest and highest Optical Zoom Camera on the market ? | Dick Splodge | Digital ZLR Cameras | 9 | December 20th 04 03:45 PM |
Clifford Ross R1 camera: highest resolution? | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | May 25th 04 04:05 PM |