Love affair with high ISO

DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
edited August 5, 2013 in The Big Picture
When I switched to full-frame, I was really hesitant to use high ISO. One thing that I feel really improved my photography was when I was comfortable cranking it to 6400. Graininess/Noise is almost always better than a blurred or OOF shot... in my estimation. And taking a properly exposed photo at higher sensitivity is usually better than taking an underexposed photo and having to push it.

Two from my most recent event...

ISO 6400
i-Bs4bjBb-XL.jpg

ISO 3200
i-gRftvjp-XL.jpg

Comments

  • EaracheEarache Registered Users Posts: 3,533 Major grins
    edited July 24, 2013
    You didn't mention your equipment/processing Demian, but your results look pretty good, especially at ISO 3200.

    So, I just wanted to chime-in with the results of my recent experiment taking a high ISO image.
    Was aboard the USS Midway Museum (carrier) and took a quick shot in the really dim Forecastle at ISO 12800, 24mm, f4, 1/125sec - 5D Mk III, 24-105mm f4L - Heavy NR in LR4.

    My impression is that results are not bad - but nothing to write home about... fairly low apparent noise, but very noticeable loss of detail - which is expected of course - it's possible I'm being too picky.
    I took many other available light images at ISO 4000-5000 that much better preserved resolution/detail.

    i-Vd56j2c-XL.jpg
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,249 moderator
    edited August 2, 2013
    I regularly go up to ISO 12800 with impunity. Never fear the ISO's. They are your friend.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • EaracheEarache Registered Users Posts: 3,533 Major grins
    edited August 2, 2013
    David_S85 wrote: »
    I regularly go up to ISO 12800 with impunity. Never fear the ISO's. They are your friend.
    Good advice David! My 5DIII body certainly makes that feasible.
    (One of) my problems is that Old Fears die hard, and I have Pixel Peeperitis - I think I need therapy.... :D
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2013
    Earache wrote: »
    it's possible I'm being too picky.

    Ya think??? 15524779-Ti.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • EaracheEarache Registered Users Posts: 3,533 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2013
    Icebear wrote: »
    Ya think??? 15524779-Ti.gif

    rolleyes1.gifLaughing.gif! Don't forget about that, "I need Therapy" thing too... :help
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2013
    Earache - Those were shot with a 5d2, 70-200 2.8. Luminescence NR of like 15 in Photoshop CS6.


    I think your photo looks great. It's certainly good enough for computer viewing - unless you got an exceptionally large print, I don't think most people would notice. I might tone down the NR tho - personally, I prefer graininess over a totally polished look.
Sign In or Register to comment.