Your Take on ISO

3rdPlanetPhotography

Ok I must ask. When I first started photography some 20 years back we shot ISO 100 in the studio I worked in. The rule of thumb there was to always use 100 because it gave very nice enlargements without any grain or noise. Having always used that tip, I've always been fighting with trying to get enough light for the right photo. I enjoy wedding photos and shooting 100 always makes me work a lot harder and I sometimes think I miss the right shot because of that.

Can I still get Nice 8x10 and 11x14 prints if I choose to shoot some of these darker weddings using ISO 400 or 800?

What is your thought or tip on the subject?

kc7dji:dunno

DoctorIt

I think these days, the answer is a resounding YES. Many of the newer DSLR sensors are incredible. I know I wouldn't print a 10D wedding or portrait image at ISO800, but i wouldn't hesitate with the same from a 20D.

Winger (another UMass dgrinner) shoots tons of indoor sporting events at ISO 800, even 1600. I haven't seen them printed large, but when looking at her proofs, I never flinch at any being too noisy.

And it comes down to personal preference too. Some would say the noise from a D2H is too much. I agree, its there, but I find it pleasing at ISO800. Would I use it for a wedding, no. Would I use it for a cool dark portrait to hang on my own wall, for sure.

ScottMcLeod

kc7dji wrote:

Ok I must ask. When I first started photography some 20 years back we shot ISO 100 in the studio I worked in. The rule of thumb there was to always use 100 because it gave very nice enlargements without any grain or noise. Having always used that tip, I've always been fighting with trying to get enough light for the right photo. I enjoy wedding photos and shooting 100 always makes me work a lot harder and I sometimes think I miss the right shot because of that.

Can I still get Nice 8x10 and 11x14 prints if I choose to shoot some of these darker weddings using ISO 400 or 800?

What is your thought or tip on the subject?

kc7dji

800's pushing it unless you're using the Digic2 Processor from canon, or a good noise reducing program...

But I've gotten some sweet shots from 400, that look amazing printed large.

colourbox

It completely depends on your camera. I have a point-and-shoot that is terrible above ISO 100, but my Digital Rebel XT has a much higher-quality sensor - its images are quite acceptable up to ISO 400, OK at 800, and passable at ISO 1600 if you don't enlarge very much.

If you want to shoot at higher ISO with digital, when you shop for a camera you'll make high-ISO performance a priority, and certain cameras will then rise to the top of your list.

Even if you hit the limits of one of those cameras, you can also apply noise-reduction software like Noise Ninja or NeatImage to minimize the noise, and maybe make an ISO 800 image look as good as an untreated ISO 200 or 400.

Andy

I met Paul Bowen, one of the Canon Explorers of Light and he told me that he shoots almost exclusively at iso 1250.

Today's cameras are amazing at the higher ISOs. Embrace the noise, I say. Grain is good, I say! We can get hung up on sharpness, crispness, etc - and lose sight of the overall "picture."

I know a few wedding photogs who do the majority of their reception work (exclusive of formals) at ISO 1600, and yes, ISO 3200.

ScottMcLeod

Andy wrote:

I met Paul Bowen, one of the Canon Explorers of Light and he told me that he shoots almost exclusively at iso 1250.

Today's cameras are amazing at the higher ISOs. Embrace the noise, I say. Grain is good, I say! We can get hung up on sharpness, crispness, etc - and lose sight of the overall "picture."

I know a few wedding photogs who do the majority of their reception work (exclusive of formals) at ISO 1600, and yes, ISO 3200.

I'm with Andy for my own work. I shoot mostly dance and theatre, and i'm usually stuck in ridiculous lighting conditions. I shoot pretty much exclusively above 800ISO. If i get to 400ISO, it means either i'm the lighting designer and i've added light for the photo-call, or I got lucky, and the lighting designer doesn't design with a sombre mood.

3rdPlanetPhotography

Excellent from each of you. Thank you so much for giving me the courage to change that old ISO 100. I'm using the Canon 20d and it seems to be great with the higher ISO's but I've never printed them. I'll keep watching to see who else chimes in.

thanks again
kc7dji

MikeFried

DoctorIt wrote:

I know I wouldn't print a 10D wedding or portrait image at ISO800, but i wouldn't hesitate with the same from a 20D.

When you say that you wouldn't print, what size do you mean? Do you have anything against ISO 800+ on the 10D? I find that it's only an issue when you try and push it and you don't have the light/fill.

My recent new years eve party shots were all at ISO 800 with the 28-135 IS (with IS on) and the 550EX flash + sto fen omnibounce at an angle. M mode. I set the shutter to hand holdable speed, the aperture to stop down a bit, and rely on the ISO and flash for a decent balance of ambient/flash. I shot raw, and I maybe tweaked the white balance or exposure compensation in the EOS Viewer Utility, but these shots didn't need any Photoshop.

See an example from my gallery here:
http://friedfamilyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1085430/1/50437354

DoctorIt

MikeFried wrote:

When you say that you wouldn't print, what size do you mean? Do you have anything against ISO 800+ on the 10D? I find that it's only an issue when you try and push it and you don't have the light/fill.

This might just be personal, but you can definitely tell there is a noise pattern in ANY ISO 800 shot from a 10D. I wouldn't print them bigger than 5x7, maybe 8x10 if there wasn't much dark background where the noise really stands out. Definitely not any bigger. Your results may vary, just trying to answer the initial question posed.

DoctorIt

Andy wrote:

I met Paul Bowen, one of the Canon Explorers of Light and he told me that he shoots almost exclusively at iso 1250.

Today's cameras are amazing at the higher ISOs. Embrace the noise, I say. Grain is good, I say! We can get hung up on sharpness, crispness, etc - and lose sight of the overall "picture."

I know a few wedding photogs who do the majority of their reception work (exclusive of formals) at ISO 1600, and yes, ISO 3200.

Yeah, but there's different noise patterns. For instance, not to toot my own new horn, but although there is lots of noise at ISO 800 on my new D2H, I think the pattern is much more pleasing than it was on my 10D.

ginger_55

IMO, to use high ISOs with minimum noise, your exposure needs to be spot on.

I used 3200 ISO and someone asked why I was not getting noise. Only reason I can think of: the exposures were pretty good.

But if I do birds, there are so many variables, noise is a problem as my exposures usually leave something to be desired.

High ISO+pushing the exposure=grain/noise.

imo.

ginger (If I liked something for emotional reasons, I would frame it, noise is not my only criteria for a good photo.)

Andy

DoctorIt wrote:

Yeah, but there's different noise patterns. For instance, not to toot my own new horn, but although there is lots of noise at ISO 800 on my new D2H, I think the pattern is much more pleasing than it was on my 10D.

10D was kinda feh at 800/1600. 20D, 1DII, 1DsMII and 5D are really nice noise patterns at 800, 1600

wxwax

ginger_55 wrote:

IMO, to use high ISOs with minimum noise, your exposure needs to be spot on.

I used 3200 ISO and someone asked why I was not getting noise. Only reason I can think of: the exposures were pretty good.

High ISO+pushing the exposure=grain/noise.

ginger

Very good point, I've run into the same.

wxwax

Andy wrote:

I met Paul Bowen, one of the Canon Explorers of Light and he told me that he shoots almost exclusively at iso 1250.

But unfortunately, none of the images on his front page.

Cool link, tho, thanks.

mercphoto

DoctorIt wrote:

This might just be personal, but you can definitely tell there is a noise pattern in ANY ISO 800 shot from a 10D. I wouldn't print them bigger than 5x7, maybe 8x10 if there wasn't much dark background where the noise really stands out. Definitely not any bigger. Your results may vary, just trying to answer the initial question posed.

I'll agree that ISO 800 on a 10D is problematic. However, the Digic II chip from Canon is a large step beyond the 10D. So a 20D or a 1D Mark II can make great and big prints even at ISO 800 or 1600. At 3200 I'd start worrying about using noise reduction software. However, I agree with Andy that digital is making all of us too dang concerned about the technicals of photography and not worry as much about the emotional appeal. As Ginger said, if its a great shot then noise is not an issue.

Noise and digital varies a lot from brand and model. Canon is still quite a bit ahead of Nikon in terms of noise. And about any DSLR will beat any point-and-shoot.

Bob&Glennie

Well Said !

Andy wrote:

I met Paul Bowen, one of the Canon Explorers of Light and he told me that he shoots almost exclusively at iso 1250.

Today's cameras are amazing at the higher ISOs. Embrace the noise, I say. Grain is good, I say! We can get hung up on sharpness, crispness, etc - and lose sight of the overall "picture."

I know a few wedding photogs who do the majority of their reception work (exclusive of formals) at ISO 1600, and yes, ISO 3200.

"We can get hung up on sharpness, crispness, etc - and lose sight of the overall "picture."

I come from the "old days" of film photography and I guess I tend to judge Digital by comparing it with what I'd expect from my old Pentax Spotmatic. So, believe it or not my wife's 4mp Fuji compact zoom can yield 8x10's that are as good as the same enlargement size on CONSUMER QUALITY COLOR NEGATIVE 35mm.

Andy's right. It's not always about sharpness that can draw blood. It's about so much more than techcnical stuff and aberation tests ad nausium. It's about beautiful pictures that say something about the subject and the photographer's vision and interaction with the subject.

Almost any current entry level DSLR in the right hands can do a fabulous job with a wedding.

B&G

ScottMcLeod

Bob&Glennie wrote:

Almost any current entry level DSLR in the right hands can do a fabulous job with a wedding.

B&G

And that's what scares the ____ out of me every time one of those walks out of the door at my store...

I like to think that there's something that keeps me seperated from the rest of these rich yahoos buying prosumer/pro DSLR's... and sometimes, I really wonder if that's what some of the big problems are these days.

DoctorIt

ScottMcLeod wrote:

And that's what scares the ____ out of me every time one of those walks out of the door at my store...

It shouldn't, and I disagree. Anyone can take great wedding snapshots with a new dslr, but really good wedding photos are all about some serious lighting work, and thats accomplished with lights/reflectors/etc, not the camera.

ScottMcLeod

DoctorIt wrote:

It shouldn't, and I disagree. Anyone can take great wedding snapshots with a new dslr, but really good wedding photos are all about some serious lighting work, and thats accomplished with lights/reflectors/etc, not the camera.

Well, true. But a lot of "people" with no knowledge of photography or anything of the like are walking out of my store with 20D's and 580EX'es, or RebelXT's and 580EX'es with the 17-85 lens...

You can take pretty damn good photos with those cameras without any knowledge of photography.

DoctorIt

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Well, true. But a lot of "people" with no knowledge of photography or anything of the like are walking out of my store with 20D's and 580EX'es, or RebelXT's and 580EX'es with the 17-85 lens...

You can take pretty damn good photos with those cameras without any knowledge of photography.

Sure, but still, why is that so scary? And anyway, shouldn't that tickle you pink, mr salesman???

Art Scott

Well I still prefer to shoot at Iso 64 or 100....if I am shooting film I still like the iso 50 and 100....In the over 40 yrs of shooting I have only purchased no more than 12 rolls of 400, 1 of 800 and 1 of 1000........just kept going back to the 50 and 100....UNTIL digital....here are a couple of iso 1600 Kansas Dance Fest shots from Nov19,2005........




I did just a slight adjust to WB and a little in LAB curves and that is about all....saved a 300dpi jpg 12 for both.....

ScottMcLeod

ART SCOTT wrote:

Well I still prefer to shoot at Iso 64 or 100....if I am shooting film I still like the iso 50 and 100....In the over 40 yrs of shooting I have only purchased no more than 12 rolls of 400, 1 of 800 and 1 of 1000........just kept going back to the 50 and 100....UNTIL digital....here are a couple of iso 1600 Kansas Dance Fest shots from Nov19,2005........




I did just a slight adjust to WB and a little in LAB curves and that is about all....saved a 300dpi jpg 12 for both.....

Nice work and colour saturation!

Tell those techies to stretch their cyc before they run a show though, and maybe to roll under the bottom of the cyc... (to avoid that ugly white line)

That cyc's begging to be primped up for it's center-stage appearance!

Art Scott

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Nice work and colour saturation!

Tell those techies to stretch their cyc before they run a show though, and to learn how to roll under the bottom of the cyc... (to avoid that ugly white line)

That's the saddest cyc i've ever seen... it hurts me to see it. :cry

Uuuuuuh yeah....I'll tell'em....their my crew....I shot those and several hundred more whilst running sound...:D ..the cyc had just been stretched about 20 minutes earlier and it isn't tall enuff to roll under the pipes are bent and the floor is not level....getting new floor this summer tho...our scrims have so many holes it isn't funnny and ACDF is here this spring....:cry :cry
I guess I should have said WAS my crew....I am moving to Prague Cz in a few weeks.

ScottMcLeod

ART SCOTT wrote:

Uuuuuuh yeah....I'll tell'em....their my crew....I shot those and several hundred more whilst running sound...:D ..the cyc had just been stretched about 20 minutes earlier and it isn't tall enuff to roll under the pipes are bent and the floor is not level....getting new floor this summer tho...our scrims have so many holes it isn't funnny and ACDF is here this spring....:cry :cry
I guess I should have said WAS my crew....I am moving to Prague Cz in a few weeks.

Ack! Sorry. I didn't realise that there were other theatre techs on this board.

Typical Theatre though, we have a few system pipes that have gone out of alignment after only 3 months after being re-calibrated this summer.

Good luck on the move, and again, nice shots!

Art Scott

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Ack! Sorry. I didn't realise that there were other theatre techs on this board.

Typical Theatre though, we have a few system pipes that have gone out of alignment after only 3 months after being re-calibrated this summer.

Good luck on the move, and again, nice shots!

Not a prob.... Thanks for the compliments.......:D Just couldn't resist letting ya know I was head of the crew.

Thanks again.