champ3jd
Leading Member
give it time, it's still and infant.
great shooting,
jd
--
pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/champ3jd
great shooting,
jd
--
pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/champ3jd
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The ISO/noise debate is amazing
- Thread starter Pretorien
- Start date
champ3jd
Leading Member
I would like to thank all for your thoughtful and useful replies.
The "take away" lessons that I have gleaned are:
1. Electronic noise and film grain are related issues
2. Reduction (elimination?) of noise is seen as a goal beyond the capabilities of film (ref. 35 mm - let's keep 8 X 10 wet plates out of the comparison!)
3. High ISO noise reduction is a legitimate basis of competition amongst manufacturers and offers new phtographic opportunities.
4. The noise profile is built into the camera and can't be changed by the advent of a new improved film - but, the corrollary of that is that any of the cameras that I have looked at offer noise-free performance at modest ISO levels and the opportunity to change "film type" on the fly - by turning a knob instyead of carrying multiple bodies loaded with different films or going though a laborious mid-roll change.
5. Color rendition will change at high ISO (but then there is the phenomenon of reciprocity failure in film - much the same)
6. Keep up with the times!
To the question of my reaction to digital after many years with film:
The short answer is that I am sufficiently convinced that I am slowly cleaning up and selling off my Leica collection. As a background to understanding my weighting of various aspects, it is necessary to understand that I do a little photography but much of my use of a camera is "picture taking" - as an adjunct to other hobbies or activities.
I had access to good darkrooms while in school but have never been able to justify the space or $ to build my own. I loved the abililty to develop my own film, experiment with different mixes, and make my own prints seeing just how far I could exploit a negative. Digital gives me that while comfortably seated at my desk. I want a camera that will give me raw files so that I can follow this line.
I love the compactness and capacity of digital recording media as well as the economics of it. One of the things that I learned in my film days (both still and 8 mm motion) was that the cost of the gear was irrelevant - within 3 years the cost of film and processing would swamp it out.
Auto exposure and auto bracketing are very nice - I recognize that they have been around in SLRs for some time but (a) they are new to me and (b) as per the note above, the autobracketing is essentially free.
For me they jury is still out on auto focus although I find I am using it more and more with my Sony - focusing with an electronic finder is so-so This may change when I have a good pentaprism to use (although it's hard to beat the image superposition of a good rangefinder)
Speed of response is critical. A lot of my shooting is sports related. I can correct exposure, doctor colors, burn in, dodge, etc. etc. but there is nothing to be done if the subject is half way out of the frame. This is where resolution becomes important to me. I find long telephotos hard to use - the subject comes and goes very quickly! I am likely to use a shorter lens, allowing me to "look" the subject into the field and then crop out what I don't want or need - much like the defined fields of view for telephoto lenses on my Leica, the old Speed Graphic "sports finder" or, if you will, a gunsight!
Build quality is important to me - I am not willing to put down $8000 for a camera body but I want a tool to feel like a proper tool (Remember, I'm coming from a Leica with brass lenses) -( I like the Sony for this) - my wife's dRebel takes great images but feels like a toy to me.
Again, thanks for all of your responses - very helpful.
--
see profile for equipment
The "take away" lessons that I have gleaned are:
1. Electronic noise and film grain are related issues
2. Reduction (elimination?) of noise is seen as a goal beyond the capabilities of film (ref. 35 mm - let's keep 8 X 10 wet plates out of the comparison!)
3. High ISO noise reduction is a legitimate basis of competition amongst manufacturers and offers new phtographic opportunities.
4. The noise profile is built into the camera and can't be changed by the advent of a new improved film - but, the corrollary of that is that any of the cameras that I have looked at offer noise-free performance at modest ISO levels and the opportunity to change "film type" on the fly - by turning a knob instyead of carrying multiple bodies loaded with different films or going though a laborious mid-roll change.
5. Color rendition will change at high ISO (but then there is the phenomenon of reciprocity failure in film - much the same)
6. Keep up with the times!
To the question of my reaction to digital after many years with film:
The short answer is that I am sufficiently convinced that I am slowly cleaning up and selling off my Leica collection. As a background to understanding my weighting of various aspects, it is necessary to understand that I do a little photography but much of my use of a camera is "picture taking" - as an adjunct to other hobbies or activities.
I had access to good darkrooms while in school but have never been able to justify the space or $ to build my own. I loved the abililty to develop my own film, experiment with different mixes, and make my own prints seeing just how far I could exploit a negative. Digital gives me that while comfortably seated at my desk. I want a camera that will give me raw files so that I can follow this line.
I love the compactness and capacity of digital recording media as well as the economics of it. One of the things that I learned in my film days (both still and 8 mm motion) was that the cost of the gear was irrelevant - within 3 years the cost of film and processing would swamp it out.
Auto exposure and auto bracketing are very nice - I recognize that they have been around in SLRs for some time but (a) they are new to me and (b) as per the note above, the autobracketing is essentially free.
For me they jury is still out on auto focus although I find I am using it more and more with my Sony - focusing with an electronic finder is so-so This may change when I have a good pentaprism to use (although it's hard to beat the image superposition of a good rangefinder)
Speed of response is critical. A lot of my shooting is sports related. I can correct exposure, doctor colors, burn in, dodge, etc. etc. but there is nothing to be done if the subject is half way out of the frame. This is where resolution becomes important to me. I find long telephotos hard to use - the subject comes and goes very quickly! I am likely to use a shorter lens, allowing me to "look" the subject into the field and then crop out what I don't want or need - much like the defined fields of view for telephoto lenses on my Leica, the old Speed Graphic "sports finder" or, if you will, a gunsight!
Build quality is important to me - I am not willing to put down $8000 for a camera body but I want a tool to feel like a proper tool (Remember, I'm coming from a Leica with brass lenses) -( I like the Sony for this) - my wife's dRebel takes great images but feels like a toy to me.
Again, thanks for all of your responses - very helpful.
--
see profile for equipment
E
Ednaz
Guest
I agree with you completely from a photography perspective. Maybe it's because I DID shoot Fuji Press film at 1600, Tri-X at 3200. Even more so, however, I think it's because my standards are horribly low compared to people on the forum. All I care about is will people buy what I shoot, call me for the next shoot, and use my images.
Then again, from a technocraphy (yeah, I made the word up) perspective, SURE, I'd love to see better noise control at ISO 3200. I'd also like a 200mm f1.4 VR. I'm sure both are possible. I'm perhaps likely to be able to afford the first item than the second, but I'd love to see both happen. But whining about high ISO noise strikes me as really disengenuous - if you don't like high ISO noise, don't shoot high ISO. (funny how the same people who say it's awful still shoot at high iso. why would you do that if you think it's awful?)
Glass half empty, glass half full, I think.
And on "the market demands it" - some of the sharpest, finest grain films died quick and quiet deaths. Nobody wanted sharp and grain free enough to shoot at ISO 25. Yet somehow TriX soldiers on.
No manufacturer has it fixed yet. They each have their own version of the high ISO noise problems. I'll be thrilled when it gets better. But I'm not going to turn down work in the meantime waiting.
On the film analogy, I just had a real eye opening experience. I was working through some old ISO 400 Fujichrome slides last night. What a lesson. Shot four years ago, when that really was the only option. Not push processed either. I put a recent ISO 1600 image from my D2X up on the screen side by side with a slide image. The D2X at 1600 produced a much more visually satisfying image, and was much more enlarge-able. For those who don't remember, transparency film shot in dark environments has its own version of chrominance noise, and really nasty grain. Yeah, progress is awesome.
--
'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
Then again, from a technocraphy (yeah, I made the word up) perspective, SURE, I'd love to see better noise control at ISO 3200. I'd also like a 200mm f1.4 VR. I'm sure both are possible. I'm perhaps likely to be able to afford the first item than the second, but I'd love to see both happen. But whining about high ISO noise strikes me as really disengenuous - if you don't like high ISO noise, don't shoot high ISO. (funny how the same people who say it's awful still shoot at high iso. why would you do that if you think it's awful?)
Glass half empty, glass half full, I think.
And on "the market demands it" - some of the sharpest, finest grain films died quick and quiet deaths. Nobody wanted sharp and grain free enough to shoot at ISO 25. Yet somehow TriX soldiers on.
No manufacturer has it fixed yet. They each have their own version of the high ISO noise problems. I'll be thrilled when it gets better. But I'm not going to turn down work in the meantime waiting.
On the film analogy, I just had a real eye opening experience. I was working through some old ISO 400 Fujichrome slides last night. What a lesson. Shot four years ago, when that really was the only option. Not push processed either. I put a recent ISO 1600 image from my D2X up on the screen side by side with a slide image. The D2X at 1600 produced a much more visually satisfying image, and was much more enlarge-able. For those who don't remember, transparency film shot in dark environments has its own version of chrominance noise, and really nasty grain. Yeah, progress is awesome.
--
'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
D
DavidH
Guest
Excellent moment captured !
D
DavidH
Guest
Edna,
Nice post putting things in perspective. I don't think your use of technocraphy is a one time useage. You should capitalize on it in the 'techno' dictionaries.
--))
David
Nice post putting things in perspective. I don't think your use of technocraphy is a one time useage. You should capitalize on it in the 'techno' dictionaries.
--))David
E
Ednaz
Guest
It's not actually chrominance noise, but it looks a lot like it, the weird interaction of grain and color layers.
Ednaz wrote:
For those who don't remember, transparency
'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
Ednaz wrote:
For those who don't remember, transparency
--
'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
maxz
Veteran Member
all of a sudden most DSLR owners found a job as PJ and they need to work in low light most of the time =)
Reality is, despite the heated 'my DSLR has cleaner high ISO than yours' topics, only a few people shoot in candle light and hang 12x18 prints made from those shots. Shooting in low light needs not only useable high ISO, but also large aperture lenses, outstanding AF system, good shooting techniques and many other important factors. But few people care about those these days. It's as if slightly less noise alone is enough to turn a bad image into great work. And the difference in high ISO performance is way overblown. well wut can ya do? it's all about gear isnt it? =)
Max
Reality is, despite the heated 'my DSLR has cleaner high ISO than yours' topics, only a few people shoot in candle light and hang 12x18 prints made from those shots. Shooting in low light needs not only useable high ISO, but also large aperture lenses, outstanding AF system, good shooting techniques and many other important factors. But few people care about those these days. It's as if slightly less noise alone is enough to turn a bad image into great work. And the difference in high ISO performance is way overblown. well wut can ya do? it's all about gear isnt it? =)
Max
--
Ulf
Yes - it is 2005. You are absolutely right.
But, I do not understand much from all of you in this forum.
For how many years have you, in general, taking photos??
When did you start to have an interest in photography??
And why??
It seems that almost everything is about some technical stuff, on a very special level
Nothing of all this would make you a better photographer
So, be happy with your camera, with more or less noise - and go out - or keep yourself inside - and start to make good pictures
That is all that matters - also in year 2005
Ulf
Yes - it is 2005. You are absolutely right.
But, I do not understand much from all of you in this forum.
For how many years have you, in general, taking photos??
When did you start to have an interest in photography??
And why??
It seems that almost everything is about some technical stuff, on a very special level
Nothing of all this would make you a better photographer
So, be happy with your camera, with more or less noise - and go out - or keep yourself inside - and start to make good pictures
That is all that matters - also in year 2005
I will post some concert shots for you! everything clean .. very nice.. give me some time to upload it to my site and then tell me light fall off is not important!
--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com
--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com
win39
Veteran Member
I understand the argument that it is just a further development in the capability of photography. But sometimes it is just an argument about how much image manipulation is done in the camera instead of by you on your computer.
My own opinion is that the issue is quantifiable and can be depicted on a little graph. It becomes one of the few things you can say about a camera that is not subjective and can separate them. Whether the small differences have any effect on your pictures is irrelevant.
And people obsess on a lot of stuff on these forums many of it imaginary or caused by unfamiliarity with the operation of the camera.
LamyTracks
Well-known member
I started seriously shooting film in 1960 with an Argus C-3; I stopped shooting film with a selection of F5s and N90s. Since I got to digital with a D1x, then Kodaks, and now a D2x, I haven't looked back. For my purposes, digital is just better.
Given that, most of the argument about cameras and their various levels of responsiveness is techy BS. For practical purposes, there's really no practical difference between a D2x and a Canon 1DsII, even in low light. There are differences that can be measured, if you have the right instruments, but the differences are obviated by technique and even by lens availability. Most of it comes down to individual preference, or taste.
For a guy who insists that Canon's low-light response is better than Nikon's, you have to ask what he's doing? If he's making test shots in which he wants to measure various different kinds of noise with some technical instruments, that's one thing. If he actually wants to get them published, that's another -- any publication, say in Rolling Stone or Obscure Sports Monthly or even Arizona Highways, done on high-speed presses, is going to be so crappy compared to the quality of the original print that it makes no difference whatever. And viewing on a computer at 72 ppi? Are you kidding?
I really think the people who insist on noise differences begween top end cameras are the digital equivalents of guys who'd haul 8x10 equipment into the wilderness because 4x5 just wasn't good enough. God bless them; but they and people like them were probably the only ones who knew the difference, and the difference was purely technical.
JC
Given that, most of the argument about cameras and their various levels of responsiveness is techy BS. For practical purposes, there's really no practical difference between a D2x and a Canon 1DsII, even in low light. There are differences that can be measured, if you have the right instruments, but the differences are obviated by technique and even by lens availability. Most of it comes down to individual preference, or taste.
For a guy who insists that Canon's low-light response is better than Nikon's, you have to ask what he's doing? If he's making test shots in which he wants to measure various different kinds of noise with some technical instruments, that's one thing. If he actually wants to get them published, that's another -- any publication, say in Rolling Stone or Obscure Sports Monthly or even Arizona Highways, done on high-speed presses, is going to be so crappy compared to the quality of the original print that it makes no difference whatever. And viewing on a computer at 72 ppi? Are you kidding?
I really think the people who insist on noise differences begween top end cameras are the digital equivalents of guys who'd haul 8x10 equipment into the wilderness because 4x5 just wasn't good enough. God bless them; but they and people like them were probably the only ones who knew the difference, and the difference was purely technical.
JC
Quite so.
Could add a lot more to that, but I'll refrain myself this time
Don't want to upset the "we need noise-free 1600 iso" clan))
Theo
Could add a lot more to that, but I'll refrain myself this time
Don't want to upset the "we need noise-free 1600 iso" clan
))Theo
.......
slipstream
Veteran Member
Oh yes please do I really would like to see a concert picture where light fall of in the corners is a determining factor of the image quality. What a joke!
Just look at how dark those corners are! Just ruined the shot, don't you think! ;-)
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Ilkka Nissilä
Veteran Member
Yes, I've been wondering about the same thing. My lenses on average are faster than f/2.8 and I have five tripods, for different situations. Even if you could hand-hold at iso 1600 instead of, e.g., iso 200, you always get a worse image that way (provided that you use a tripod.) Using high iso as a general photography tool is just wasting the megapixels and fine lenses, and the quality of the fine digital printers we have today. It's like looking at pictures through a muddy veil. Colour, sharpness, all gone. Why bother, when by going through a little trouble and using a low iso you can get a better result? A larger dynamic range, better tonality, more beautiful colours, and more detail. It's absurd how digital photography has democritized photography in a sense, yet the result is that those who would never go through the trouble of using film expect that photography should be just happy snapping and this is where our cameras should be optimized for: quick thoughtless snaps taken when passing by.
Go Nikon! Nice iso 100 and 200 performance.
Ilkka
Go Nikon! Nice iso 100 and 200 performance.
Ilkka
Because you often get a worse result (motion blur). Saying that a tripod and ISO 200 is all you will ever need is just plain ignorant. What about moving subjects? What about when you can't use a tripod (like on a boat)? If all you shoot are subjects that stay put and you are always in a position to use a tripod, then fine. But don't assume for one second that all of photography is in those situations - it isn't.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Alnitak
Leading Member
I agree. Here's a shot at 1600 ISO (from across the church) that I never could have gotten with film. And even now, I wish I had better high ISO performance.
Your Joke is not funny .. And these shots prove it!
http://jkerk.smugmug.com/gallery/963155
--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com
http://jkerk.smugmug.com/gallery/963155
--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum