Reading mode: Light Dark

we have a bad feeling

Go to last post
I never experienced this problem. But there were some reports of instances where the ProSLR/n was't recalibrating for changes in ISO. When you change your ISO does the Kodak notify your of recalibration in the rear LCD?

j
 
Just to clarify matters, I don't have the files anymore, but the RML team does. I don't remember how I shot them, but blues, blacks and dark browns have never rendered well above 640. I've done extensive tests, and the results were never good. I've used all the current converters and none of them have been able to do much. I asked the RML team to see if they could squeeze out ISO800. I'd like to see if other peoples iso800 files for dark colors I mentioned so I can compare.

My camera is working fine, and recalibrating itself. I don't consider my camera an ISO800. ISO640 is the max.

I'll ask the RML team how to dujplicate the test again and to explain the theory about it.

Paul
 
Julia Borg said:
Paul was not exposing for the furniture, it was a living room
exposed for white cat :)
--
Click to expand...
Fair enough Julia. But, that supports my original contention that the image posted [or that portion of the image] was dramatically underexposed.

Respectfully, think your original postulation has to be better qualified.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
Paul Spatafora said:
I don't consider my camera an ISO800.
Click to expand...
I won't argue that point : )

Not only isn't it an ISO 800 camera, the resolution is so limited with higher ISO that a D70 or 350XT probably has much more real resolution with 800 or above. So, it does bring up the point of whether any software fix is just smoothing out the information or actually retrieving the extra resolution of the Kodak.

So the tests that I would like to see are resolution tests of raw converters at higher resolution along side of the reduction of noise. Smoothing noise is good but if a new $800 camera can out perform a $4500 camera with a software fix, it may be time to re-evalutate things.

I haven't run any tests on RM or Silky so I would be happy to hear that the resolution is better with these new converters.

regards,

j
 
Paul Spatafora said:
Rick,

I want to by youjr camera!!! For some reason, I can never get those
results. Can you photograph a pair of blue jeans? Thanks a killer
color for my camera. Whites come out really good. Can you
photograph a an dark american cherry color? That's the color the
the RML team posted. That'll tell me how my camera compares!

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Here's one I did while evaluating Silkypix. Though I had originally believed SP was better at noise than ARC, I now believe depends on the subject. In the preceeding posts, the silkypix image did not work as well as ARC. Mind you I did nothing but use the auto settings in ARC for the posts, after posting I played and the ARC images were better at 800, but SP worked better at 1600.



The jeans look fine as do the browns in the leaves and dirt. Again, I use 640 & 800 quite a bit for Karate tournaments and weddings. I've never had a complaint about image quality in 8x10 prints. But, my clients are doing side by side comparisons as would some commercial clients.

I have also posted, in the past, that my camera was more sensative to EVs than simply ISO. If I can get a 1/60 -- f5.6 -- ISO 800, I have no issue with the 8x10 prints or reservations about using this setting. Additionally, SP does a better job with these conditions than does ARC.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
LVPG said:
Paul Spatafora said:
Rick,

I want to by youjr camera!!! For some reason, I can never get those
results. Can you photograph a pair of blue jeans? Thanks a killer
color for my camera. Whites come out really good. Can you
photograph a an dark american cherry color? That's the color the
the RML team posted. That'll tell me how my camera compares!

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Here's one I did while evaluating Silkypix. Though I had
originally believed SP was better at noise than ARC, I now believe
depends on the subject. In the preceeding posts, the silkypix
image did not work as well as ARC. Mind you I did nothing but use
the auto settings in ARC for the posts, after posting I played and
the ARC images were better at 800, but SP worked better at 1600.



The jeans look fine as do the browns in the leaves and dirt.
Again, I use 640 & 800 quite a bit for Karate tournaments and
weddings. I've never had a complaint about image quality in 8x10
prints. But, my clients are doing side by side comparisons as
would some commercial clients.

I have also posted, in the past, that my camera was more sensative
to EVs than simply ISO. If I can get a 1/60 -- f5.6 -- ISO 800, I
have no issue with the 8x10 prints or reservations about using this
setting. Additionally, SP does a better job with these conditions
than does ARC.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
Click to expand...
Hi Rick,

I went out this afternoon and took a couple of test shots at 800 and 1600 and the files looked good. Simiilar to your example. I went and printed some of them and I was surprised how good they looked compared to the on screen appearance. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't normally shoot outside at those ISO's but in good light they're okay. ISO 800 might be effective in lightly colored rooms but I still not sure about dark and dingy ones like banquet halls. I'm going to do some tests this weekend and see the results myslef. .5 a stop overexposed really helps, but you can't rely on the camera to do so, but then again, it wouldn't be ISO800.

My wife thinks I'm nut about this high ISO especially after I printed an 16x24 at ISO 400. One click extrapolation and boom, insta enlargemnt.Minimal sharpening. The reason I would like high ISO is that I can pick up an extra stop of ambient light in the evening in the hall. I think I am nuts.

My camera did recalibrate itself.

THanks for the help.
 
Paul Spatafora said:
Hi Rick,

I went out this afternoon and took a couple of test shots at 800
and 1600 and the files looked good. Simiilar to your example. I
went and printed some of them and I was surprised how good they
looked compared to the on screen appearance. Don't get me wrong, I
wouldn't normally shoot outside at those ISO's but in good light
they're okay. ISO 800 might be effective in lightly colored rooms
but I still not sure about dark and dingy ones like banquet halls.
I'm going to do some tests this weekend and see the results myslef.
.5 a stop overexposed really helps, but you can't rely on the
camera to do so, but then again, it wouldn't be ISO800.

My wife thinks I'm nut about this high ISO especially after I
printed an 16x24 at ISO 400. One click extrapolation and boom,
insta enlargemnt.Minimal sharpening. The reason I would like high
ISO is that I can pick up an extra stop of ambient light in the
evening in the hall. I think I am nuts.
Click to expand...
No need to justify the need for higher ISO to me. I'm with you. Generally, I'm using higher ISOs to get an aperature of 5.6 or higher. Because my subjects are moving and I'm not using a tripod, this seems to be my minimum for sharp images on my camera.

Yes, the 1/2 stop overexposure helps quite a bit. But, since my camera does that anyway, it works out quite well.

One thing I did notice at higher ISOs is that out of focus sections of the image will take on a painterly affect more so than at base ISO. I'm not certain why. I took portraits [a bit more than headshot FOV] at ISO400, f2.0 @ 1/125 and the eyes would come out sharp, but outside the focus plane, the image had the effect when zoomed to 100%. I believe this is why "my" 800 images are more acceptable than others--simply because I am trying to get an f5.6 or higher, where others may be squeezing the f2.8 and below. Because of the shallow focus plane, the painterly effect is more apparent thoughout the image.

As far as you wife's opinion, I hear you. I always use it as a reality check [in my case]. Every once in a while I need to "prioritize.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
I have no idea how one would determine if the camera is doing a digital ISO calculation but think the knowledge of what it is doing would be worth knowing.

Secondly I'm curious how one changes in hindsight the ISO?

Julia, I'm a little lost here. Did you take the original crop and somehow post process it to get the second result?

Whatever the discussion maybe regarding the validity of the noise sample maybe, I think the result is amazing and I'd like to know what has been done to achieve that.

There are many reasons images might end-up with under-exposed area where the noise is out of control at high ISO. I like to shoot shearing in natural light. Normally I do this when light is bursting in through the sheep run. So this means I have some extreme light surrounded by extreem shadows. Now I just don't shoot at ISO 800 cause the noise is out of control. I've never tested how bad it might get cause I don't like the noise at ISO 400.

I have no doubt at ISO800 I could find samples of shadows that show the effect in the original image, and if I get the chance I will post some.

Regards

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top