3rdtrick Posted November 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Driving home the other night, I set my M9 to ISO 2500 and shot out the windshield of my truck. Here is a sample. Made from DNG file with no modifications. Here is the same photo with a bit of Define 2.0. I don't have a profile yet so just used the defaults. Maybe I am going nuts but I kinda like the noisy one better... Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Hi 3rdtrick, Take a look here Iso 2500 m9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
markowich Posted November 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 13, 2009 they are both noisy, actually full of ugly noise. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_lir Posted November 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 13, 2009 i've found ISO 2500 to be quite suiteable. This was my first test. I'll generally use ISO 2000 when needed tho. enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted November 13, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 13, 2009 There's a difference between noise (as in grain-like) and noise (as in undefined grain-like splatters in odd digital-noisy colors) and noise (as in dirty colors caused by too warm or simply wrong white balance) and then noise (as in wrong exposed pictures). I'm not trying to be ironic or something. But it's important to distinguish which is what. First, the picture would improve greatly by the proper white balance because wrong white balance simply make things look dirty (when too warm; with yellowish/orangish/greenish colors). This happens even in daylight with 80 ISO exposures. If the white balance is off, the colors of things, dress, textiles, skin, etc. will look dirty, dead, ugly. So the first step to making a clean, sparkling and alive shot is the white balance. The M9 and most cameras doesn't do that by them self, especially not when light sources and color temperatures are mixed (headlights, advertisements, street lights, etc). Exposure should have been slightly longer in this one. One thin is that it would look better. Another thing is that it actually gives the sensor time to see what's what so it can define it. An underlit picture will always contain more noise/undefined information. And it will give better results adjusting a picture down in Lightroom, than up. The information necessary to make a dark picture lighter is simply missing in a dark picture. (A good example is wildlightphoto.com who does wildlife in daylight, but with f/6.8 tele lenses and a DMR that should work at 200 ISO. He underexpose in daylight and pick up the two extra stops in Lightroom (=800 ISO then) which works because there was light in the picture in the first place). When that is done you will be looking at a picture that is not perceived as "off" but a good looking picture in good, clear colors. THEN you can apply noise ninja if grain disturbs the eye. Mostly I personally like grain but that's because I shot film. I've had film pictures rejected by editors because of "noise" which were in fact film grain, but they didn't know because they just arrived from nowhere, so ... In any case. The M9 is capable of performing great shots in low light and even at 1250 and 2500 ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted November 13, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 13, 2009 got mine today and am so far really impressed. it really seems to produce a film like grain. will post on site soon ----------------- David Sampson Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtrick Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted November 14, 2009 Thank you Overgaard, I will let the camera give a bit more exposure in the night shots. Hopefully that will do it and they can be darkened if they are too bright. The white balance is tough with the mixed lights but I am shooting DNG and can correct it. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted November 14, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Am I the only one who actually sees night scenes with that color balance? Obviously I wasn't there, but under those lights that's probably the way my eye would've seen the situation. Streetlights actually look that orange to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted November 14, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 14, 2009 Well, some see all light as daylight. But when you start to notice color temperatures, tube light gets annoying green (and so does many low energy pulps). But the thing with film and sensors is that orange gets really orange and green gets real green. So in mixed light conditions it gets tough to get there. On this one, exposure would clear up a lot but the street light on the bus is too warm. It just is. On a shot like that I might use a grey-card under the street light to get it right (and if a cars headlight hits the greycard slightly as I do it, it would probably get better). The main problem is to get it right in the camera. I hear people who've read somewhere, or been told in the photoshop by the sales person, that "with RAW you can just adjust everything in the computer" but it really isn't so. The computers can't get it right, but you can. And the higher you go in ISO (and the lower light=less information for the computer to work with in figuring out the picture), the more tricky it gets. Because high ISO is already stretching the computer power as the sensor sees 160 ISO so 2500 ISO (or 6400 or 102.000 ISO) is basically a sensor on steroids. It's a sensor trying to guess what's there in the dark from the few data it can get at 160 ISO. Canon and Nikon does a great job in guessing, but they loose a lot of the truthfulness and clarity of the original scenery in doing so. The essence of Leica is that you get this sparkling clear truth, but you have to set the camera first. Anyways, tricky shot to do. As for mixed temperatures, have a look at the Ocean Thirteen movie and see how they play with warm and cold light. I haven't figured it out yet but they are on to something. They did one scene in the end of Ocean Twelve and I guess they liked it so much they did the whole next movie that way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted November 16, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 16, 2009 We use "errors" in focus and exposure time, and inappropriate film speeds, for artistic purposes...but what about color balance? I see a lot of moody photos in dimly lighted bars that are way too "warm" or way too "cool"--very unrealistic--and they kind of work for me even though they are accidental. If you watch a lot of early cinema, this look I think is often intentional tinting or whatever and not just an artifact of the film--wish I knew more about it. Does a too warm or too cool photo always look amateurish? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted November 16, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 16, 2009 People have always used 'wrong' color for creative effect. I've always thought the most important thing is to know what's happening technically and how to do it properly so when you break the rules you know why and how you are. Even if you're aiming for happy accidents, you know why the accidents are happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 16, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 16, 2009 On the question of noise - with any digital camera - it is important to remember that the camera really only has ONE ISO - the base ISO (160 in the case of Leica M, 200 in the case of Nikons). It's like having a film camera that can only be loaded with ISO 160 color film. Any time you use the higher ISO settings, you are "push-processing" the image. Giving the sensor/film fewer photons, and boosting the response to those limited photons by adding additional signal amplification or additional developing time. So shooting a digital camera at ISO 2500 is NOT equivalent to loading TMax or Delta 3200 (real base ISO around 1000-1600) in a film camera and overdeveloping +/- one stop. It is equivalent to shooting the same old ISO 160 film and then overdeveloping it 4 stops. Which is mostly to point out that any time you go off the base ISO, you are already underexposing the sensor, and there is progressively less and less leeway for error. Underexpose a stop at ISO 160, and you are effectively shooting at ISO 320 - a fairly easy error to correct. Underexpose a stop at ISO 2500, and you are really underexposing 5 stops (not the one stop you'd get shooting TMax, or a sensor with a true base ISO of 1250). Correctly expose a shot at ISO 2500 - correct exposure meaning that the histogram in the camera covers the full width of the graph, and is not just a mountain on the left side - and it will look pretty good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 16, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 16, 2009 I haven't used anything above ISO 640 on serious work yet, for two main reasons. First, I wanted to really test the camera to see how the results would print. But mainly, I haven't run into a situation where I needed such high speeds. Back in my film days I rarely shot anything but Tri-X @ 400 and very occasionally TMX 3200, but usually at 800 or 1600. Even for my work at a major metro newspaper we had Fuji color neg film in 200 and 800 and we didn't push process. Anything under 800 was intentionally underexposed and fixed during scanning. But, there are times when a faster speed would be nice, especially since I don't usually go for the ultra-shallow DOF look. These are some quick tests, all ISO 2500 with M9 and 35 'Cron ASPH. Both are converted in ACR with no noise reduction and no extra color corrections or adjustments. The B&W image was converted with channel mixer 50% each or R and G channel. First full frame, then 100 percent crops, which I know I'll regret posting. More importantly than these on-screen photos are the prints I made. I printed the files at 14x21inches and they look amazing. The noise is actually fairly minimal in print. I won't hesitate to use 1600 even for critical work and 2500 if it's needed. The key, as others have said, is to expose properly. There is very little margin for error at the higher speeds. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/103668-iso-2500-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1119300'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 17, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 17, 2009 Noah--they look totally convincing to me... especially in the shadows, where it looks like there's yet another stop. All of which tells me somewhere down the road you might actually see a push ISO 5000 with the M9.... But having ISO 2500 this good will definitely be a huge boon over the M8. Thanks for posting these. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 17, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 17, 2009 Jamie--Not sure if I'd want to push the M9 any further, but I think the quality is very good up to 1600 and still very useable at 2500. For my B&W wedding work especially, I will not hesitate to use 2500. It may be of benefit for weddings and also for weddings I use my custom actions to add noise (ok, fake grain) to my files. The M9 noise at 2500 is way below what I add for my wedding prints, so basically noise won't be an issue. The only issue is exposure latitude, which is admittedly very small at these high ISOs. As a point of comparison I didn't even like to shoot the M8 at 640. By the way, my statements are based on 14x21inch prints, not these web samples. On screen at 100%, my D700 files (with ZF 35/2) at 1600 and 3200 are cleaner, but also show more of a loss of fine detail. (My dogs are a good test subject due to the detail in the fur.) In print there is virtually no difference in noise but the M9 prints look sharper. Back to Jamie's point--I know with the M8 Leica was able to improve the high ISO performance through firmware after the camera was released. I'm not sure if Leica can squeeze out as much extra performance with the M9 as they did with the M8, since I assume the things they learned from the M8 are already implemented in the M9 hardware and firmware. As it is now, taking everything into consideration including the fast lenses available, I consider the M9 to be a very capable low-light camera. If it got any better, it could be amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreyTotaro Posted November 17, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 17, 2009 I hear people who've read somewhere, or been told in the photoshop by the sales person, that "with RAW you can just adjust everything in the computer" but it really isn't so. The computers can't get it right, but you can. Its always been my understanding, and experience, that raw files are just that, the raw data captured by the sensor with no care for any settings other than ISO. The camera is not capturing a color image, its the software that interpolates the data and adds a profile to it and you pick the profile and the color balance. Once you tell it to process the image it is then turned into a file with pixels assigned certain colors. With camera set to JPG, this all happens in the camera with tons of data is thrown away and where it does matter what your white balance is set to. So are you suggesting that if my camera is set 3200k when I shoot a raw file and I change it to 5500k in the software that it will look different if the camera had been set to 5500k from the start? I have never heard this before. Just curious if I have been missing something all these years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 17, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 17, 2009 I think that is not what Thorsten was saying at all. I read it to mean that computers are mindless and the user determines the outcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreyTotaro Posted November 17, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 17, 2009 Ahhh, now I see what he meant - pheww!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 17, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 17, 2009 Timely thread as I was playing with ISO 2500 yesterday and was surprised at how usable it seems (for certain types of shot). The snapshot below is my daughter (with a mucky face) at ISO 2500 (and F1.4). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 17, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 17, 2009 Amazing eyes- I'm sure she is much prettier than you are Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 17, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 17, 2009 Amazing eyes- I'm sure she is much prettier than you are Thankfully yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.