Jamie Roberts Posted November 18, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ian, again a totally convincing shot at high ISO (and lower light levels? unless you were shooting at a high shutter to test?)--so at least the red and green channels are good How was the colour version, just out of curiousity? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here Iso 2500 m9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted November 18, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 18, 2009 Gentlemen, I'd like to remind you that we have two different kinds of noise, luminance and chrominance, the lumi kind being very much less obtrusive than the chromi kind. So going BW is easier than colour. With the M8 I did faitly often go to ISO 1250 in BW, but never above 640 in colour. Corresponding values for the M9 are 1000 and 2000, respectively. BW 1250 with the M8 did mostly look like film grain. The problem is of course that high ISO settings are usually for available light, which is very often quite contrasty, with large areas that are very dark. Here the noise does indeed pop up, especially in the corners of wide angle pictures, where vignetting compensation does add extra amplification. Situations where the light is very low but also very even are quite uncommon. The old man from the Age of Cooked Tri-X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 18, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 18, 2009 ...So going BW is easier than colour. With the M8 I did faitly often go to ISO 1250 in BW, but never above 640 in colour. Corresponding values for the M9 are 1000 and 2000, respectively.... This is true, of course. But with the M8 I never went above 320 for color or 640 for B&W (and even that was rare, since even if I intend for a photo to be B&W I may need it in color for a client or my agency). From my tests, viewing prints and on-screen (but NOT putting much weight into 100 percent crop views), I would say that 1600 is quite usable for color with the M9, and 2500 for B&W. Perhaps if you print larger than 16x24 your results may vary. BW 1250 with the M8 did mostly look like film grain. The problem is of course that high ISO settings are usually for available light, which is very often quite contrasty, with large areas that are very dark. Here the noise does indeed pop up, especially in the corners of wide angle pictures, where vignetting compensation does add extra amplification. Situations where the light is very low but also very even are quite uncommon. ... This is true to a point. If you expose correctly and don't mind letting the very dark areas go to black, then noise isn't as much of an issue. If you insist on pulling lots of extra shadow detail out, then yes, you will see lots of noise in the shadows. This was true with film as it is with digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 18, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 18, 2009 Not sure what you're processing these with - C1? My experience at high ISO is that LR3 beta makes a fantastic job of the files - I'm definitely happy to work with 2500 with LR3. Not LR 2.5 though. My workflow is to process anything I shoot above 800 in LR3 and then export as DNG to LR2.5. Seems to work.... ... and Noah - LOVELY dog! I'm jealous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 18, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 18, 2009 Ian, again a totally convincing shot at high ISO (and lower light levels? unless you were shooting at a high shutter to test?)--so at least the red and green channels are good How was the colour version, just out of curiousity? Jamie, the colour version is okay but a tricky one to colour balance (TV screen is main light source but there are a couple of fluorescent bulbs illuminating my daughter's hair). I gave up trying to colour balance it properly and went straight to B&W (which is what I'd do anyway for a shot like this). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted November 19, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 19, 2009 A good bit of the problems some have had with noise in M8 shots was due to improper metering. It's certainly easier to get good low light shots indoors with an advanced metering system than what is essentially a 1970's tech spot meter. Underexposure is rampant in all the "noisy" shots I've seen from M8's. As long as I meter for the mid tones I've always had great results at all iso settings. The problem comes when you try to post process-push the files. They are not as flexible as those in the best in class DSLR's like the D700. Best wishes Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtrick Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted November 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Tonight I drove by the location of my original post photo and the light balance is exactly what was there. Maybe not as nice as we would like to perceive but it was right. It was suggested that leaving the shutter open longer would have been better but I took the photo out the window of my truck. When I leave the shutter open, I use a tripod and they do turn out nice but then I do not need high ISO. Maybe over exposing by 1 stop might be better but would that be the same as dropping down to 1200 ISO??? Maybe not because there would be more amplification in the camera at 2500 ISO but more light because of the extra stop of over exposure. Maybe I will make some test shots. Anyway, here is another from the truck at 2500 ISO. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 19, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 19, 2009 Jamie, the colour version is okay but a tricky one to colour balance (TV screen is main light source but there are a couple of fluorescent bulbs illuminating my daughter's hair). I gave up trying to colour balance it properly and went straight to B&W (which is what I'd do anyway for a shot like this). Thanks for posting Ian, that's exactly what I wanted to see (the only problem here is mixed light, not colour noise, which is important at ISO 2500). I know it's not the full-size image, but I bet you could make a pretty convincing colour print with some CC in post. IOW, I'm not seeing the chroma noise signature that I would with the M8 at ISO 1250, even. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted November 20, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 20, 2009 (OP's photo) color balance is probably realistic...unfortunately, this is what the street through my windshield looked like tonight... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 20, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 20, 2009 Jamie, the colour version is okay but a tricky one to colour balance (TV screen is main light source but there are a couple of fluorescent bulbs illuminating my daughter's hair). I gave up trying to colour balance it properly and went straight to B&W (which is what I'd do anyway for a shot like this). Definitely much better than anything the M8 can do at this ISO level. The thing I like about this image is that it retains nicely-textured luminance grain, without the really ugly chroma noise of the M8. I never use anything above 640 on the M8 - haven't actually ever really felt I needed to - but this does show the M9 offers the possibility, and it would be good to feel you could do it, if the need arose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 20, 2009 Share #31 Posted November 20, 2009 ....Definitely much better than anything the M8 can do at this ISO level.... I agree: one of the first practical examples I saw with a definite step-up of M9 vs. M8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotharZhou Posted November 20, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 20, 2009 actually M8 is not that bad at 2500ISO in some cases. M8+ZM25 ISO2500, there is very limited space to make mistake though. 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=1124111'>More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted November 20, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 20, 2009 By the way, my statements are based on 14x21inch prints, not these web samples. I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a very important point. In these digital ages people simply fret too much about 100% views and "objective comparisons". The print is what matters. (At least to me. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 20, 2009 Share #34 Posted November 20, 2009 Somewhat off the noise issue - here's a quick revise of Ian's daughter using Photoshop "Saturation" corrections to get rid of the extra yellow from the mixed lighting: Adjusting "yellows" only: Hue -15 (towards red), Saturation -8, Lightness +9 (otherwise the desaturation can introduce grey speckles in the yellows) You can get a similar correction using "Selective Color: Yellows": cyan -3, magenta +25, yellow -18, black+3 Just a little technique I developed for saving shots from the nasty greeny yellows that pop up under tungsten, fluoro or other non-daylight light sources.... (Not that the B&W isn't beautiful also) 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=1124519'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2009 Share #35 Posted November 20, 2009 You'll have to get the blue/cyan out of the white of her eyes now, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 20, 2009 Share #36 Posted November 20, 2009 Yep, possibly - and sometimes it can push skin a bit to the pink side, which requires a separate correction moving reds back towards yellow. And sometimes, depending on the image and colors and whatnot, it needs to be done just to a specific area, not as a global correction (which is all I did in this quick example). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 20, 2009 Share #37 Posted November 20, 2009 Nice but reds look oversaturated in the background. What about yellow hue -20 and green hue -20? Just for fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 20, 2009 Share #38 Posted November 20, 2009 Well, let's not get too overexcited: I expect there are lots of little tweaks in addition to the specific fix I was demonstrating. Among other things, Ian's compressed 8-bit Web jpeg came into my computer with no profile, so Photoshop more or less converted it to my working space (Adobe 1998), which then gets downsized, reconverted back to sRGB, and recompressed for me to post it back here. I see more roughness in the bokeh (e.g. green-yellow transitions) in my downsized, recompressed version than Ian had originally, so I don't want to hack away at it even more. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that can be done with hue/saturation controls - above and beyond basic camera profiling. I'm addicted to Selective Color and Saturation as tools for fixing oddball lighting. But it is best done with an original (preferably making use of 16-bit data). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissah Posted November 20, 2009 Share #39 Posted November 20, 2009 Somewhat off the noise issue - here's a quick revise of Ian's daughter using Photoshop "Saturation" corrections to get rid of the extra yellow from the mixed lighting: Adjusting "yellows" only: Hue -15 (towards red), Saturation -8, Lightness +9 (otherwise the desaturation can introduce grey speckles in the yellows) You can get a similar correction using "Selective Color: Yellows": cyan -3, magenta +25, yellow -18, black+3 Just a little technique I developed for saving shots from the nasty greeny yellows that pop up under tungsten, fluoro or other non-daylight light sources.... (Not that the B&W isn't beautiful also) i agree with jaap about the blu in eyes. personally i like the over saturated color of the rest bc its a kid! and the colors really suit the subject. andy, i love this little "trick" have you written it as an action? best melissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissah Posted November 20, 2009 Share #40 Posted November 20, 2009 ians daughter is shot in alot of light at a hi iso. petes shot from his truck is shot in low light at a hi iso. petes: even when processed using d-fine it still looks under exposed as well as being too yellow from street lights. too much noise... where as ians has enough info in the raw file that b/w looks grt, and color-corrects look grt as well. if pete had exposed for the shadows would he have produced an image w his m9 that would be so much better than one (exposed properly) with the m8? im asking this because its seems to me that alot of the crappy low light images weve seen could be due to improper exposure? ps: no slam to pete or praise to ian- i realize the images were test shots... although that is one cute baby! best melissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.