Jump to content

M9 Colors at Night — Best Way to Shoot High ISO?


Guest malland

Recommended Posts

Guest malland

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Robert, for the type of (mainly) fluorescent lighting, set a against a very dark night, I find that with the Elmarit-21 ASPH, at ISO 640 I can stay at f/2.8 and a shutter speed of 1/60 or 1/90 sec, based on not blowing the highlights. It seems to me that the latter is the most important consideration. With these exposures, I can be within a range of pushing 0.2 + 2.5 stops, but remember that you push on this sliding scale only as much as you need. I start by clicking Auto in LR and then pulling back of the Back slider and adjusting the Exposure and Highlights to get the look that I think is right, also increasing Clarity a bit. Remember, even if you were using the light meter, in this type of multiple lighting situation, it would be difficult to hit the right exposure because it changes so much with even a small move in position, back or forwards or to either side.

 

I'd also be interested to hear the experience of others.

 

EDIT: Some more thoughts after writing the above. So, I am essentially saying that the setting of the exposure can be trivial, particularly as one gets experience with several types of lighting; but it's the processing that becomes "non-trivial." However, it's difficult only to the degree that you're not sure about the look that you want. I find that I have a very poor visual memory for what exact color the objects were, but somehow I have an idea of what I want the scene to look like — so that helps a lot.

 

Another think is that I wrote about using a 21mm lens, which I like for the type of layered composition it facilities, with the fluorescent lights shown in the picture; but many people don't like to use such a wide-angle lens. Actually, the Summicron-28 may be a little easier for the exposure setting; and you can start with f/2.0 and 1/125 and 1/180 sec. With the rapid fall-off of light on a dark night the DOF at f/2.0 should be sufficient, although generally, for daytime, I prefer more DOF for street photography.

 

The difficulty in using the Summilux-50 was that, whenever there was a fluorescent bulb in the picture, the bulb cast of a blueish "bleed" that could ruin the photo. Actually, if you look carefully, the 21 and 28mm lenses also cast of this bleed from fluorescent light in the frame, but its much smaller in the frame and, therefore less of a problem.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

Edited by malland
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finding this method to work simply superbly. I've shot lots of shots at ISO 640 and raised four stops (that's ISO 10,000!) that are cleaner than the ISO 2500 equivalents. I'm generally getting an extra stop or two of lessened noise to my eye. Wow.

 

I'm shooting a 28mm lens at f/2.8 and 1/45 or 1/60 at ISO 640 in low indoor light. Joe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried some experiments last night and pretty quickly realised that determining aperture and shutter speed, when the photo is already *underexposed* at ISO 640, is a non-trivial question. A question which will require some further consideration if this approach is to be adopted.

 

Yes, you can estimate that you are within, say, 2 stops of the level to which you want to push the finished picture, but it takes time and thought. Somewhat difficult when you are working quickly. I have done it by opening up and then counting back, but I wonder if there is a better, faster way.

 

Would appreciate if Mitch or other posters have more to say on this aspect of the technique.

 

Thanks

Rob, just a thought. Would it help if you dialed in -2 Exp comp and then set your exp to be 'normal'? That way you would not be 'counting back' constantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

Erl, I'm not so sure: the thing is that you want to shoot as if this were an ISO-less camera and then increase the exposure in post the minimum necessary for the look that you want. On that sliding scale of PP exposure, you don't need or want to know where exactly you'll land: you just want to avoid blowing out highlights. So, that if f/2.8 and 1/60 second is to slow for a moving subject, you just have to use 1/125 sec.

 

Basically, my feeling is that you'll get better results, at least initially, by not trying to figure everything out a priori.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Paris au rhythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

Edited by malland
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried your suggestion (-2 exposure comp) and still am, for that matter. I'm really testing two methods for usability:

 

1. Setting at ISO640 and then -2 to -3 exposure comp. The problem with that method is that it occasionally results in severe underexposure, though I still don't know if it's worse than shooting ISO 2500, even in the worst cases. It works, but may be harder to refine.

 

2. Setting camera at ISO64, f/2.0-2.8 and 1/45 - 1/60 with no exposure comp. This seems to work really well for me in the lighting tested. I'm eager to see whether I can then modify these settings on-the-fly enough to work in the different lighting of other venues. Still, I like this as a starting point. We'll see.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Karl-Heinz,

 

Yes, but if you look at the Jim Kasson article in post #1 here, you'll see that it's title is "ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Not so fast." In the old thread douglas3f discusses at length the fact that the M9 can be treated as an ISO-less camera and the underlaying concepts involved; but the old thread doesn't have the results of Kasson's work in identifying the specific method of "ISO 640 + pushing in post"; nor does it identify all the practical advantages of doing this, not to speak of the practical aspects of how to expose and how to process in LR.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl-Heinz,

 

Yes, but if you look at the Jim Kasson article in post #1 here, you'll see that it's title is "ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Not so fast." In the old thread douglas3f discusses at length the fact that the M9 can be treated as an ISO-less camera and the underlaying concepts involved; but the old thread doesn't have the results of Kasson's work in identifying the specific method of "ISO 640 + pushing in post"; nor does it identify all the practical advantages of doing this, not to speak of the practical aspects of how to expose and how to process in LR.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

 

 

Mitch,

 

Thanks. That's correct. I agree.

That's the reason I found your post indeed very helpful as I point out here.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2463219-post17.html

Edited by k-hawinkler
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried some experiments last night and pretty quickly realised that determining aperture and shutter speed, when the photo is already *underexposed* at ISO 640, is a non-trivial question. A question which will require some further consideration if this approach is to be adopted.

 

Yes, you can estimate that you are within, say, 2 stops of the level to which you want to push the finished picture, but it takes time and thought. Somewhat difficult when you are working quickly. I have done it by opening up and then counting back, but I wonder if there is a better, faster way.

 

Would appreciate if Mitch or other posters have more to say on this aspect of the technique.

 

Thanks

 

My approach with the M9 to this is to set shutter speed (SS) and aperture (A) so as to allow the maximum amount of light to reach the sensor within the usual constraints (blown highlights, DOF, motion blur etc) for the style of photograph that I am about to take. The reason for maximising the light is to minimise shot noise.

 

Then I use a light meter to give me the ISO for the ambient light and dial that in. I then go back over the combination of SS, A and ISO to see if the balance is right between DOF, motion blur, noise etc. This process takes about a minute.

 

For example for street I tend to start with 1/250 and f8 and then see where this sets ISO and if it's too high then I will accept a little less DOF (I like it high for zone focussing) or a little more motion blur in order to reduce shot noise.

 

Unless the ambient light changes or I am moving to lighter or darker areas within that then no more changes are needed. If the light changes then I adjust one (or more) of the three variables to suit. I don't use the camera's light meter as I haven't been able to understand exactly what it is measuring (my problem not the camera's).

 

How the article referenced will change my approach is when the light meter gives an ISO over 640 I will now try leaving the camera at 640 and pushing the DNG later in LR/ACR. The only downside to this is reviewing the picture in camera will no longer be of much use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

Mark, from my point of view, the only issue I see is that in using a hand light meter (or the one in the camera) it can be difficult to get the "correct" exposure in the type of lighting that you see in my photographs earlier in this thread, because even small changes in position can change the readings since light is coming from various directions the dark of night. One way would be to walk over to where the main subject is and take an incident reading, but that isn't practical for street photography because, in a "Heisenberg Principle sense," you'll have affected the scene as people watch you go over and back and take a reading.

 

Therefore, I fall back to my method of not using a meter and setting the aperture and shutter speed to a level that will expose the most possible, starting at f/2.8 (for the Elmarit-21 ASPH) and, say 1/60 sec, or with the the Summicron-28 at f/2.0 and 1/125 sec, and adjusting, if necessary, for desired DOF and minimum shutter speed. So far, this has worked well because of the "sliding scale" on the pushing in post, which is based on pushing as little as possible to get the look you want. Also, my feeling is that, as you continue to shoot in this way in a certain environment, you get better at figuring out a base exposure for differently lit subjects.

 

Also, it seems to me that, philosophically, it helps to clear one's mind so as not to think of exposing as for film: film has an ISO and you can think of the M9 as not having an ISO (at least from 640 onwards); instead of ISO there is "gain" that you can push up — but that gain is only pushed up in the processing. From some discussions with photographers, it seems to me, however, that a lot of people have a problem in giving up the film/ISO paradigm.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, I think our approaches are pretty similar and I agree that using a light meter for each shot doesn't work. I only use it to get a rough ballpark and then adjust according to experience for each lighting situation. I think your f2.8 and 1/125 at night is about equivalent to my f8 and 1/250 during the day.

 

One question, do you always set your ISO to 160 and leave it there or do you increase to 640 as conditions dictate and stop there?

 

As for film, well I never used it so my mind is perfectly clear; which I sometimes wonder may not be such a good thing. I am sure a better appreciation of film would help my photography. For me ISO is "gain" and noise/grain is "error".

 

Interesting that you should mention the Heisenberg (Uncertainty) Principle as I studied that extensively at university and the more the lecturer explained it the less certain I was about how it worked. I think your usage here works very well.

 

As a result of this interesting thread I will now be trying out night time shooting with my M9, something I had never considered before so many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
...One question, do you always set your ISO to 160 and leave it there or do you increase to 640 as conditions dictate and stop there?...

 

...As a result of this interesting thread I will now be trying out night time shooting with my M9, something I had never considered before so many thanks.

Mark, not sure I understand the question: when shooting at night I set the camera to ISO 640. For daytime shooting, I use ISO 640 on very overcast days because I like the "grain" at this speed; otherwise I use either ISO 160 or 320. (The reason I'm not sure what you're asking is that the Jim Kasson article linked in post #1 states that his tests show that, for for the M9, for speeds up to ISO 640 it's better to set the ISO in-camara, but that after that it's better to keep the camera at ISO 640 and push in post.)

 

Please let us know your results and post examples: it would be good for the experience to be shared so that we can all learn more and try to develop this technique further.

 

Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, after I had posted I realised it wasn't a very sensible question and I had already guessed your answer so that's clear now. I am glad you like the "digital error" at ISO 640 :)

 

I am on holiday at the moment and disappearing off in the dark with my M9 would not impress the family (and possibly the police too) so I will give this a go and let you know what happens when I get back to the UK. Am pretty excited though as it opens up lots of possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is exactly the opposite of what I've been doing previously. I did an unscientific test last night -- 640 ISO with -2 exposure comp and then push 1-2 stops in LR, and the the colors and grain look much better than I was getting at 1600-2500 ISO. I want to do a few tests comparing 640 pushed 2 stops with 2500 flat tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This a curious thread approach to a time honoured pursuit. Sub-conciously I have tried it before, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I think part of the explanation is as follows:

 

In highly contrasty lighting, such as Mitch favours, it can work well. I suspect because of heavy shadows, where noise can be buried, when opening them up a bit, they still hide the noise which is inherent in underexposure. However in flatter lighting I don't think the technique is as useful (extendible) because any noise there will appear sooner. However, my recent preliminary tests show that there is some gain (pun intended) in using underexposure rather than increased ISO. Maybe only the equivalent of one stop, which is still a benefit. OTOH, if 2500 ISO is required theoretically, chances are the lighting is probably contrasty anyway so my concern evaporates.

 

For what they may contribute, I offer a series done in my library/archive/spare room yesterday.

The camera was M9 with 24/2.8 elmarit set at f4 and appropriate shutterspeed for the intended exposure.

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!

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two comparative shots at approx 100% crop of 640ISO pushed two stops and 2500ISO not pushed

 

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!

 

 

To my eyes, the pushed 640ISO has more noise but clearer definition.

 

Am I raising more questions than I am answering? :eek:

Edited by erl
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

erl, that's very interesting and helpful. Apart form improved IQ, my underlying preference for this "ISO 640 + push in post" technique is also based on the fact that, to achieve something good by shooting with ISO 2500 in camera, you have to get the exposure "right", with extremely little room for maneuver for pushing in post. However, with the type of multipple lighting at night in which I've been shooting, getting the right exposure can be difficult, as small changes in position can cause large changes in the "correct" exposure.

 

In contrast to the foregoing, with the technique we're discussing, the camera exposure setting is not critical because it comes afterward, in post, where the sliding scale of the Exposure slider in LR allows you to achieve the minimum amount of push that you need for the look you want.

 

And I agree that the light we're dealing with in these night shots is essentially of high contrast. I suppose that, even with less inherent contrast in the scene, high-ISO contrast would have a large portion of the frame in deep shadow, where a lot our or sins would anyhow be buried.

 

On your second (100%) pictures, did you apply Noise Reduction to both? Using Noise Reduction is an essential part of this technique — and with proper Noise Reduction the push technique should come out better overall, considering its clearer definition. Another issue is whether you applied Shadow Recovery vs Exposure increase, in that one has to be very careful about using Shadow Recovery.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

Edited by malland
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two comparative shots...To my eyes, the pushed 640ISO has more noise but clearer definition

 

Agee with Erl. I also see more noise in the pushed 640 ISO. But also higher contrast and saturation in the same. Could it be that the noise is simply due to the higher saturation? Could you try to tweak the saturation so that the two photos appear more similar in this respect and see what it does to the noise?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agee with Erl. I also see more noise in the pushed 640 ISO. But also higher contrast and saturation in the same. Could it be that the noise is simply due to the higher saturation? Could you try to tweak the saturation so that the two photos appear more similar in this respect and see what it does to the noise?

 

Yes. I regularly desaturate my pushed images by 5/100 to 10/100, depending on the picture. E.g. this one, here, I pushed by 1.1EV in PP and desaturated by -9:

 

9330616614_985d440d6f_z.jpg

43° Burnt. by nggalai, on Flickr

 

(50mm, ISO 160, 1/60s, f/4, +1.1EV and mid tones boosted in Capture One 7. Noise added as it was too plasticy-looking for my taste.)

 

Also, as Mitch said, noise reduction is an integral part of pushing darkish images in post-production. ISO 160, pushed by 3 stops or the like, won’t be clean by a long margin. But you’ll have more dynamic range than shooting at ISO 1250 with an M9.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...