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

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I gave this a shot in January / February, after reading too many whitepapers on sensor technology, and the release of Capture One 7 and its improved engine. My findings were

 

- Up to ISO 640 (incandescent / tungsten light) / 800 (full spectrum light), it’s more sensible to crank up ISO on the M9.

 

- Beyond ISO 640/800, there’s a noticeable gain in dynamic range by pushing with current RAW developers. Depending on the image, of course.

 

- Also, the lower noise floor allows for less artefacts when pushing compared to in-cam ISO raising – ISO 640, pushed by +3EV (“virtual ISO 5000”) seems to be, on average and with modern RAW developers, less noisy than ISO 1250 (incandescent) or ISO 2500 (full spectrum light) with greater dynamic range...I don’t think this is a CMOS/CCD issue...

Sascha, thanks. I don't think it's a CMOS vs CCD issue either. My understanding is that Leica's philosophy was that, essentially, noise control would be handled in post processing and not in-camera. I say "essentially" because some people think there is some minor noise reduction in-camera.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

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

[David K]

As a total newbie to Leica and this Forum I thank you for this informative thread. You take the kind of photos I bought an M-E to take. If I may ask a newbie question, how do you set the white balance in the camera to shoot such beautiful color at night with such a variety of light sources?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

Thanks for the kind words, David. I use Automatic White Balance and then, if necessary adjust it in Lightroom. I first try to find a neutral grey and click that with the WB eye dropper, but if that looks "too neutral", I continue making adjustments until it looks like what I think it should. Usually I don't want the neutralized colors because the light falling on the subject changes how it looks at night. I suppose a commercial photographer would want to skin tones to look "accurate"; I like them to have some color cast, depending how subject is lit. Sometimes there are several different types of light lighting the subject. It's easier than it sounds. I just checked: out of 38 might shots, I found that I did not changed the AWB from the camera on 12 shots.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

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

[mjh]

I don't think it's a CMOS vs CCD issue either.

While it is not a CMOS vs. CCD issue, it is a hardware issue. For example, Sony/Nikon and Canon sensors behave quite differently in this regard, even when both are CMOS (see http://acoutts.com/a1ex/dual_iso.pdf). For each combination of sensor and ADC, the maximum amplification that is actually beneficial is limited. The exact value of this limit varies, but it is nearly always lower than the gain applied at the maximum ISO setting. It depends on shot noise and sources of noise internal to the sensor on the one hand and read-out noise on the other.

[russell]

I glad to see an intelligent discussion on the topic of how to best shoot in low light. For me this was the reason I really got excited in Leica (pre-digital bodies).

 

However, I'm pretty sure with this shoot-at-640-and-push-in-post-processing that we're having the same discussion and conclusion that we had with the M8. I haven't bother to search for it in the forum's archives but I can remember this "rule" and following it with my M8.

 

If memory serves when the M9 first came out everyone said it was +/- the same as the M8 except that 1250 was the new 640. This was due to having extra resolution to work with, i.e. less enlargement.

 

So I guess we're saying now is that actually we got ahead of the game and should have stuck with what we already knew from the M8 sensor, i.e. stick with 640!

[krooj]

Thanks for this thread. It's refreshing to see people committed to making more of what they have with a digital device instead of incessantly clamouring for the next best thing. Your advice also bears out - pushing from low ISO values yields very nice results.

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

krooj, since the advent of digital most of us have gotten into buying the next best thing, which was to be expected as the new technology developed and improved rapidly. I stopped shooting with my M6 in 2006 when I got the Ricoh GRD. That was followed by a D-Lux-3, a GRD3, a Ricoh GX100, a GRD3, a Ricoh GXR, a Nikon D300 (with telephoto lenses for an African safari. The saving grace was that all the Ricoh cameras had very similar controls. But, it's obvious that your photography is hampered by changing cameras too frequently.

 

The M9 is an excellent camera that can be used for many years. And I was put off by the "conventional wisdom" that it wasn't good for night shooting and high-ISO; and when I explored this further I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was wrong, particularly as a lot of it was based on pixel peeping that had nothing to do with what a file would look when it's printed.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

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

[rob_w]

Hi Mitch

 

We haven't corresponded for a while but must say I am glad to see you back with Leica and obtaining such excellent results.

 

As others have said, a very thought-provoking, experiment-provoking thread. I like how we are taking the freedom to see what interesting pictures can be produced with the right techniques, rather than just pursuing 'technical excellence' at the behest of manufacturers.

 

Thanks for taking the time to champion this particular topic.

[sblitz]

+1 . . . . amidst the chronic crankies there is every so often a good thread where i learn, or at least relearn. this has been one of them ... thanks for posting and starting it off.

[Guido]

krooj' date=' since the advent of digital most of us have gotten into buying the next best thing, which was to be expected as the new technology developed and improved rapidly.[/quote']

I have to agree. Once upon a time when new generations of cameras did not appear every couple of months, there was probably more incentive to develop best practices for shooting with a specific model, rather than working around problems by upgrading to more recent hardware.

[Guest malland]

While it is not a CMOS vs. CCD issue, it is a hardware issue. For example, Sony/Nikon and Canon sensors behave quite differently in this regard, even when both are CMOS (see http://acoutts.com/a1ex/dual_iso.pdf). For each combination of sensor and ADC, the maximum amplification that is actually beneficial is limited. The exact value of this limit varies, but it is nearly always lower than the gain applied at the maximum ISO setting. It depends on shot noise and sources of noise internal to the sensor on the one hand and read-out noise on the other.

Michael, the upshot of all this, and especially the Jim Kasson test and article, is that the SNR is improved when shooting the M9 at ISO 640 and pushing in post rather than increasing ISO in-camera. This is quite different from anything that happens when pushing film, since it results in an image quality improvement for high-ISO photography as well as the other advantages stated in post #1.

 

As the M9 has a reputation for not being a good camera for high-ISO photography — what I have called the "conventional wisdom" — the ideal thing, in my view, would be for Leica to include this technique in the M9 manual (the M240 manual as well), but I assume that is not likely to happen. Would it not be a good idea for LFI to have an article on this this technique, or has there been one?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

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

[mjh]

Michael, the upshot of all this, and especially the Jim Kasson test and article, is that the SNR is improved when shooting the M9 at ISO 640 and pushing in post rather than increasing ISO in-camera.

Yes, and that doesn’t come as a surprise. From a certain ISO level upwards. amplification is actually harmful. For that reason, Fuji stopped increasing gain above ISO 1600 in the X100, for example. The M9 isn’t fundamentally different from other cameras in this respect.

[Jeff S]

...and that doesn’t come as a surprise....The M9 isn’t fundamentally different from other cameras in this respect.

 

Exactly. As noted, along with the added benefit of continually improving PP software.

 

This speaks to one of the various reasons I kept my M8.2 in lieu of the M9; higher ISO overrated for my use. ASA 400 was just fine for film, and not much has changed in this respect...for me...in the digital realm.

 

Jeff

[Guest malland]

Questions for people trying out "ISO 640 + push in post" technique

 

Electric blues: Dark blue colored objects lit by fluorescent light become very intense electric blues when the image is pushed. (I also think this happens when exposed at high ISO in-camera as well.) In No. 17 below I decreased the intensity of the sign and the blue plastic objects but kept them as intense as they looked in the actual scene. In No. 18, I essentially neutralized the blue plastic baskets to the upper right of the young woman's head because the color was so intense that your eyes were drawn to it. Does any else find this problem and how do you deal with it?

 

Starbursts: With the Summicron-28 and the Elamaritp-21 ASPH, small intense lights, such as halogen automobile headlights in the background or halogen street lights become startbursts. In No. 19, I used the LR5 new Radial Filter tool to dodge the bright to the level of intensive before pushing. This helped to make the startbursts less distracting, but they are still there. What other ways are there to get rid of starbursts while keeping the lights?

 

 

 

No. 17 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 1.8 stops | f/2.8 | 1/60 sec

Pak Nam Pran

 

 

 

 

 

No. 18 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 0.3 stops | f/2.8 | 1/60 sec

Pak Nam Pran

 

 

 

 

No. 19 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 0.95 stops | f/2.8 | 1/60 sec

Pak Nam Pran

 

 

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

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

Edited July 22, 2013 by malland

[erl]

I have always used my M8's and my M9 in low light. Sometimes very low light. They have never disappointing me, but sometimes my use of them has.

 

I sort of agree with Mitch's original premise about 'under exposing' and pushing in post, but I rarely need to do it to extremes (whatever that is!). I might push 2 stops, or very rarely a bit more, but mostly about 1 stop or less.

 

For low light shooting I regularly set ISO at 1000, 1600, 1250 and sometimes at 2500. In most cases I get what I consider very acceptable files for the purpose. I believe the critical thing is to nail the exposure to the level you want and are happy to work (PP) with. I can quote one extreme (freak?) case where I shot a stage pic at 2500 ISO on the M8 and blew the hardcopy print up to poster size, maybe 40" on the long side. it really looked like an ISO 160 shot for clarity, cleanness, definition and lack of any noise. I believe it all comes down to the lighting ratio of the image. My shot in question was very high contrast. Lots of blacks with closely contained highlights as a result of focussed stage lights, albeit set at a lowish level. This, I think, simulates what Mitch is doing. It seems his style of street favours high contrast and lots of dark space. I see that as his style.

 

On the flipside, I believe low contrast, regardless of actual light levels, is not so easy to achieve noise free or pushable ISO. It is in the mid tones where the demon lies for noise and artifacts. The upshot is I think that the photographer has to be constantly monitoring the scenario, not just for levels, but also ratios of light, before opting for high ISO or pushing in post.

 

Here are some recent efforts of mine, where I did minimal pushing, max probably of half a stop.

 

ISO 1600, 1/180th, f1/50mm

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!

 

ISO 1600, 1/250th, f1/50mm

 

ISO 2500, 1/45th, f2/35cron

 

ISO 2500, 1/25th, f2/35cron

 

I will post another couple to attempt to illustrate the 'contrast' ratio that I am talking about.

[erl]

Here are two pics, at the same event. First one in an area where the light was very flat.

 

Note the noise in the subjects face, although it doesn't bother me.

ISO 2500, 1/12th, f4/50cron

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!

 

The second one, some decoration under strong directional light exhibits far less noise.

ISO 2500, 1/250th, f4/50cron

 

Looking at the exp details I obviously was not on the ball. Had a few drinks on board. Could have wound the ISO right down. Oh well!

[erl]

Mitch, I do find 'electric blues' to be an issue. I don't know why it occurs. I usually select that colour in the RAW file in C1 and simply reduce the saturation on it. I get the same thing on my flatscreen TV, but can't control that.

[Guido]

As I understand it, the point of the proposed method is to avoid shooting at ISO 1250 and 2500 altogether, like pretending that these options don't even exist in the camera.

 

Instead, shoot at max. ISO 640 and push 1 or 2 stops in post to achieve ISO 1250 resp. 2500.

 

It's not about improving images already shot with the camera set to ISO 1250/2500 or achieving a specific "style". This has been confused by some, especially over in the German forum were the findings of this thread are also being discussed.

 

It's about choosing post-processing over in-camera logic to technically achieve the required exposure with better noise structure.

 

PS: Maybe the moderators might also consider putting this into the M9 FAQ?

Edited July 22, 2013 by nightfire

[Guest malland]

nightware, thanks, that's exactly right. Although Jim Kasson's article is rather technical, it's worth reading because what he states is very clear. I also like mjh's clarification in post #52 on this page.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rob_w]

On the question of how to expose when shooting at ISO 640, you can start with what the exposure would be at ISO 640 and if the aperture is too large for the depth of field that you want, or the minimum shutter speed is slower than you need, you adjust these two settings to to a point that will require the least pushing when processing.

 

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