A miller Posted January 24, 2014 Share #1 Posted January 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Disclaimer: apologies if this has been discussed before, and feel free to refer me to existing threads: Given that the "native ISO" of the MM is 320: 1. Is it optimal to increase the ISO in increments of 640, 1250, 2500. Or, is it perfectly fine to use the ISO like a regular film camera and increase in increments of 400, 800 1600, 3200, etc? What do you do? Using increments according to the "native" 320, 640, 1250, 2500 will be hard to get used to in cases in which I am not relying on the meter (a lot of math to keep track of )... 2. Is it appropriate to equate the ISO excactly to that of film, such that 320 would be about 1/3 less of a stop as compared to 400 ISO film. My intuition says yes but I'm thrown by the whole "native 320 ISO" concept. Thanks in advance. Adam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Hi A miller, Take a look here Monochrome ISO workflow question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guido Posted January 24, 2014 Share #2 Posted January 24, 2014 In my experience, it's ok to use any ISO between 320 and 1250. Above 1250, the noise increases significantly compared to an image shot (underexposed) at ISO 1250 and pushed in Lightroom. You can even compare an image shot at ISO 10000 in camera, and one underexposed 3 stops at ISO 1250 (and corrected with exposure +3 in Lightroom) - the latter image will be cleaner, while the detail is exactly the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 24, 2014 Share #3 Posted January 24, 2014 2. Is it appropriate to equate the ISO excactly to that of film, such that 320 would be about 1/3 less of a stop as compared to 400 ISO film. My intuition says yes but I'm thrown by the whole "native 320 ISO" concept. At 320 ISO the image produced by the MM is extremely clean, not like 400 ISO film at all. It is finer than the finest grain film. At a very usable 5000 ISO (no need to limit yourself to 1250) the digital noise/grain doesn't look like the usual digital noise because it is coming from one channel, not three, and it looks very much like crisp and small film grain, not unlike 400 ISO Tri-X (but at 5000 ISO). The key is not to underexposed the image at high ISO and a full tone attractive file is perfectly possible. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share #4 Posted January 24, 2014 At 320 ISO the image produced by the MM is extremely clean, not like 400 ISO film at all. It is finer than the finest grain film. At a very usable 5000 ISO (no need to limit yourself to 1250) the digital noise/grain doesn't look like the usual digital noise because it is coming from one channel, not three, and it looks very much like crisp and small film grain, not unlike 400 ISO Tri-X (but at 5000 ISO). The key is not to underexposed the image at high ISO and a full tone attractive file is perfectly possible. Steve Thanks very much Steve and nightfire for your comments. Steve - very insightful comments. I was, however, seeking a comparison of the 320 ISO in the MM to regular film ISO from the perspective of exposure and not grain. Traditional principles would tell you that 320 is about 1/3 of a stop less exposure than 400. I am seeking to understanding whether anything about the 320 being the "native ISO" of MM would alter this principle in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 24, 2014 Share #5 Posted January 24, 2014 It is more or less like shooting at 320 ISO, but unless you are using another camera at the same time with a different base ISO, or indeed a film camera, then there isn't an intellectual conflict. I don't even think about the ISO because most of the time 320 is plenty as it would be with Tri X (Tri X isn't really 400 anyway and HP5 is nearer 320 native ISO for film). Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huk Posted January 27, 2014 Share #6 Posted January 27, 2014 Thanks very much Steve and nightfire for your comments.Steve - very insightful comments. I was, however, seeking a comparison of the 320 ISO in the MM to regular film ISO from the perspective of exposure and not grain. Traditional principles would tell you that 320 is about 1/3 of a stop less exposure than 400. I am seeking to understanding whether anything about the 320 being the "native ISO" of MM would alter this principle in any way. Hi, in case you are interested in the MM's noise, have a look at Leica Photo Int. number 4/2012 where, in my German version, on page 28, the noise is plotted against ISO -- very interesting! You also find the graph for the M9 there. Those saying "do not go above 5000", I would respond, given this graph, go for 4000 ISO and forgo the 1/3 aperture as you gain a noise reduction from 14.5 to 10.5 percentage. Greetings --Uli Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share #7 Posted January 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Many thanks, Uli. Very interesting. Would you happen to have a link to the material that you referenced? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huk Posted January 28, 2014 Share #8 Posted January 28, 2014 Many thanks, Uli. Very interesting. Would you happen to have a link to the material that you referenced? Adam, the material in LFI is copyright and there is no link to an "official" site where you can have a look at the graph. Sorry for that --Uli Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.