Very Low Light Stuff

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So please stop the mudflinging - that has nothing to do with discussing the images, as Guy clearly intended doing.

 

I agree and wish I hadn't responded.

 

I've seen both better and worse examples from the M8 in low-light conditions. Jamie Roberts for one has shown some exemplary shots in low-light, so we do know it's possible - even in a bustling wedding-context.

[Guest stnami]

So please stop the mudflinging - that has nothing to do with discussing the images, as Guy clearly intended doing.

Jaap since when did you take over the forum and become all things good and honest......... . People may respond and write as they please ........ not to please you!

[jaapv]

People may respond and write as they please

 

Yep-that goes for me as well.

[Guest stnami]

. and that's why others will keep on posting:) despite your pleas ....{edited}

[epand56]

(not stepping on anyones toes now am I ... it's not my intention)

 

I think that Isabelle is not at all wrong, though her words are way too sharp and thrown.

What she intended to say, IMO, reflect the world of today where anybody has a camera in the hand and take pictures. So easy to do that today. It was not the same fifty years ago when photography was an art for a few professional photographer and people who had the time and money took just some picture of family and travels.

That's the point, I think. Today between the billions "artistic" pictures we see each day is difficult to find "THAT" picture, the one that take us back at looking at it again and again.

Maybe it's too easy taking pictures today, and maybe we take too much of them and very often we happen to feel déjà vu.

And yes, i put myself in the bunch of those sometimes frantic shooters that when back home have to erase more than a half of the pictures they took.

But passion is passion and if you have to deal with billions of pictures, well, that's just a challenge to do always your best.

[dpattinson]

Has anybody got the answer of how to minimise grain at 2500 in a well exposed and sharp photo at 1/60th without having to push the blacks, without any obvious detrimental effects to the overall photograph ?

Guy

 

These are shot slower than 1/60, but at 2500iso. I think you'll agree that the grain is minimized fairly well. late night mix - carmen - a set on Flickr

 

I don't believe you could have done much better in the conditions you were in, without giving up on broad shots and going for smaller groups clustered around light sources. In any case, my experience is that it's far better to forget about shadow detail in those kind of conditions and expose to put faces on the RHS of the histogram if possible, even if that means blowing the light sources completely.

[thehouseflogger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you - this is really useful - it has worked well for you here. Guy

[tollie]

This is a great set of photographs...

 

" I think you'll agree that the grain is minimized fairly well. late night mix - carmen - a set on Flickr"

 

I'm amazed at the lack of grain. Really clean. Well done. Care to share what you used?

[sean_reid]

I think that Isabelle is not at all wrong, though her words are way too sharp and thrown.

What she intended to say, IMO, reflect the world of today where anybody has a camera in the hand and take pictures. So easy to do that today. It was not the same fifty years ago when photography was an art for a few professional photographer and people who had the time and money took just some picture of family and travels.

That's the point, I think. Today between the billions "artistic" pictures we see each day is difficult to find "THAT" picture, the one that take us back at looking at it again and again.

Maybe it's too easy taking pictures today, and maybe we take too much of them and very often we happen to feel déjà vu.

And yes, i put myself in the bunch of those sometimes frantic shooters that when back home have to erase more than a half of the pictures they took.

But passion is passion and if you have to deal with billions of pictures, well, that's just a challenge to do always your best.

 

If you get a chance Enrico, read James Agee's introduction to Helen Levitt's "A Way Of Seeing". I think it might interest you.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[dpattinson]

This is a great set of photographs...

 

" I think you'll agree that the grain is minimized fairly well. late night mix - carmen - a set on Flickr"

 

I'm amazed at the lack of grain. Really clean. Well done. Care to share what you used?

 

I don't have the PS files in front of me, so this is from memory.

 

I made sure that her face was well lit. I processed the raw file in C1, disabled sharpening and I'm pretty sure I removed noise reduction as well (my usual practice if I'm going to give a shot special attention in post).

 

I used (found by accident) a feature in PS called "Apply Image" on Multiply at about 40% which seems to have the effect of reducing noise in darker areas. It's probably not intended for this purpose, but in the case of these shots it worked fine. You can see the original and the effect in this post in the people forum: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/66188-opinions-bw-conversion.html#post685710

 

I adjusted white balance to minimize noise in her face, and lightened her face (either dodging with a brush, or painting in an exposure layer... can't recall).

I was left with irregular yellow blotches on skintones, due to the color temperature of the candle on the table I guess and the effect of the 'apply image' mentioned earlier. I used selective colour in PS to blend those blotches by reducing yellow in the yellow channel and painted that effect in using a 10% brush until the blotches were gone.

In the monochrome shots, I recall that I dodged midtones to further reduce noise and lighten some of the shadows cast by the front lighting.

I might in future go back and try to paint back in some yellow to warm her skintone, or maybe apply a warming photo filter.

 

David.

[robertwright]

what you did mostly darkened the image which is why the noise is reduced. you can do the same thing with a duplicate layer set to multiply. It doubles (I think) the pixel values at each location. It will not reduce noise per se.

 

As to the OP, there are choices you can make in darkened rooms but all involve sacrifice. If you think back to slide film days, your option would have been record the highlights and allow everything else to go to shadow. This would have left faces in a sea of shadow. Potentially very interesting, the colour would have helped to differentiate surfaces, etc. Think back to William Albert Allard in Nat Geo, working at ISO 64 or 25 in Mississippi. But probably on the 35 1.4.

This represents another sacrifice, showing the whole scene or focusing on a part of it, for the sake of lens speed, and also detail. Working around the pools of light can "make" light where there is none. Like the beautiful pictures of the woman in the bar from the previous poster, a single candle.

Allard also used to carry a small flash for when he had no choice, but used it as fill. The M8 can work very well this way, you just have to remember to gell the flash very warm to balance the interior, this will also help it get down to 1.4 if that is where you are. A minimum flash could help extract some detail from the shadows, but again, in a small area. Over a large area, it is not going to work.

The last compromise would be to do what a lot of wedding photographers do, put a strobe up in the corner slaved firing into the ceiling and also one on camera, gelled for WB, and shoot 50-50 strobe/interior light. You might have been able to get to 2.8, 1/30th, ISO 320 or 640. Then you could do an overall scene.

 

yes the 21lux will be amazing when it comes out...

[jaapv]

Just one small addition, in my experience "apply image" works best in Lab mode. In addition to giving a choice of effects, you can choose to apply it either to the full lab space or to one of the channels, which gives better colour control. It is also very handy to intensify colours, the setting "soft light" works best for that.

[robertwright]

right, the only time I have ever run across apply image is when multiplying channels for masking purposes.

 

the deep abyss of photoshop never ends.

[jaapv]

LOL. Just don't forget to switch back to RGB from LAB mode. It is a non-destructive mode btw.

[jaapv]

I'm convinced the main secret of decent ISO 2500 shots is exposure. Forget about the highlights, expose for the low midtones or even the shadows. I tried to recreate the situation and exposed for the shadows.The shot looked overexposed by a stop in Bridge. The artistic merit of the shot is nil.I used ACR.

1: straight DNG conversion without any PP

2. alien skin without grain

3. alien skin without grain and Noise Ninja at fairly low setting.

 

I feel it is quite acceptable.

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!

[thehouseflogger]

Hello Jaap

 

I like these results too. I am going to get a demo of noise ninja and see. When you say expose for shadows do you actually take the meter reading from such tones and then reframe while keeping the shutter halfway down ?

 

I normally expose/ focus on a face - perhaps this is too light a tone ?

[jaapv]

In my experience if you want to expose on a face, use a black person in these circumstances:D

Yes I did a half-depress recompose for these shots, but normally I will scan the image on manual.

[AlanG]

Regarding lens contrast.

 

I shot a simple test. I wrote on a light bulb with a pencil and with a Sharpie. I photographed it and then I breathed on the lens for the second shot. And I waited a couple of seconds for the lens to clear slightly for the third shot.

 

You can see that a low contrast lens does not add any detail to the light tones. (It only makes them a bit darker.) It also lightens the dark tones.

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!

[sean_reid]

Regarding lens contrast.

 

I shot a simple test. I wrote on a light bulb with a pencil and with a Sharpie. I photographed it and then I breathed on the lens for the second shot. And I waited a couple of seconds for the lens to clear slightly for the third shot.

 

You can see that a low contrast lens does not add any detail to the light tones. (It only makes them a bit darker.) It also lightens the dark tones.

 

Hi Alan,

 

Breathing on a lens isn't the same as using a lower contrast lens.

 

But, again, with an actual lower contrast lens its important to understand that no detail is added, per se. Rather (one more time now and with feeling <G>) the shadows are moved away from the noise floor and the highlights can then move down (via a slight exposure reduction) and thus further from blowing out . I already demonstrated this in an article on 28 mm RF lenses. Specifically, as the shadow values lift the detail they contain becomes less likely to be obscured by noise. So no detail is added by the lens but rather the shadow detail moves up in S/N ratio and thus is better isolated.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

Hi Alan,

 

Breathing on a lens isn't the same as using a lower contrast lens.

 

 

As I illustrated, it certainly does make it a lower contrast lens.

 

I think it is the same concept only more pronounced. That was necessary to make the illustration clear. A lower contrast lens has to reduce contrast some way, either by flare or diffusion. (Which are pretty similar effects by the time the light hits the sensor.) What kind of look someone likes is another story.

 

For my first attempt at a serious post about the original photos... of course they are horribly illuminated and they are terribly underexposed. Plus I don't see much redemption in the composition, interaction, or expression either. And they are very high contrast with almost no middle tones. Sorry to lay it on so thick, Guy, but they sure have garnered a lot of comparison with "art" and I have a hard time understanding why. Maybe I just don't see it. I think there is a place for this look, Gene's Smith's image "Madness" comes to mind, but I am not convinced in this case.

 

Basically they have blocked up shadows and blown out highlights. So if the camera doesn't record more detail in the shadows, you are pretty much out of luck. (Unless you like this look for these subjects as it seems some do.) And what helps you record more detail in the shadows? Why a high contrast lens, that's what. (Which he used and it still didn't work.)