A&P D50 crew: ISO question

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by themolsen, Apr 8, 2008.

  1. themolsen

    themolsen New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    in your opinion, is it better to take a shot:

    a) possibly underexposed at iso800, fixed in PP
    b) properly exposed at iso1600

    iso1600 tends to have a good bit of color noise, which is horrendously ugly, but is easy to get rid of in PP. boosting a dark shot in iso 800 tends to bring out more luminance noise, which I don't mind as much, but is a lot harder to get rid of in PP.

    what do you think is best? :dunno:
     
  2. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    don't ever underexpose a digital shot on purpose. You lose detail and generate a tremendous amount of noise in post production trying to recover any little tiny lost bit of detail... It looks ridiculious.

    It's MUCH easier, more professional, and better looking to deal with some extra noise created from the higher iso.

    Digital should be treated like shooting chrome - expose to the right.
     
  3. themolsen

    themolsen New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    I totally agree...I wasn't really asking what I should do. I was just curious what other people's views were on that.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2008
  4. FusionZ06

    FusionZ06 /\__/\__/\__0>

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine State
    I rarely ever shoot @ 1600 on my D50.
     
  5. Girth

    Girth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    71,399
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Houston
    I'd rather have a lower ISO and fix it in PP than shoot high ISO
     
  6. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    you can't fix underexposure.
     
  7. FusionZ06

    FusionZ06 /\__/\__/\__0>

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine State
    You can fix under exposure better than you can fix over exposure
     
  8. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    negative ghostrider. Unless you're so far over exposed that you're clipping your highlights. In which case you need to learn how to meter.

    If you expose to the right (slightly over expose), you can dial that back without consequence. No lost detail, no added noise.

    When you underexpose, shadow areas do not pick up detail. Hence the 'shadow' part. So when you try to bring up this area, there's no detail to bring up, and so noise is introduced in the process.
     
  9. Trlstyle

    Trlstyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AC-130W
    How underexposed are we talking here? ACR is pretty damn good...
     
  10. Trlstyle

    Trlstyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AC-130W
    And what are you shooting? It is EXTREMELY rare i go over 100 ISO, and i dont think i have been over 400 ever. That is on a 30D though.
     
  11. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    both are going to produce shitty pics :o

    i leave mine below 400 at all times
     
  12. themolsen

    themolsen New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    damn bro, i think your camera is broken :rofl: or you just really really hate noise
     
  13. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I hate noise. Plus being on a 30" monitor makes it really show. :hs:

    I took some the other day and sized them down and they look okay

    heres one at 1600 iso on my d50, at f/1.8 and no flash

    [​IMG]
     
  14. themolsen

    themolsen New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    fair enough
     
  15. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Its always better to properly expose the shot at the higher ISO than to underexpose it at the lower one.
    Chroma noise can be taken care of EASILY and its the nastier looking noise anyways. Lumi NR destroys detail and really makes stuff just look grainy more than noisy (which is OK in my book).
     
  16. FusionZ06

    FusionZ06 /\__/\__/\__0>

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine State
    [​IMG]

    ISO 1600 taken just now :o no noise reduction or post processing - my room isn't very well lit either.
     
  17. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I can see a pretty good bit of noise on that wall.

    Keep in mind, not a lot of noise isn't going to show when they are reduced down to that size anyways.
     
  18. FusionZ06

    FusionZ06 /\__/\__/\__0>

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine State
    :werd: which is fine for 90% of what I do...I rarely print stuff
     
  19. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I don't print a lot either, but I really want to start.
     

Share This Page