LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


ISO 3200 or ISO 1600/Raw?

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 26 Feb 2007 (Monday) 11:20   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
fredmitcham
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2007
219 posts
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

If you shoot in raw, am I correct that you are better off shooting at ISO 1600 and them increasing exposure by one stop in ACR or DPP than using ISO 3200? WellI have another question, I did a search on this and found every answer said:

"you get the same effect as ISO 3200 for RAW shots by shooting at ISO 1600 and underexposing by a stop"
"you're best shooting at ISO 1600, underexpose it by one stop and then bring it back up in the RAW convesion"
"ISO 3200 is just an in-camera software boost. You can do the same, often with slightly better results, by shooting at ISO 1600 with exposure compensation set to -1 and then use software on your computer to brighten it up"

I don't understand this. Why would you underexpose ISO 1600 by one stop or 1EV? ISO 1600 is one stop lower than ISO 3200, if you throw in -1 exposure compensation you're now two stops underexposed compared to ISO 3200 and have to give it a two stop boost in ACR or DPP? What is the purpose of this? Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot at ISO 1600 and then only have to give it a 1EV boost in raw? Im clearly missing something here.

Post #1, Feb 26, 2007 11:20:38




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
Cream of the Crop
TeamSpeed's Avatar
Joined May 2002
25,979 posts
NW Indiana
[MORE/SHARE]

If you want to simulate the camera 3200 ISO speed, you would have to reset your exposure settings in each and every mode (M, Av, Tv, etc). Why not just set the camera to 3200 (H), and not mess with your exposure settings? That is why it is a custom function, it saves you work in setting/resetting exposure settings in all the modes you might shoot in for one session.

Again, it comes down to what you need to do to get your shot, some folks might like to not use the 3200 internal software function of the 30D, and just control every single aspect of the shot manually, while others want to keep some settings the same, and let the camera compensate for the 3200 setting.

If you shoot in Raw, it shouldn't matter. If you underexpose 1600 at some set shutter speed, or use the 3200 at normal exposure at same shutter speed, you will be able to tweak both in the Raw converter to bump the exposure to your liking. Either way, you will have noise that has to be cleaned up with the noise tool of your choice.

Just my opinion on all of this.

Post #2, Feb 26, 2007 11:44:23


Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
bildeb0rg
Goldmember
bildeb0rg's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
1,787 posts
uk
[MORE/SHARE]

Not all bodies run up to 3200, so sometimes you have to deliberately under expose by a stop or more to get useable shutter speed. Then it gets messy as you try and recover it in pp and have to give it a rinse with noise ware.

Post #3, Feb 26, 2007 11:51:49




LOG IN TO REPLY
fredmitcham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2007
219 posts
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

TeamSpeed wrote in post #2777835external link
If you shoot in Raw, it shouldn't matter. If you underexpose 1600 at some set shutter speed, or use the 3200 at normal exposure at same shutter speed, you will be able to tweak both in the Raw converter to bump the exposure to your liking. Either way, you will have noise that has to be cleaned up with the noise tool of your choice.

Just my opinion on all of this.

Oh I see, you underexpose 1600 by one stop to get the same shutter speed you would have gotten at 3200? I get it now. I hadn't thought about that.

Post #4, Feb 26, 2007 11:58:11




LOG IN TO REPLY
fredmitcham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2007
219 posts
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

bildeb0rg wrote in post #2777864external link
Not all bodies run up to 3200, so sometimes you have to deliberately under expose by a stop or more to get useable shutter speed. Then it gets messy as you try and recover it in pp and have to give it a rinse with noise ware.

Thanks I just figured it out :) The reason I ask is because recently I was shooting some action shots at F2.8, 1/500th in raw and even at 1600 the shots were coming out underexposed so I was trying to decide whether to shoot at 1600 and boost them by 1.5-2 EV in PP or shoot at 3200 and boost them 0.5-1 EV in PP. I went with 1600 but was wondering if that was a mistake or not.

Post #5, Feb 26, 2007 12:02:13




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
canoflan
Goldmember
canoflan's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
1,059 posts
Texas, US
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

I think that you get less noise properly exposing at 3200 than increasing 1600 at -1 exposure to proper exposure.

I have tried it. Proper exposure is the best case always, with one caveat that you should always put getting the shot above settings, noise, etc..., when in doubt.;)

Post #6, Feb 26, 2007 12:43:39


Jesus Christ, as God, creates what I shoot; I simply have the privilege of capturing it.

5D, 30D, 4 L's, 500D macro, Canon CP filter, 580EX, Metz 58, Giottos CF Monopod, Giottos CF tripod, RRS BH-55 head, RRS wedding pro flash flipper thing-a-ma-bob dealy, lighting accessories, white umbrella, PWs, ThinkTank Photo Urban Disguise 40, ThinkTank Photo Airport Addicted...:cool:

PS CS3, LR, iMac, i9900 printer, Ilford Smooth Pearl paper

http://canoflan.exposu​remanager.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
prime80
Goldmember
prime80's Avatar
Joined Mar 2005
2,303 posts
Celebration, FL
[MORE/SHARE]

canoflan wrote in post #2778181external link
...you should always put getting the shot above settings, noise, etc..., when in doubt.;)

Well said! I don't know how many blurry, sorry shots it took me to figure out that a noisy "good" shot is much better than a clean blurry shot.

Post #7, Feb 27, 2007 00:18:41


John
7D, 17-55 IS, Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG, 580EX II, EOS M
Full Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
E-K
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2006
980 posts
Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

canoflan wrote in post #2778181external link
I think that you get less noise properly exposing at 3200 than increasing 1600 at -1 exposure to proper exposure.

Generally speaking for ISO 1600 and below that is true with todays cameras. However, there should be little difference between an ISO 3200 shot and an ISO 1600 pushed +1 in post processing. This is because unity gain is reached somewhere around 1200-1600 ISO for dSLRs (see http://www.clarkvision​.com ...nsor.performance.su​mmary/external link )

e-k

Post #8, Feb 27, 2007 21:15:24




LOG IN TO REPLY
basroil
Cream of the Crop
basroil's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
8,015 posts
STL/Clayton, MO| NJ
[MORE/SHARE]

if you are constantly pushing 3200ISO (except for indoor sports, where that it a fact of life), you need faster lenses..

Post #9, Feb 27, 2007 21:59:53


I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
René Damkot's Avatar
Joined Feb 2005
39,854 posts
enschede, netherlands
[MORE/SHARE]

ISO 1600 at EC -1 (so a ISO 3200 exposure) is slightly better then ISOO 3200 with EC 0.
Have a look in this thread from post #14 on...

It also offers the advantage it's easier to keep highlights from blowing out, since you are shooting at ISO 1600 instead of ISO 3200 ;)

Post #10, Feb 28, 2007 03:52:29


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpaceexternal link
Get Colormanagedexternal link
Twitterexternal link
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
Cream of the Crop
TeamSpeed's Avatar
Joined May 2002
25,979 posts
NW Indiana
[MORE/SHARE]

René Damkot wrote in post #2789015external link
ISO 1600 at EC -1 (so a ISO 3200 exposure) is slightly better then ISOO 3200 with EC 0.
Have a look in this thread from post #14 on...

It also offers the advantage it's easier to keep highlights from blowing out, since you are shooting at ISO 1600 instead of ISO 3200 ;)

I don't see that, really pretty close to each other. And as others stated after that post, like in #18, it appears other folks lean toward the 3200 and not the underexposed 1600. It is so close in performance, that I think each person has to try it in their own situations as a test to see what works best. Since they are all so close, and the camera in H mode presumably does the same thing, I think the ease of just setting the ISO is quicker or more user-friendly. In the end, when you run them through your favorite noise eliminator, the difference will be even less and most likely won't matter.

Post #11, Feb 28, 2007 05:33:08


Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
E-K
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2006
980 posts
Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

I don't lean towards it because I don't have the option on my 350D ;).

If I was shooting JPEG I would say using ISO 3200 (in situations which demand it) would be pretty much a must.

However, if you're shooting RAW you can simulate an ISO 3200 camera setting by pushing an ISO 1600 shot with near identical results (within a margin of error). Pushing an ISO 800 shot is close but there will be subtle differences. Below that I wouldn't bother.

So why would you push an ISO 1600 shot? As others have already mentioned,

1. You don't have an ISO 3200 setting on your camera ;).
2. It's a quick grab and you don't have time to change the ISO.
3. Like René pointed out, you can fiddle with the highlights.

e-k

Post #12, Feb 28, 2007 08:07:26




LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Curtis N's Avatar
Joined Apr 2005
19,130 posts
Northern Illinois, US
[MORE/SHARE]

René Damkot wrote in post #2789015external link
ISO 1600 at EC -1 (so a ISO 3200 exposure) is slightly better then ISOO 3200 with EC 0. Have a look in this thread from post #14 on...

Looking at the images from PacAce in that thread, it's really tough for me to see any difference betweein ISO 1600 (+1) and ISO 3200.

It also offers the advantage it's easier to keep highlights from blowing out,

This point I believe has some validity, and is one I hadn't considered before. Merely cranking up the exposure slider with a RAW converter will still blow out the highlights, but if you use other methods to bring up the shadows and midtones while maintaining the highlights (and there are several ways to do that) you could be better off.

My biggest hesitation with deliberately underexposing at ISO 1600 is being able to chimp and properly interpret the histogram to get the exposure 1 stop below optimum. I have a hard enough time getting it right to begin with! ;)

Post #13, Feb 28, 2007 09:19:30


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN eventsexternal link
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible external link| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flashexternal link | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculatorexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
5,962 views & 0 likes for this thread
ISO 3200 or ISO 1600/Raw?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.0008 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
755 guests, 536 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is LudeMurph

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.