Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment

ghosh · 3rd of December 2007 (Mon)

What would you suggest me? shoot at higher ISO and then try to reduce noise OR shoot at low ISO (let it be under exposed @ maximum -1) then adjust the levels at PS

I dont know, I never had questions in my mind before. Its just keeping on coming today. I have already posted 5 questions in different section today.

Thanks

AdamLewis · 3rd of December 2007 (Mon)

Unfortunately I dont know all the true technical aspects of it, but I would say expose properly at a higher ISO. If you underexpose, theres less data to work with since most of the picture resides in the left-hand of the histogram.

With programs as good as they are anymore at eliminating noise, I wouldnt worry about it too much.

Just my two cents.

PhotosGuy · 3rd of December 2007 (Mon)

Some Volley Ball Tournament Tests **56K Warning!**

Noise: it is better to raise ISO than to underexpose

Riff Raff · 3rd of December 2007 (Mon)

Noise increases dramatically in underexposed photos, even at lower ISOs sometimes. The high ISO settings do much better.

Glenn NK · 3rd of December 2007 (Mon)

What do you call "high ISO"? To me it's over 640; to some it's over 100.

Curtis N · 3rd of December 2007 (Mon)

Pretty much everyone who has tried it both ways comes to the conclusion that it's better to shoot at high ISO (even 3200) than to choose a lower ISO, underexpose and fix in post.

ghosh · 4th of December 2007 (Tue)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

What do you call "high ISO"? To me it's over 640; to some it's over 100.

Any thing that you would like to consider. If you think this needs a 1/125 + f5.6 ISO 200 but you decided to go for 1/125+ f5.6 +ISO 100 + -0.75 thinking that -0.75 can be adjusted in PS. Which one would you prefer first one with high ISO or the second one with low ISO+PP, Cheers.

Mcary · 4th of December 2007 (Tue)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghosh

Any thing that you would like to consider. If you think this needs a 1/125 + f5.6 ISO 200 but you decided to go for 1/125+ f5.6 +ISO 100 + -0.75 thinking that -0.75 can be adjusted in PS. Which one would you prefer first one with high ISO or the second one with low ISO+PP, Cheers.

Choice One=properly exposed image
Choice Two= bye bye to 50% of the data in your image.
Think I'd go with Choice One

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml

neumanns · 4th of December 2007 (Tue)

Tis a fine line but...If your worried about noise I have found sometimes you can even up the Iso and overexpose{or correctly compensate} and then bring it back down in PP with decent results.(be sure to chimp to prevent clipping)

My test's are inconclusive but noise is definatly a function of exposure as well as ISO! A properly exposed high iso image is not that noisy... My camera tends to underexpose at high ISO, I feel this is what causes a large portion of the noise.

Let me add this...I can think of no good reason to up the iso and then do in camera exposere compensation as this just brings your shutter speed back to what the lower iso was! However it is interesting to see how much this reduces noise at higher ISO

And to the OP...Higher iso +proper exposure IMO is better than your other option!

E-K · 4th of December 2007 (Tue)

It doesn't make sense to use a lower ISO and adjust in post processing unless you have to (e.g. my 350D has a maximum ISO of 1600, but I can get similar results to a 20D at 3200 by underexposing by 1-stop at 1600 and then adjusting +1 in post with the raw file).

Bottom line is that the amplifier of the sensor will maintain more information than if you shoot raw and adjust in post processing. However, once you hit unity gain (1 data number represents 1 electron), there is no effective difference between post processing (with raw) and in camera amplification.

For both the 20D and 350D this is below ISO 1600 according to http://www.clarkvision.com.

e-k

lakiluno · 4th of December 2007 (Tue)

I agree. Shoot higher. The ISO amplification is done on the sensor in most Canon DSLR's, so (AFAIK) it can be done better than simply amplifying the output. I have heard reports that the 20D+'s ISO 3200 is simply ISO 1600 amplfified in software however - people have done tests and found little difference between the two.

At ISO 1600 and under though, I would always go up to the next ISO. Surely everyone here has taken an underexposed photo at ISO 100 or 200, and suddenly it looks like it was taken at ISO 1600.

3rd of December 2007 (Mon)	#1
ghosh Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 874 IMAGE EDITING OK	Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment What would you suggest me? shoot at higher ISO and then try to reduce noise OR shoot at low ISO (let it be under exposed @ maximum -1) then adjust the levels at PS I dont know, I never had questions in my mind before. Its just keeping on coming today. I have already posted 5 questions in different section today. Thanks __________________ #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << "POTN is the best." << std::endl; return 0; }

3rd of December 2007 (Mon)	#2
AdamLewis Goldmember Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,077	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment Unfortunately I dont know all the true technical aspects of it, but I would say expose properly at a higher ISO. If you underexpose, theres less data to work with since most of the picture resides in the left-hand of the histogram. With programs as good as they are anymore at eliminating noise, I wouldnt worry about it too much. Just my two cents. __________________

3rd of December 2007 (Mon)	#3
PhotosGuy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: S. E. Michigan Posts: 64,319	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment Some Volley Ball Tournament Tests 56K Warning! Noise: it is better to raise ISO than to underexpose __________________ FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything... Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers. www.FrankCizek.com Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET! Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?

3rd of December 2007 (Mon)	#4
Riff Raff Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Austin, Texas, USA Posts: 1,110	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment Noise increases dramatically in underexposed photos, even at lower ISOs sometimes. The high ISO settings do much better. __________________ Shawn McHorse - AustinRocky.org / RockyMusic.org Bodies: 5D Mark III, Rebel XTi, Elan 7NE Compact: S100 Flashes: 580EX II, 430EX Lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 Bags: Stealth Reporter D400AW, Toploader 75AW, Modulus Belt System

3rd of December 2007 (Mon)	#5
Glenn NK Goldmember Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Victoria, BC Posts: 4,520 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment What do you call "high ISO"? To me it's over 640; to some it's over 100. __________________ "Be yourself - everyone else is taken". Oscar Wilde

3rd of December 2007 (Mon)	#6
Curtis N Master Flasher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Northern Illinois, US Posts: 18,988	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment Pretty much everyone who has tried it both ways comes to the conclusion that it's better to shoot at high ISO (even 3200) than to choose a lower ISO, underexpose and fix in post. __________________ "If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally Chicago area POTN events Flash Photography 101 \| The EOS Flash Bible \| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash \| How to Use Flash Outdoors \| Excel-based DOF Calculator

4th of December 2007 (Tue)	#9
neumanns Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: North Centeral Minnesota Posts: 1,465 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment Tis a fine line but...If your worried about noise I have found sometimes you can even up the Iso and overexpose{or correctly compensate} and then bring it back down in PP with decent results.(be sure to chimp to prevent clipping) My test's are inconclusive but noise is definatly a function of exposure as well as ISO! A properly exposed high iso image is not that noisy... My camera tends to underexpose at high ISO, I feel this is what causes a large portion of the noise. Let me add this...I can think of no good reason to up the iso and then do in camera exposere compensation as this just brings your shutter speed back to what the lower iso was! However it is interesting to see how much this reduces noise at higher ISO And to the OP...Higher iso +proper exposure IMO is better than your other option! __________________ 7D, Sigma 8-16, 17-55, 70-200 2.8 IS, 580ExII, ........Searching for Talent & Skill; Will settle for Blind Luck! Last edited by neumanns : 4th of December 2007 (Tue) at 09:38. Reason: Let me add...

4th of December 2007 (Tue)	#10
E-K Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 945 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment It doesn't make sense to use a lower ISO and adjust in post processing unless you have to (e.g. my 350D has a maximum ISO of 1600, but I can get similar results to a 20D at 3200 by underexposing by 1-stop at 1600 and then adjusting +1 in post with the raw file). Bottom line is that the amplifier of the sensor will maintain more information than if you shoot raw and adjust in post processing. However, once you hit unity gain (1 data number represents 1 electron), there is no effective difference between post processing (with raw) and in camera amplification. For both the 20D and 350D this is below ISO 1600 according to http://www.clarkvision.com. e-k

4th of December 2007 (Tue)	#11
lakiluno slightly jealous Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Leeds, UK (formerly Edinburgh, Scotland) Posts: 2,895 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Use high ISO+no level adjustment OR low ISO+level adjustment I agree. Shoot higher. The ISO amplification is done on the sensor in most Canon DSLR's, so (AFAIK) it can be done better than simply amplifying the output. I have heard reports that the 20D+'s ISO 3200 is simply ISO 1600 amplfified in software however - people have done tests and found little difference between the two. At ISO 1600 and under though, I would always go up to the next ISO. Surely everyone here has taken an underexposed photo at ISO 100 or 200, and suddenly it looks like it was taken at ISO 1600. __________________ Leo 20D\|Tamron 17-50 2.8\|Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro\|50 1.8\|Sigma EF-500 DG Super\| My Photo Gallery New \| My Gear List \| Backup Photos Easily with Robocopy

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
for those of you wondering about MarkIII low light,high ISO abilities	jlbrach	Canon EOS Digital Cameras	29	29th of July 2007 (Sun) 23:27
Low light, high ISO with a 30D	col4bin	Canon EOS Digital Cameras	28	8th of May 2007 (Tue) 15:48
high iso and low shutter football	KIPAX	Sports	6	4th of October 2006 (Wed) 14:18
30D High vs Low ISO comparison	EOSAddict	Canon EOS Digital Cameras	5	22nd of March 2006 (Wed) 16:53
Something a little different; High ISO, Low light	Asmodeus	People	5	27th of December 2005 (Tue) 10:49