Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras 
Thread started 12 Dec 2014 (Friday) 15:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

X100s high ISO for you to check out.. (photos and EXIF)

 
bent ­ toe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by bent toe. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 12, 2014 15:20 |  #1

Here are a few samples (SOOC JPEG's) i took less than one hour ago.
Press the flickr link and you will see the EXIF.

ISO 6400

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7579/15819468738_244852de53.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q6UU​V1  (external link) 6400 1/60 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8597/15384606004_e92e8bec53.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pru8​nE  (external link) 6400 1/125 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr


ISO 12800
IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8661/15384610324_cc5f1e1cfb.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pru9​E9  (external link) 12800 1/125 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7466/16004930661_90560ee1bc.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qois​hn  (external link) 12800 1/125 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

ISO 25600
IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7529/15820877189_7a1cfbeb56.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q738​AD  (external link) 25600 1/60 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7551/16004925551_6658d99a4b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qoiq​Lg  (external link) 25600 1/125 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8613/16006881465_46cb4ef3e6.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qots​bV  (external link) 25600 1/250 (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

And here are one with low ISO and 125 sec in windy conditions (had a hard time keeping the tripod still)

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8605/15981042536_27c89cae44.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qmc2​b9  (external link) 125 sec no PP (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,354 posts
Likes: 1420
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 12, 2014 15:43 |  #2

Personally night scene with mostly dark frame doesn't tell much about the high ISO. I have XT-1 and ISO6400 is not good.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Dec 12, 2014 16:24 |  #3

bobbyz wrote in post #17328797 (external link)
Personally night scene with mostly dark frame doesn't tell much about the high ISO. I have XT-1 and ISO6400 is not good.

Hmmm, i thought the opposite, high iso is only used at night or in very poor lit places.

I could be wrong and if so, what are some good reference high iso photos then?


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,015 posts
Gallery: 323 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3098
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
Post edited over 4 years ago by Two Hot Shoes.
     
Dec 12, 2014 16:49 |  #4

Try showing a face or something similar in the photo when shooting at high iso, I usually find that to be a good test. Love to see some more.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
Post edited over 4 years ago by gnome chompski.
     
Dec 12, 2014 17:37 |  #5

the problem that I have with high ISO jpegs is the default noise reduction that Fuji thinks we need. You cannot turn it off, even if you have NR set to 0. It smears, gives a waxy look to people and certain scenes.

In my experience, shooting raw the high ISO files are great but fall apart pretty quick if its really underexposed.


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Dark ­ Knight
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2012
     
Dec 12, 2014 21:04 |  #6

Has anyone underexposed a RAW shot by a stop or more at ISO 6400, and then tried boosting exposure in PP? How does this compare to ISO 12,800 in JPEG?

I'm guessing both are far from ideal but wonder if this will at least help with the waxy skin look when taking people pictures




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,354 posts
Likes: 1420
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by bobbyz.
     
Dec 12, 2014 23:08 |  #7

What I meant to say was that shoot something like face, feather detail etc to really show the high ISO performance. For nighscape shots, you can shoot at lowest ISO if using a tripod.

Here is ISO6400, f1.2, 1/25, SOOC

IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s5/v121/p519032859-5.jpg

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Dec 13, 2014 04:10 |  #8

gnome chompski wrote in post #17328984 (external link)
the problem that I have with high ISO jpegs is the default noise reduction that Fuji thinks we need. You cannot turn it off, even if you have NR set to 0. It smears, gives a waxy look to people and certain scenes.

In my experience, shooting raw the high ISO files are great but fall apart pretty quick if its really underexposed.

Mine is set to -2 NR.


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
     
Dec 13, 2014 12:40 |  #9

i still think Fuji applies some mandatory NR to high ISO jpegs, even if you have it set to 0 or -2. I pretty much only use jpegs up to ISO 800. And even then, I generally prefer the raw files


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by bent toe.
     
Dec 14, 2014 10:54 |  #10

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8588/15833114390_6e1ffa1e6c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q87R​hS  (external link) moss (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8659/16018392171_61ec3edc21.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qpur​Vn  (external link) gingerbread (external link) by bent toe (external link), on Flickr



6400 ISO

"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mguffin
Goldmember
Avatar
2,627 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 17
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Allendale, NJ
Post edited over 4 years ago by mguffin.
     
Jan 06, 2015 09:00 |  #11

bent toe wrote in post #17328884 (external link)
Hmmm, i thought the opposite, high iso is only used at night or in very poor lit places.

I could be wrong and if so, what are some good reference high iso photos then?

Sometimes high ISO is used in some brighter situations where faster shutter is preferred.


Mike
Nikon D800 ~ Nikon D500
Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG ~ Nikkor 50 f/1.8G ~ Nikkor 85 f/1.8G ~ Nikkor 12-24 f/4 DX ~ Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX ~ Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR ~ Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC ~ Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 DC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Jan 06, 2015 10:23 |  #12

mguffin wrote in post #17368759 (external link)
Sometimes high ISO is used in some brighter situations where faster shutter is preferred.

That extreme? I doubt anyone use above 12800... Or i could be wrong


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,602 posts
Likes: 332
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 06, 2015 10:28 |  #13

bent toe wrote in post #17328884 (external link)
Hmmm, i thought the opposite, high iso is only used at night or in very poor lit places.

I could be wrong and if so, what are some good reference high iso photos then?

Using a slow lens or stopped down for a sweet spot or DOF, with high magnification and the high shutter speeds needed for that magnification, I have needed ISO 25600 in the middle of a sunny day, under the green canopy. Same near dusk and dawn, out in the open. Now that cameras are getting better at high ISOs, people are opting to shoot with the shutter speeds and f-stops that they really want, with less regard for resulting ISO.

Each of the three RAW color channels is actually shot at its own ISO. The ISO setting that the camera expresses is the ISO of the green channel. For most digital cameras, if the camera is set to ISO 1000 and the white balance is Daylight, the ISO of the blue channel is about 1400, and the ISO of the red channel is about 2000. In incandescent light, that would be about 1000 for the red channel, and about 4000 or even more for the blue channel, depending on how warm the light is. For deep desert shade, the actual red ISO is 6000 or more, and in deep green-filtered foliage the red ISO can actually be quite high, too. This is why even a tiny bit of fill flash helps a lot with red noise in such situations; even a -3 FEC could nearly double the red light!

So, ISO is not ISO, if you're going strictly by the camera setting, as different white balances result in different ISOs for the red and blue RAW channels. Combined with differences in contrast and key of the scene, even more inequity exists. You can compare two cameras at the same ISO in the same scene, but comparing one camera against another, or one ISO against another ISO on the same camera is meaningless if the scenes don't have the same WB and tonal range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,602 posts
Likes: 332
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 06, 2015 10:39 |  #14

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17329227 (external link)
Has anyone underexposed a RAW shot by a stop or more at ISO 6400, and then tried boosting exposure in PP? How does this compare to ISO 12,800 in JPEG?

I'm guessing both are far from ideal but wonder if this will at least help with the waxy skin look when taking people pictures

At high ISOs like that, all that matters is how much light hits the sensor, if you are shooting RAW. If your camera is set to ISO 6400 and you over-expose by 1 stop, you're shooting at 3200, really, with the same noise as a "normal" 3200, but with less highlight headroom. If you're shooting ISO 6400 and under-expose by 1 stop, you're actually shooting at ISO 12,800, with the same noise as "normal" 12,800, but a stop more headroom. Of course, certain cameras or manufacturers may do things that upset this generality, like implementing more NR above a certain ISO setting, or doing their own ISO pushes and pulls behind the scenes, etc.

Near base ISO, this idea breaks down because most cameras generate enough extra noise after ISO gain or independent of it that the lowest ISOs have an extra penalty of noise if used to expose for higher ISOs. This is most significant in Canon DSLRs, but applies to Nikon's 12 and 16MP DSLRs to a lesser extent, and to other cameras to an even lesser extent. There is also the issue that your RAW converter may not support pushes and pulls as well as it could, so you need to put your converter to the test.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,602 posts
Likes: 332
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 06, 2015 10:44 |  #15

gnome chompski wrote in post #17330178 (external link)
i still think Fuji applies some mandatory NR to high ISO jpegs, even if you have it set to 0 or -2. I pretty much only use jpegs up to ISO 800. And even then, I generally prefer the raw files

I would never take the "0" of "0 NR" literally. It simply means, "this is the least NR that we are willing to attach our company name to".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,726 views & 1 like for this thread
X100s high ISO for you to check out.. (photos and EXIF)
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is JohnBonney
922 guests, 349 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.