-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (3) =-

bobobird wrote in post #13059711
Cool shots caleb and nack.

+1.... also a great shot shots from your last series nack.

Very nice shots Mike and Beef

Quick question people.
Which method produces the noisier image in a low light situation?
a) Shooting at a high iso
b) Shooting at a low iso creating a dark image and then increasing the exposure/fill light in PP afterwards.

I realise not every situation will be identical but just curious to see if anyone has experimented with this.

Inchpractice wrote in post #13060680
Quick question people.
Which method produces the noisier image in a low light situation?
a) Shooting at a high iso
b) Shooting at a low iso creating a dark image and then increasing the exposure/fill light in PP afterwards.

I realise not every situation will be identical but just curious to see if anyone has experimented with this.

B

Read up on ETTR.

eskimochaos wrote in post #13060947
B

Read up on ETTR.

I have read up on ETTR but wouldn't that imply that a) is the better option?
I thought the whole concept behind ETTR is that it's less noisy to darken an overexposed bright image than it is to brighten a dark image, and for that reason you should always try and take the brightest image possible.
To take a bright picture in a low light situation you'd have to increase the ISO which means option a).

Inchpractice wrote in post #13060978
I have read up on ETTR but wouldn't that imply that a) is the better option?
I thought the whole concept behind ETTR is that it's less noisy to darken an overexposed bright image than it is to brighten a dark image, and for that reason you should always try and take the brightest image possible.
To take a bright picture in a low light situation you'd have to increase the ISO which means option a).

Ummm, you asked which was noiser, bud.

Couple shots from my town's Labor Day fair.

IMAGE LINK: http://robertpaul.smug​mug.com …#1466684698_ZDX​WhSv-XL-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://robertpaul.smug​mug.com …#1466685339_szz​mLqK-XL-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://robertpaul.smug​mug.com …#1466685795_qRM​Bvvt-XL-LB

eskimochaos wrote in post #13061040
Ummm, you asked which was noiser, bud.

Whoops, good point.
:o

Inchpractice wrote in post #13061271
Whoops, good point.
:o

hahaha, I was taken back by your response at first thinking I had misread or misinterpreted what you asked but then I was like wait......

eskimochaos wrote in post #13061318
hahaha, I was taken back by your response at first thinking I had misread or misinterpreted what you asked but then I was like wait......

By the way, why is it not the other way around?
Logically if you're shooting at a high ISO the image will be noisier to start with whereas if you shoot at a low ISO at least you're starting with a clean image.

Inchpractice wrote in post #13061334
By the way, why is it not the other way around?
Logically if you're shooting at a high ISO the image will be noisier to start with whereas if you shoot at a low ISO at least you're starting with a clean image.

Like I said, read up on HAMSTTR and ETTR. It has to do with the fact that the ADC in modern DSLRs reads tonalities in a linear manner whereas the human eye is in fact logarithmic.

Consider an image exposed at 100ISO and pushed 4 stops to a simulated 1600ISO. If you take another shot at 1600ISO, the one shot at 1600 will have a greater S/N ratio than the one pushed - so in this case, 1600ISO produced an image with less noise - try it.

I find shooting at higher ISO and nailing the exposure gets me more usable images than trying to keep ISO low and raising it in post. That is just me...I've actually shot many usable images at 1600 ISO and even a few at 3200/6400 with the T2i.

Here is another from my 100's of hummingbird shots from last night. This image was shot at 800 ISO, fyi and heavily cropped.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/trulie98/612247​6236/

eskimochaos wrote in post #13061349
Like I said, read up on HAMSTTR and ETTR. It has to do with the fact that the ADC in modern DSLRs reads tonalities in a linear manner whereas the human eye is in fact logarithmic.

Consider an image exposed at 100ISO and pushed 4 stops to a simulated 1600ISO. If you take another shot at 1600ISO, the one shot at 1600 will have a greater S/N ratio than the one pushed - so in this case, 1600ISO produced an image with less noise - try it.

Never heard of the hamster one.
When you say S/N does that mean signal to noise?

trulie98 wrote in post #13061357
I find shooting at higher ISO and nailing the exposure gets me more usable images than trying to keep ISO low and raising it in post. That is just me...I've actually shot many usable images at 1600 ISO and even a few at 3200/6400 with the T2i.

Here is another from my 100's of hummingbird shots from last night. This image was shot at 800 ISO, fyi and heavily cropped.

That's very sharp considering the ISO and the cropping.

Yes, S/ N = signal to noise.

Read this....https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=730218

These little buggers are hard to capture..... went over to the inlaws house, and they have a bunch of hummingbird feeders, so I had the bright idea of trying to take some pictures of them (not). They are so fast!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'