Pretty much as the title says, I just shot a Tracer set in Munich at ISO 512000 with flash (and it was on camera flash!!)
BJWOK Cream of the Crop  More info | Mar 08, 2016 16:45 | #1 Pretty much as the title says, I just shot a Tracer set in Munich at ISO 512000 with flash (and it was on camera flash!!) My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 08, 2016 18:13 | #2 |
Mar 08, 2016 19:53 | #3 BJWOK wrote in post #17928497  ... at ISO 512000 with flash (and it was on camera flash!!) 512 THOUSAND ISO???
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aka_deno Member  125 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2006 Location: Annapolis, MD More info | Mar 08, 2016 20:39 | #4 and It was on a 1DX MKII? lol! My 5D3 looks horrific at 512,000 iso. I need pics or it didn't happen.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 09, 2016 05:57 | #5 Damn, I'm a idiot. This should have read 51,200 not 512,000. My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 09, 2016 11:15 | #6  Image hosted by forum (780142) © BJWOK [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.  Image hosted by forum (780143) © BJWOK [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff. My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 09, 2016 11:19 | #7 I have to ask; why the high aperture when everything is going to be in focus with a fisheye? http://emjfotografi.com/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Because I was shooting with flash and a stupidly high ISO the only way to not blow everything out was an almost fully closed aperture! My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JarvisCreativeStudios Goldmember  More info | Mar 09, 2016 12:08 | #9 I'm assuming you were going for the grain on purpose then? It's your style, but I have to ask. Why not just shoot on a lower ISO to get the initial shots more crisp, then add the grain in LR? WEBSITE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 09, 2016 12:18 | #10 Nah, totally not my style at all. My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TeamSpeed 01010100 01010011  More info Post edited over 7 years ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all) | Mar 09, 2016 13:09 | #11 Did you try to shoot a bit underexposed instead and then simply raise the exposure up digitally later? It would give you a very "gritty" look that might have been pleasing. My problem is that even if I shot at that ISO, my results probably would have been too clean still, because I would have that OCD tendency to run my noise actions on the results. Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 09, 2016 14:17 | #12 TeamSpeed wrote in post #17929403 Did you try to shoot a bit underexposed instead and then simply raise the exposure up digitally later? It would give you a very "gritty" look that might have been pleasing. My problem is that even if I shot at that ISO, my results probably would have been too clean still, because I would have that OCD tendency to run my noise actions on the results. 
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nah, I didn't bother with any post on these (or that technique) I just shot at the highest ISO, adding a flash and dialled my aperture for a decent exposure. Dre (drums) loved them btw My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Thanks mate My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 14, 2016 07:32 | #15 Here's video of how and why I did this: https://youtu.be/L2ezNhyXqtE My name is Benon (BJWOK are my initials)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is zachary24 721 guests, 128 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
