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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 26 Feb 2007 (Monday) 11:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

ISO 3200 or ISO 1600/Raw?

 
fredmitcham
Member
219 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Feb 26, 2007 11:20 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 26, 2007 11:44 |  #2

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.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bildeb0rg
Goldmember
Avatar
2,584 posts
Gallery: 169 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Oct 2006
Location: uk
     
Feb 26, 2007 11:51 |  #3

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fredmitcham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
219 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Feb 26, 2007 11:58 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

TeamSpeed wrote in post #2777835 (external 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fredmitcham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
219 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Feb 26, 2007 12:02 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

bildeb0rg wrote in post #2777864 (external 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canoflan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,059 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Texas, US
     
Feb 26, 2007 12:43 |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

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.;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
prime80
Goldmember
Avatar
2,336 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Celebration, FL
     
Feb 27, 2007 00:18 |  #7

canoflan wrote in post #2778181 (external 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.


John
7D Mk II, EF 100-400 L IS II, EF 24-70 L II, EF 85 f/1.8, EF-S 18-135 STM, EF-S 10-18 IS STM, 580EX II, EOS M
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
E-K
Senior Member
983 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Canada
     
Feb 27, 2007 21:15 |  #8

canoflan wrote in post #2778181 (external 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.performanc​e.summary/ (external link) )

e-k




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basroil
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,015 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2006
Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ
     
Feb 27, 2007 21:59 |  #9

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


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
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Feb 28, 2007 03:52 |  #10

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 think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external 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
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 28, 2007 05:33 |  #11

René Damkot wrote in post #2789015 (external 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.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
E-K
Senior Member
983 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Canada
     
Feb 28, 2007 08:07 |  #12

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Feb 28, 2007 09:19 |  #13

René Damkot wrote in post #2789015 (external 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! ;)


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

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

7,709 views & 0 likes for this thread
ISO 3200 or ISO 1600/Raw?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS 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 jwinslow7
877 guests, 389 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.