Post your ISO 12,800+ photos!

By the way guys, I really recommend you try out the new Topaz Labs latest noise software (#5). Not sure what noise software is being used in these photos. It really does a great job at removing noise at high ISO while still retaining detail. You can try it out for free for a month I think

http://www.topazlabs.c​om/denoise/

I feel it is the best when compared to Noise Ninja or Neat Image.

spear wrote in post #10760509
By the way guys, I really recommend you try out the new Topaz Labs latest noise software (#5). Not sure what noise software is being used in these photos. It really does a great job at removing noise at high ISO while still retaining detail. You can try it out for free for a month I think

http://www.topazlabs.c​om/denoise/

I feel it is the best when compared to Noise Ninja or Neat Image.

Hm... don't know how much more one can do on 12800 pushing 2 additional stops.

gabebalazs wrote in post #10757809
Here are a few from me, cleaned up using DPP and Reduce Noise effect in CS3:
(Camera: 7D, I think...)

There are some great 12800 shots in this thread, but this one is rocking my world.

Surely the point of 12800 is because you have to? Whilst the cat shot is nice enough, there's no actal reason to use 12800.

Get out in the dark and push the thing to an inch of it's life, that's what I say!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I totally agree - I was going to suggest the same thing. Noise is much more noticeable if you shoot in very low light.

dinny66 wrote in post #10760838
Surely the point of 12800 is because you have to? Whilst the cat shot is nice enough, there's no actal reason to use 12800.

Surely? If a camera can perform adequately up there, why not use it wherever you see fit? Use it in the dark or use it in the light if it gives you the effect you want.

I'm sure we'd all get bored pretty quickly of dark club shots all over the thread. Leave your rules for your own thread, imo. The OP wanted 12800+ shots and so far, everyone has delivered a nice range that do a good job of showing what 12800+ can do in different situations. And the result has been more informative than if everyone pigeonholed it like you seem to think 12800+ is for.

The point of 12800 is 12800. Nothing more.

Just the thought of having that high of an ISO an option is amazing. I rarely touch 800 let alone 1000 without second guessing the pic to be taken

This is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. dinny66 was making the valid point that high ISO serves a specific purpose, which for most photographers is to allow for higher shutter speeds in low light environments. Moreover, this is indeed the real test of a camera's ability to control noise, because things like chroma noise and banding are much more noticeable in darker tones.

Jericobot wrote in post #10761005
Just the thought of having that high of an ISO an option is amazing. I rarely touch 800 let alone 1000 without second guessing the pic to be taken

Why? A sharp noisy photos better than a clean blurry one. Plus the 1DII you use is certianly more or less clean to 1600. 3200 is fine for anything A4 or smaller. But push it past that and your limited to 7x5.

The noise isn't massively worse than the 7D (although behind it's not massive when in print/with teh correct NR porgrams)

Davie82 wrote in post #10761026
...dinny66 was making the valid point that high ISO serves a specific purpose

...and that purpose is strictly to increase the sensitivity of the sensor. What you do with that is entirely up to you, the photographer.

/Captain Obvious. No one is challenging any of that.

Whatever people want to set their camera at is up to them. There are no rules so long as you get the shot. That's it. It's that simple. Can you get the shot with other settings? Maybe, but who gives a damn. That doesn't matter here.

Ha, this one is pretty funny! It has to be almost pitch black to get the 12800 to fire on this thing. There are no lights on, just ambient light that might come in from a window on the far side of the room. Bam, beat that!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

If I may chime in (the guy with the cat picture ), I took that photo at 12800 partly because I was testing it, and also partly because I had 2 or 3 60W tungsten lightbulbs "lighting" (if you can call that) my big living room. Took it with my Nifty 50, 1/125 sec, f/2.2, so there wasn't much light there.
I was happy with the results, especially after I cleaned it up.

Was it necessary to shoot an animate subject at 12800 (she wasn't sitting perfectly still)? Well, I could have shot it at ISO 3200 and about 1/30 and end up with a bunch of motion blur I guess. So all I can say (I may be wrong though) is that I use ISO 12800 when the conditions call for it (for example when I need fast enough shutter speed to achieve a motion blur-less picture). Whether it's a club, or my cat, that's totally irrelevant to me.

gabebalazs wrote in post #10761437
If I may chime in (the guy with the cat picture ), I took that photo at 12800 partly because I was testing it, and also partly because I had 2 or 3 60W tungsten lightbulbs "lighting" (if you can call that) my big living room. Took it with my Nifty 50, 1/125 sec, f/2.2, so there wasn't much light there.
I was happy with the results, especially after I cleaned it up.

Was it necessary to shoot an animate subject at 12800 (she wasn't sitting perfectly still)? Well, I could have shot it at ISO 3200 and about 1/30 and end up with a bunch of motion blur I guess.

Then there's that. By looking at your pic people really have no way of telling how much light was available. When someone was being critical for taking that pic at 12800 "when there was no need" I thought to myself, "how in the world do they know? Magic?"

That's what's so darn cool about what these cameras can do now. They've completely rewritten "the rules." Sure, you could've dropped the ISO and flashed, but you sure as hell didn't need to - 12800 proved beneficial outside a "dark setting."

It's such a silly premise (12800 being strickly for extreme lowlight photography) so I don't know why I feel compelled to defend against it.

Silly internetz making me get jerky.

Please, back to posting crazy pictures that wouldn've been possible 5 years ago...

jamesb wrote in post #10756856
I already made a thread, but i'll play. I was not expecting such a clean photo anywhere near this ISO at all! First is unedited and the second has Contrast, Temp, Highlight Recovery, and Noise reduction done. This is incredible to me! All adjustments were done in Lightroom with the exception of noise reduction. Which was a plug-in in PS CS4 called Noiseware Professional. I could have smoothed out the skin tones even more, but I wanted it to resemble a photo more than a painting.

ISO at 51,200
1/160
f/4.5
24-70L at 70mm
1DIV

BEFORE

[IMG]http://i78.photobucket​.com …graphy/65ed7df3​.jpg[IMG]

AFTER

[IMG]http://i78.photobucket​.com …graphy/6125913b​.jpg[IMG]

Second picture is far from 'clean' and looks a lot worse than the first one. Id take grain-like noise over purple blotches any day of the week.