Is high ISO the new HDR

[tlitody]

So is it now cool to be able claim "I shot this image at ISO 6400 and there is no noise". Bit like bragging about how little grain you managed to achieve. So is high ISO the new HDR? The latest Fad with bragging rights? Will it die a death when the next must have functionality is released on cameras? Have photographers really gone nocturnal? What do you think?

 

[ruby.monkey]

No. At worst, high ISO shots just look noisy; badly-done HDR makes one's eyes and soul bleed.

High-ISO capability is the new Fast Glass.

 

[Sparrow]

I thought ADHD was the new HRD

 

[gavinlg]

no.


(tencharacters)

 

[Spyro]

naaaahhh... its just nice to poke fun at M9 owners. Usually unsuccessfully.

 

[thegman]

High ISO is not my cup of tea, but I don't blame people for wanting it. We're so often out at night, and sometimes tripods or fast glass is not what you need, you simply want more sensitive film or sensors. High ISO shots are unlikely to look great, but maybe it's better than not getting the shot at all.

I think there is some snobbishness about it to be honest, it's fine to get your extra stops with a Noctilux or pushing Tri-X, but if you get it by getting a DSLR, it's somehow less valid.

Sometimes we want or need to take shots in near-darkness, and there are many ways of doing that, and high ISO performance, either film or digital, is just another way of getting that.

 

[Elektrojänis]

I thought ADHD was the new HRD

Actually ADHD is the next TV-standard. It will replace HDTV soon. the full name of the technology is Advanced High Definition Television.

 

[tlitody]

I thought ADHD was the new HRD

25-30% of people with ADHD have dyslexia which might explain what HRD is 😀

 

[eleskin]

High ISO is one reason I ever picked up a rangefinder!

High ISO is one reason I ever picked up a rangefinder!

When I started using my M6 21 years ago, the vibration free design, low light focusing advantages of the rangefinder, fast sharp glass, and great high ISO films like Fuji Neopan 1600 gave me the ability to create tremendous low light photos in the day. Now it is 2011 and many regard the digital M not a good choice for low light because of poor high ISO. This is too bad in that defeats the purpose of fast Leica glass in extreme situations. We really need to see at least a decent ISO 3200, and that is not asking much when we see the extreme ISO of Canon and Nikon offerings. This would bring back the M rangefinder to it's roots. Autofocus sucks in some difficult low light situations where the rangefinder is still superior. Decent high ISO would be a must and would help tremendously!

 

[Sparrow]

25-30% of people with ADHD have dyslexia which might explain what HRD is 😀

Yep, that's me can't spell for toffee ...

 

[NLewis]

Photography, as we all know, is both an art form and one of a subclass of hobbies which we can call the Guy With Gear hobbies. This includes audiophilia and motorcycles.

A standard Guy With Gear theme is to push some factor to an extreme. This might mean an extremely powerful engine, an extremely loud subwoofer, or an extremely fast sailboat.

Thus, we have a tendency to focus on photographic-equpiment extremes. Extremely wide, long, or fast lenses. Extremely large format (larger than 8x10). Extremely long exposure. Extremely high ISO. Extremely high frame rates.

There's nothing in particular wrong with this, except that it often has little to do with the artistic process. You can shoot a 50/2 lens for the rest of your life, with 135 film, and experiment with all the artistic possibilities of that combination.

 

[Shane]

I don't really give a stuff. But digital HDR is something that just looks awful. These more advanced sensors are giving a cleaner image.

I have a 7D and the lowlight performance is great. But it doesn't beat shooting film. I say stop worrying about what all the flickr maniacs are doing and just shoot photos.

 

[Luna]

People who talk about HDR usually talk about selective coloring, RAW files, and adding vignette in photoshop.

People who talk about high ISO usually talk about focus shift, film vs digital and bokeh character.

 

[ddutchison]

In the film-only era, most photographers would have killed to be able to use an ISO 6400 35mm film with the same image characteristics as Tri-X at 800.

Now that digital photography has achieved this, why on earth would photographers not still want it?

Same goes for HDR photography. What on earth do people think photographers were trying to achieve with compensating developers and burning/dodging - compression of dynamic range?

 

[ethics_gradient]

No. At worst, high ISO shots just look noisy; badly-done HDR makes one's eyes and soul bleed.

High-ISO capability is the new Fast Glass.

Quoting this

 

[cliffpov]

No. HDR is obscene in my opinion. High ISO capability has its utility, although anything can be abused I suppose. Good question and comments here though.

 

[TXForester]

No. People wanted less grainy, high iso film, and now they want cleaner, high iso sensors. It's not new like hdr.

Except for exposure blends with a more natural look, hdr processing will fade away. Most people will become bored with the over-processed look. But high iso is here to stay in my opinion. People will always have a use for shooting in low light conditions.

 

[astrosecret]

High ISO doesn't really look as nice as good HDR and/or manual aperture blending of bracketed images. Good HDR looks natural, and is extremely helpful for real estate and interior photography. in the end i always use a low iso and then manually blend bracketed images in photoshop to get the most natural and photographic looking high latitude pics

 

[TXForester]

HDR is obscene in my opinion.

I think the extremes people go to in hdr processing can be obscene. If hdr processing is used to get something more along what the eye sees (aiming for realism) then it can be a useful tool.

In some cases I don't see the need for hdr. There are photos withe overexposed highlights or blocked up shadow areas that are fine if the art of the photo stands up. A good photo doesn't have to be technically "correct" in all parts of it to be good.

 

[geotrupede]

High ISO is not important for slow moving subjects as a tripod, a still hand or an decent camera can do very well. 1/8th of a second with a 35 f2 is usually enough for city scape night shots, at ISO 160!

BUT.... whenever you are dealing with people moving fast and long lenses it is pretty useful to go up by few stops....

and if f2 may be still ok, then shutter speed could even go up to 120 / 250 (dancers in a ballroom for example)... in which case ISO would be 2500 or even more. (unless you have an f 1 and very thin dancers 🙂 )

So, yes high ISO is overrated, but a good "super power" to have at times
G

Just a note, HDR is a scientific tool. And very useful indeed (see http://www.anyhere.com/)

You do not need multiple exposures and calibrated pictures to produce what is incorrectly named HDR... in fact it is usually just about playing with level contrast and photoshop vignetting. So nothing more that an "artistic" touch.