Is high ISO the new HDR

[Keith]

If manufacturers can give digital cameras usable ISO's of 6400 or better without dramatically increasing their cost then they should ... it's not compulsory to use it after all!

There are people out there, I'm sure, who will never need better than 400 ISO and the fact that their new DSLR or whatever can go to 6400 or beyond doesn't really interest them ... they didn't buy it for that capability. No harm in having it there though!

I use my D700 in situations where I'm often shooting at 6400 ISO at f2 and 1/30 second and I'm damned grateful to Nikon for building a camera that can do this. This pic for example was 3200 ISO, f2 and 1/20 sec! My M8 would have turned this into soup at anything over 640 ISO.

 

[Keith]

I forgot to add that although HDR is not my cup of tea I can see it's advantages in some circumstances.

A thing only becomes a gimick when it's used as such!

 

[user237428934]

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.

Too bad that 99.999% of all people use that term, what you call "incorrectly named".

 

[user237428934]

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?

There are a lot of discussions here about the best low grain developers for Tri-X or Neopan 1600 or even 3200 films. But it's not ok to want this with a digital camera?

It's so nice that I have can switch ISO between every single shot and not only when unloading a film and loading the right ISO.

 

[geotrupede]

Too bad that 99.999% of all people use that term, what you call "incorrectly named".

Yes indeed!
:-(

---------EDIT----------------------------------------
I just add a practical example for the curious reader:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Dundus_Square.jpg

The image shows a crazy contrast. This is nothing related to what a luminance meter would measure and definitely nothing like what the healthy human eye would see.

There is no need for this jpg to be coming from a HDR original, as the tone mapped version can be created with photoshop from any source (even from zero, like a painting).

HDR cannot be displayed on our usual computers, all you can do is to record the HDR data (either in one go with RAW data or with multiple exposures) and decide how to tone map it.

Basically exporting a low dynamic range proxy from an HDR dataset.

We sometimes do this for work to measure contrast and luminance (or disability glare) under real electric / natural lighting scenes.
We use Radiance Ray Tracing software from LBNL.
The tool is really good and effective in this.

http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/man_html/falsecolor.1.html


But for our work application, an HDR dataset becomes a false colour image. We do not care to tone map it as it is not within our scope.

But what looks then like Andy's Marilyn it is still a representation of HDR data.

http://www.jaloxa.eu/webhdr/images/hdr_fc.jpg

The funny thing is that most of Andy Warhol paintings could be coming from an HDR dataset as well... but we know this is definitely incorrect 🙂

http://www.only-apartments.com/news/images/andy-warhol-marilyn-monroe.jpeg

 

[rxmd]

There are a lot of discussions here about the best low grain developers for Tri-X or Neopan 1600 or even 3200 films. But it's not ok to want this with a digital camera?

I guess for whatever innovation you get in the digital world, even enormously useful ones like high ISO capability, you'll find someone scoffing their nose at it and calling it just the latest fad.

In this thread here it's still quite moderate and we're having a good discussion, but if you take it to the extreme what you get is just a form of analog trolling - a bit like the guys who hijack threads about problems with some digital camera, saying "I never had this problem with film". These threads only illustrate once more that digital has won.

 

[geotrupede]

It is a very interesting point.

Looking back 100 years ago and what camera where, what was added and then fast forward from 80s to 90s to now.... WOW!
It looked like there could be nothing that anybody could add to an F5 (beside a 250 shots back 🙂 )....

Until the D1...

Now we have all, autofocus, ability to review images on the fly, convert, edit, adjust, auto exposure with incredibly good intelligence, movies, 10 frame per second, resolution... and finally the ability to shoot in the dark (ISO 128000 !!!!) with any zoom lens.

I see this positively as others said, as it is a lot of new possibilities and opportunities for the creative minds to do something new. To explore.
You may think for example of macro shots in natural lighting, as opposed to flash...
Or taking picture at a ball room with electric lighting only (no flash) and frozen movements...

We always can and have to look the masters (ADD YOUR FAVOURITES HERE), but what would it be if THEY had all of this?

It is up to all of us to find out, to the new generations.
We need to look ahead and move.
Taking pictures and to try is a good start.

G

 

[ChrisN]

"No" - 27

"Couldn't give a stuff" - 26

I think the "Couldn't give a stuff" vote is actually leading here, as inherently the don't care voters are unlikely to even open the thread.

That said, I'm pretty impressed with how good the files from the K5 are at 3200 - quite usable even without the in-camera noise reduction. And it's about time!

 

[Keith]

I think in the case of a company like Pentax, who don't really offer a lot in the way of ultra fast lenses, sensor technology is very important.

If the next digital M can produce usable files at 3200 or better it won't need a six or ten thousand dollar Noctilux hanging off it to deliver the goods in the near dark! 😀

 

[acheyj]

Higher ISO is just a natural progression of technology and as such will happen. I assume that higher ISO will also have better signal to noise performance.
You guys astound me with the bad-mouthing of HDR, done correctly its no different than dodging and burning as we all did in the dungeons of the past.

ron

 

[Keith]

Higher ISO is just a natural progression of technology and as such will happen. I assume that higher ISO will also have better signal to noise performance.
You guys astound me with the bad-mouthing of HDR, done correctly its no different than dodging and burning as we all did in the dungeons of the past.

ron

I think we've all been confronted by bad HDR too often and it clouds our judgement.

Some friends of mine have a beautiful natural timber home and it's interior is a wonderful combination of dark and light with variously located windows. Some pro photographer took some interior shots for them of the magnificent loungeroom and they had the result framed and hung proudly on the wall. I thought it was hideous as it totally destroyed the mystery and appeal of the room when bathed by natural light. This was HDR at it's worst for me ... horribly over done!

 

[Roberto V.]

No. I think high ISO is more similar to the megapixel races. High ISO really IS useful to some of us who shoot in extremely dim light though.

 

[Trooper]

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

Gives me the frightening thought of HDRTV...kinda like Sin City meets What Dreams May Come.

 

[Paolo Bonello]

High ISO is most often a compromise due to low light and the need for speed and HDR post processing is most often an artistic choice so I think they don't relate in the context of the thread subject. (I say artistic in the loosest sense of the word).

I think though when HDR is used to subtly improve on poor light, say when some detail simply must be in the photo then I see the results are more controlled and pleasant to look at. I say - 'make it look like you got lucky with the available light' and HDR is OK, but make it look like you were trippin' on acid and then I might see demons where you see butterflies.

 

[loquax ludens]

I don't know what HDR is, so I guess I don't give a stuff. High ISO is 800 or higher, especially if push processed to 3200. 400 ISO is fast. 100 is medium. 25 is slow. 6 is graphics art film.

 

[loquax ludens]

I say - 'make it look like you got lucky with the available light' and HDR is OK, but make it look like you were trippin' on acid and then I might see demons where you see butterflies.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Trippin' on acid, I mean.

 

[loquax ludens]

High ISO is most often a compromise due to low light and the need for speed and HDR post processing is most often an artistic choice so I think they don't relate in the context of the thread subject. (I say artistic in the loosest sense of the word).

Well, but what I think the OP meant was, is high ISO the new most talked-about thing or fad, the way that HDR, whatever that is, apparently was in the past. At least, that's how I scan it.

 

[NickTrop]

In answer to the poll - no (resoundingly). The new FF DSLRs are amazing, the ability for modern cameras to perform in a low-light settings is truly amazing. As for HDR being the new TV standard, I find it comical that while this is going on, more and more people are watching standard DEF (and lower) on Youtube and on hand held devices...

 

[TXForester]

High ISO doesn't really look as nice as good HDR and/or manual aperture blending of bracketed images.

Coming back to this thread and rereading this, I found it doesn't make sense to me.
You can't compare high ISO to HDR. They are two different things. HDR can be used with any ISO since it is a blending of exposures.

High ISO is simply about capturing an image with lower light levels. It's no different than changing to a faster film.

We could have a spin off discussion about when to use each tool. Should I use HDR and blend exposures? Should I use use high ISO and capture what's in the shadows? Should I use any other ISO and expose for the middle or highlights and accept that what appears dark to the eye might look good being dark in the photo? Of course there is no correct answer when it comes to art.

 

[gekopaca]

I don't understand your comparison.

Well used, HDR combinated with the post-processing of raw files is a way to moderate contrasted pictures and enjoy a better dynamic range, exactly as zone system with film - in that case, we're speaking about process.
For exemple in the image below I used HDR in the PP :





High ISO is just about technical specificities of the sensor - I think in future years we will see new sensors with very usable raw files @ 6400 ISO - I mean on most of the cameras in the market.
Here, we're speaking about technology - then the use of high iso depends of the needs and the choices of the photographer.