iso 3200 - G1 and photoshop

R

ruben

Guest
- full frame. Image made through dirty bus window. Jpeg, vario zoom at max extension and widest aperture. For further tech data go to my flickr page and click on "more properties", on the right side.

3789626890_077fa6a6b0_o.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a weirdness in the hair, and I don't think she really has a beard. I've gotten that look (the hair, not the beard) sometimes with the GRD II, albeit at ISO 800, not 3200. So for 3200 it's not bad. Also, although everyone seems to like to see the 100% look, I find that for printing, how the image looks at 50% is usually more accurate. At the end of the day, for me, it's what can be done to make it printable that matters.
Thanks for posting.
 
It works for me as a street photog, if in need. I have conducted this trial after having heard that the iso 3200 of the G1 is trashy. Certainly it is not gold, but an for attractive or interesting street image it will work, in my opinion.

I have not started raw trials after hearing the G1 prog is very slow and the difference not worth the tax. I have not comfirmed it myself yet, perhaps some G1 owner here would like to post a comparizon.

Let's not forget that among the legacy zooms there is a Tamron SP 60~300, i,e, 120~600 whose max aperture full extended is f/5.6. So f/5.6, like the max aperture of the Vario zoom, but with a focal length of 600mm - this is worth to try, once the adapter comes home. But since it will be handheld without image stabilization, a high speed will be needed. So testing the ISO limits is always usefull.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
It works for me as a street photog, if in need. I have conducted this trial after having heard that the iso 3200 of the G1 is trashy. Certainly it is not gold, but an for attractive or interesting street image it will work, in my opinion.

I have not started raw trials after hearing the G1 prog is very slow and the difference not worth the tax. I have not comfirmed it myself yet, perhaps some G1 owner here would like to post a comparizon.

Let's not forget that among the legacy zooms there is a Tamron SP 60~300, i,e, 120~600 whose max aperture full extended is f/5.6. So f/5.6, like the max aperture of the Vario zoom, but with a focal length of 600mm - this is worth to try, once the adapter comes home. But since it will be handheld without image stabilization, a high speed will be needed. So testing the ISO limits is always usefull.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
ZOOOOM Ruben!!.....shame on you!;)
 
Sorry but this just looks awful IMO. Trashy seems to be the right word. Of course it works for "emergencies" but then again, so does my cell phone camera.
 
Jamie123 said:
Sorry but this just looks awful IMO. Trashy seems to be the right word. Of course it works for "emergencies" but then again, so does my cell phone camera.
Click to expand...

I assume your photography is not centered on street photography, and if so our approaches are just different, and there is no problem in that. On my general approach nothing is outlawed but whatever is not original. In these days grain is not accepted - the more reason to use it, but when it fits. On the technical side each stop I can gain may make the difference in having or not having an image.

Within this frame you can say for example that the first full frame image has an unsupportable grain excess. It is a valuable and worth opinion.

I cannot discuss with your taste. The only think I can is to stress my opinion that grain doesn't always play against a specific compositon, like here (iso 1600 from a Powershot):

3553246425_97452e0f55_b.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reuben,
I very much like your photo that started this thread. For 3200 iso, it is terrific. I think I would hard pressed to do as well on my M8 at 2500 iso. The noise on the M8 at 2500 iso is horrendous.
 
Hi Eric,

Your post is a kind of flag for me to reveal the proceedings. The main "trick" in what you see is not in the G1 abilities, but in Photoshop. There is there a filter called "Noise Reduction", which I apply to maximum and then counter the "flatness"adding a bit of another filter, called "Smart Sharpen". My camera is set to produce the less contrast and less noise intervention as my understanding goes. My camera is set to be "noise dumb".

I have to say that in all the the three mentioned factors I am very new, so I guess there must be a lot of way to improve.

I am sure that had I manipulated any of your high ISO Leica images, the results would have been much better than what I achieve with my G1, which albeit a very nice camera, it's still a half frame sensor one owing respect to dslrs.

My unmanipulated G1 iso 3200 images look fit to that first Dracula film from the 20's. Definitely unfit to show.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jamie123 said:
Well firstly, let's not confuse grain with noise. It's just not the same thing. Secondly, I'm with you on the Capa vs. Adams.

I actually don't mind a bit of noise and frequently use my 5DII at ISO800 and higher (even ISO3200 at times). I just don't think that the posted image succeeds in showing that the G1 is not bad at ISO3200. However, in hindsight I realize that it's not even the noise that bothers me but rather the heavy handed noise reduction that was applied which makes it look like a hot day at Madame Tussaud's,
Click to expand...

I agree, getting rid of all the noise has made a feature of the noise reduction process. Perhaps leaving some camera noise would have made it work more like a grainy negative. I have only experimented at 1600ISO with the G1, and find the images very acceptable (in B&W) if they are not overly processed.

I think the it would be interesting to see if anybody noticed the noise reduction artifacts in a print? Maybe, but maybe not, we are pixel peeping after all, and it is not a good starting point if there is no problem. I think keeping some camera noise would visually sharpen the image up in keeping the micro contrast higher, but on the other hand its a good example of what could be done if the need arises.

Steve
 
Hi Ruben - Question about use of ISO3200

Hi Ruben - Question about use of ISO3200

ruben said:
- full frame. Image made through dirty bus window. Jpeg, vario zoom at max extension and widest aperture. For further tech data go to my flickr page and click on "more properties", on the right side.
Click to expand...

I like the texture and overall "street look" of your picture. I was wondering why you chose to use ISO 3200 in this situation when it appears that there was enough light for ISO 1600 or maybe 800. You shutter speed was at 1/250 and aperture at f/5.6.... was it because the bus was moving?

Nice images on your web site :)

Cheers,
Don
 
Hi Don,

In fact I noticed the Photoshop noise reduction filter quite lately and applyied it to some 1600 images. Then the day after I just went curious and tryied the iso 3200 at a sunset hour, i,e, enjoying a surplus of light, by pure coincidence. It was a plain technical test, not an image making situation, for which I adjusted the camera to widest aperture priority and fixed iso 3200. The woman was selected for posing still, without me being aware of the speed. I did during that hour some other 10 different images in my way home, and the woman one resulted the most aesthetically pleasing one. The other compositions were quite ugly, not just noisy.

In fact, at real night street hours, I take for granted that there will be much more plain black areas in the pictures, being the 3200 noise perhaps unbearable. On the other hand, wider aperture fixed focal length "legacy" (I explode in laugh by the term) lens, will enable lower iso levels, like 1600 and all the way in between to 800.

Thanks & Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
Hi Don,

In fact I noticed the Photoshop noise reduction filter quite lately and applyied it to some 1600 images. Then the day after I just went curious and tryied the iso 3200 at a sunset hour, i,e, enjoying a surplus of light, by pure coincidence. It was a plain technical test, not an image making situation, for which I adjusted the camera to widest aperture priority and fixed iso 3200. The woman was selected for posing still, without me being aware of the speed. I did during that hour some other 10 different images in my way home, and the woman one resulted the most aesthetically pleasing one. The other compositions were quite ugly, not just noisy.

In fact, at real night street hours, I take for granted that there will be much more plain black areas in the pictures, being the 3200 noise perhaps unbearable. On the other hand, wider aperture fixed focal length "legacy" (I explode in laugh by the term) lens, will enable lower iso levels, like 1600 and all the way in between to 800.

Thanks & Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation Ruben. I figured you must have been experimenting. From my experience with noise reduction filters, they seem to cause alot of "mushiness" in images if over done. That probably explains some of the comments you had on prior posts.... (re:the 100% crop of the ladies hair.)

Cheers,
Don
 
slosync said:
Thanks for your explanation Ruben. I figured you must have been experimenting. From my experience with noise reduction filters, they seem to cause alot of "mushiness" in images if over done. That probably explains some of the comments you had on prior posts.... (re:the 100% crop of the ladies hair.)

Cheers,
Don
Click to expand...

Hmmm...., it seems that we are asisting to a soccer match. The anti mushiness team to the left, the anti grain team to the right. I am aftraid this match is leaving me sitting besides the hooligans....Grrr !

Cheers,
Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom