So the D4 has a max ISO of 200k+

I've just looked at some shots taken at 204800 ISO, and yes, the noise is spectacular. I don't see how a shot with that kind of noise could ever be used, unless you converted it to black and white and did something "artistic" with it 🙄 . Some of you are saying that a noisy shot at 200k ISO is better than nothing. I would have to disagree. If I was an editor of a magazine and one of the photographers sent me something that noisy, I think I would probably say that I'd rather print a blank page than a page of that.
 
I foresee a time when ISO as we know it today doesn't really exist; where it won't be a limiting factor at all. Sensors will be so sensitive that native ISO will be 200k+. Instead of applying algorithms to reduce noise manufacturers will be applying electronic ND filters to allow us to shoot at wide apertures and low shutter speeds. Get ready for it...
 
cambolt said:
I've just looked at some shots taken at 204800 ISO, and yes, the noise is spectacular. I don't see how a shot with that kind of noise could ever be used, unless you converted it to black and white and did something "artistic" with it 🙄 . Some of you are saying that a noisy shot at 200k ISO is better than nothing. I would have to disagree. If I was an editor of a magazine and one of the photographers sent me something that noisy, I think I would probably say that I'd rather print a blank page than a page of that.
Click to expand...



and what if you were the editor for some whistleblower magazine and a course gave you noisy (but verifiable) photographic evidence of a domestic leader doing something amazing, and that was the only visual evidence of the event?

it may be useless to most, but i can think of plenty of situations where a noisy photo is better than no photo at all.
 
cambolt said:
I've just looked at some shots taken at 204800 ISO, and yes, the noise is spectacular. I don't see how a shot with that kind of noise could ever be used, unless you converted it to black and white and did something "artistic" with it 🙄 . Some of you are saying that a noisy shot at 200k ISO is better than nothing. I would have to disagree. If I was an editor of a magazine and one of the photographers sent me something that noisy, I think I would probably say that I'd rather print a blank page than a page of that.
Click to expand...

It's good enough for average web pictures your newspaper/web site won't get since you shot TMAX 3200.

Oh... and why the rolling eyes on "artistic"? :bang:
 
Spicy said:
and what if you were the editor for some whistleblower magazine and a course gave you noisy (but verifiable) photographic evidence of a domestic leader doing something amazing, and that was the only visual evidence of the event?

it may be useless to most, but i can think of plenty of situations where a noisy photo is better than no photo at all.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. That is why I have a Ferrari: I live on one side of the Nuremberg Ring, and my office is on the other. Needless to say, my commute is very quick indeed. 😛
😀
 
igi said:
Oh... and why the rolling eyes on "artistic"? :bang:
Click to expand...
😛
It's just what we clueless photographers do when we screw up - shove the photo into lightroom, add grain, pump up contrast and saturation, skew at some wonky angle, then claim that it's pop art 😀

P.S. Tmax looks better than the D4 at 200k
P.P.S. You guys beat me and now I'm making excuses 😱
 
cambolt said:
😛
It's just what we clueless photographers do when we screw up - shove the photo into lightroom, add grain, pump up contrast and saturation, skew at some wonky angle, then claim that it's pop art 😀

P.S. Tmax looks better than the D4 at 200k
P.P.S. You guys beat me and now I'm making excuses 😱
Click to expand...



"You're still young grasshopper .... you'll learn! When you can snatch the rangefinder from my hand, you will know you are ready!"

😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom