cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Picture with 12800 ISO, does anyone allow their camera to go that high?

ilzho
Rising Star

I shot a friends band at a restaurant and have a few questions.
It was not ideal lighting, but I think overall it was 'ok' for an inside patio with little light around.
My 7d Mark II wanted to go to 12800 Iso all night long, because I had it on auto iso and the lack of light. I shot in RAW.

 

I shot most of the pics in Manual, 2.8, 1/200-320 ss, center-weighted metering, auto iso and auto wb.

I would then set my iso to 6400 or even 3200, but the pics were VERY dark on the lcd screen. 

Maybe I shouldn't put too much weight on the lcd screen? I looked at the histogram and it didn't help as everything was way too the left.


Not sure if the high iso is common in these situations or maybe I have accidentally set something that I don't remember doing that's 'asking' the camera to go that high. I can manually set the iso or set the range, but maybe I did something else, not sure...  

 

This picture below was taken at 55 mm in manual mode, 2.8, 1/200 ss, iso 12800. My lens is EF-S 17-55 2.8 is, usm.
I lightened it up in lightroom, a lot, and reduced the noise, a lot. In the background there is a nice big blue/red Lite Beer sign as you can see the blue lights in the upper left corner.
Black and white is ok for some of these photos, but the color is a challenge for me.
 
Also, this musician loves to bounce, bend, and move around, so straighten the pictures is also a challenge as nothing in the background is straight. The bricks aren't nor is the banner, haha....
 
Your opinion, does it look ok?
It's just for him, his band and his family. I did it for fun, because I like the music and he's a friend.383A8584.jpg
15 REPLIES 15

"I don't mind a litte blue, it kind of adds a little 'club' effect.

I don't mind a little grain in some of my photos."

 

That is all that is impotant. Smiley Happy

 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!

"Can you explain the detail that your talking about."

 

Yes it is under the 'Detail' tab.  Usually less is more.  Some evidently like the cartoon effect too much has. Or the extreme contrast of too much.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!

When I use luminance it's usually under 50, and the detail is usually around 30-40 if at all and contrast is 0.

Honestly, I can crank the detail up to 100 and I don't see that much of a difference.

I guess I don't play with the detail enough to truly understand it's effectiveness.


@ilzho wrote:

When I use luminance it's usually under 50, and the detail is usually around 30-40 if at all and contrast is 0.

Honestly, I can crank the detail up to 100 and I don't see that much of a difference.

I guess I don't play with the detail enough to truly understand it's effectiveness.


I usually match contrast to the amount of noise reduction.
I leave the 'Detail' settings at their defaults. Like you said I don't see much difference by adjusting them, so I just leave them be.
As I've mentioned in other posts using a heavy sharpening mask (75-100), ensures that you don't sharpen noise.

 

It always helps to start with a photo that looks good even at Adobe's default settings.

 

defaults.JPG

A00A5105-3.jpg

After processing
processed.JPG
A00A5105.jpg

I'm not sure the face is OOF.  I think there just isn't much detail at 128k ISO. 

 

You have a good f/2.8 lens. You might do a little better with a fast prime for indoor night use. Like a 50mm f/1.4, which would give you 2 stops of light to work with. 

 

And to me it helps to frame tightly in low light so you don't need to crop, as blowing it up lessens detail still more. 

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?


@ilzho wrote:

When I use luminance it's usually under 50, and the detail is usually around 30-40 if at all and contrast is 0.

Honestly, I can crank the detail up to 100 and I don't see that much of a difference.

I guess I don't play with the detail enough to truly understand it's effectiveness.


The only real issue with the photo is probably too much pixel peeping.  It's a nice shot.  It's another step forward, and another leap to the next level, IMHO.  You're improving in leaps and bounds.  You're your own worst critic.  Keep it that way.   

 

My advice was simple.  Try to always be cognizant of how much DOF you have.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Avatar
click here to view the press release
Announcements