[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



What is your personal ISO limit?
I shoot on a Nikon D3400, and I don't like going above 100 whenever possible.
>>
>>3164043
so you just shoot at minimum iso then?

thats pretty stupid my man. Up to 1600iso is fine after processing on most cameras.

If you need ISO, its better to brighten an image in camera and remove noise later in post than try to just boost shadows in post.
>>
>>3164043
of course as low as possible, but I'm fine going to about 4000 on the 6D, beyond that things are getting rough
>>
Professional work? South of 1600

My own artistic endeavors?
HI-BW2 BABY CRANK THAT FUCKER AND GET IT
>>
>>3164043
Whatever I need to get the shot. If it needs to go at ISO 6400 then be it.
Pentax shooter btw, would be the same on Nikon and Sony. Canon shooters get cucked no matter what.
>>
On most modern cameras there's practically no difference going from ISO100 to 400. If you have anything from the last two years you can safely go up to 6400.
>>
1600, but thats the max I would push color film.

Usually just 800 with cinestill 800T
>>
delta 3200 on 6x7 is fantastic
>>
Canon 7d, I tried to stick to 800 and below. Anything past 400 is visibly noisy, anyways - bplotchiness more than straight up regular noise, which is worse.
Canon 5d2, I go to 3200 if needed, but I tend to stick to max 1600. Doesn't get all blotchy like the canon crops, but it does get banding if I mess it up, that's the biggest quality killer.

>>3164052
This.
6400 can be iffy in general, but honestly any modern full frame camera will eat 3200 for breakfast and 6400 if you don't need really fine detail.
>>
25,600.

Anything up to 6400, I barely see any noise even at 100%. At 12,800 and 25,600, I see it but it’s not really that bad most of the time.
>>
>>3164143
Noise isn't the biggest problem with modern cameras.

Far worse are the colors at higher ISO's.
>>
When I had a D3400, I didn't dare go above 1600. It looked like garbage. Now I have a D750 and can deal with whatever.
>>
File: FOTO9332.jpg (1.16 MB, 1600x1100)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
All of it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3164043
that's pretty shitty looking for 3200, do you know what camera they used for this?
>>
>>3164216
Love it
>>
>>3164173
>Far worse are the colors at higher ISO's.
Yeah, I'm not thrilled with the color at 12,800 and 25,600. But I still consider them usable.

Color at 6400 is perfectly fine on my camera.
>>
>>3164220
>that's pretty shitty looking for 3200, do you know what camera they used for this?
It's from a "Learn about exposure" page, not a "Here's a review of camera X" page, so my guess is that it's not actually ISO 3200 from any camera but rather they took half of the ISO 100 image and added noise to it algorithmically to illustrate the point.
>>
>>3164043
shooting above iso 100 will always give you shit images. due to noise. Having noise in a photo is never acceptable. Either open the aperture or increase the shutter time or pick a brighter day. Noise makes anything look like shit


If you felt an emotional response to this comment please navigate to my website http://www.chosis.com to share how you feel.
All feedback is very valuable to me given that I have stage 3 bone cancer. I am really trying to live life in the photography "fast lane". Just because I have cancer doesn't mean you have to be nice in your comments, I want the complete human experience. Happy photo taking.
>>
>>3165267
I think it's super fucked up that you keep posting that guy's website to trick people here into sending mean messages to a guy with bone cancer.
>>
I shoot film and i don't find digital noise that horrible looking.
>>
My ISO limit is 1600 because I can afford to gain more aesthetically pleasing grain that adds more texture to the photograph as opposed to making it look muddled.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 14.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern798
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:09:03 18:46:50
Exposure Time1/45 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating720
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
6400 is my practical limit.

Sharp, but noisy is better than blurry, but clean.
>>
>>3165482
That's a good strategy.

>>3164052
Correct. That's what you're paying all that money for.

>>3164047
Me too

>>3164043
If you don't like the noise but like the shot, wash over it with your own grain.
>>
>>3165482
you dont take pictures, so cuck off.
>>
>>3165481
>taking pictures of meme """artwork"""
>>
>>3165545

yes i do
>>
>>3164043
800
>>
D3s here, I let autoISO go up to 12.8k. Usually usable if I get a good exposure, and it's got nice filmy grain. Only time it really looks like ass is noisy skies when I go for midnight handheld walkabouts.
>>
>>3164043
a7sII
i have no limit
>>
File: Untitled-3.jpg (848 KB, 3231x2652)
848 KB
848 KB JPG
>>3165311
it's me!


If you felt an emotional response to this comment please navigate to my website http://www.chosis.com or www.instagram.com/chosis7 to share how you feel.
All feedback is very valuable to me given that I have stage 3 bone cancer. I am really trying to live life in the photography "fast lane". Just because I have cancer doesn't mean you have to be nice in your comments, I want the complete human experience. Happy photo taking.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2017:08:27 05:03:02
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3231
Image Height2652
>>
>>3164043
6400 is my max. noise reduction exists. you can average out like 10 (6400) pictures and reduce the amount of noise by adding more signal. for images you can't stack 6400 still aint bad. 99% of the time its gonna get downscaled and put on instagram so nobody can tell
>>
>>3166170
b a s e d
>>
>>3164043
Doesn't D3400 have a base ISO of 200?

If so, you're just throwing out a stop of highlight range.
>>
>>3164043
Canon 600D i dont like going above 1250
>>
>>3165558
the real life version of quoting a shitpost and responding with a shitpost
>>
Realistically 800

If forced, 1600

I carry around a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 at all times so ISO isn't typically a big issue until it gets really dark. In which case I usually crank it to 800 and shoot around 1/60. I could go way higher bc Sony noise is super low but I'd prefer to have a nice buffer for post process.


That being said my a6000 can still band and splotch like a bitch...




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.