[dms]

Bottom line you need to optimize every step in the photograph chain. I.e., sweat the details.

-- Using Raw? If not you should. Then high iso may be almost no difference than base iso--except that you can view the image on the camera screen. Perhaps oddly to you, I would lower the iso to a value where you can still make out/assess the image on the camera screen (Iso 400 - 1600). At some point higher iso will be worse than PP pushed lower iso. (More recently I find best to use max 400 on my K-5/K-x and 1600 on my K20d.)
-- Don't do a larger crop.
-- Open the lens to a point where quality is still good (maybe full open to 1/2 stopped down), and where focus is accurate enough (maybe 1 stop closed down)--for me this is usually 1 stop from open.
-- Pick a shutter speed where you see some motion blur--but mainly on extremities/try to catch when the person is at the bottom or top of the rebound--as there will be little chest/head motion.
-- Get experience using the camera in situations that place similar limitations.
-- Try processing as B&W (but your example it will likely be of little help). No actually relooking it may look much better in B&W--but it looks like you cropped a lot. If so you will see noise that is likely not visible if viewed at smaller/moderate print size.

---

Last edited by dms; 04-21-2016 at 10:03 AM.

[tuggie76]

What do you mean by 'heavy cropping'? If these are 100% crops from your image, the result is very good indeed, all things considered. If they are a 30% crop, not so good.

If they are 100% crops, with noise reduction, a colour temperature fix, and a little boost to clarity and contrast, the full size image may not look too bad.

Thanks Rawr, I don't know how to find what percentage crop it is, but here's the full size image, a 4x6 print may be a keepsake, but that's all.

[MJSfoto1956]

I teach my students that ISO should best be thought of as a setting that puts constraints on the final print size. Thought of this way, it is just one more "tool" for you to leverage. If your requirement is only a 4x6 keepsake print then shooting at ISO 6400 (or higher) is not an issue. But if your goal is a 24"x36" print then yes ISO 6400 is going to be a problem. Likewise, shooting at ISO 100 is ideal for large prints but is more often than not overkill if the requirement is only for small prints.

Michael

P.S. it would be interesting to inspect the original file -- can you post it somewhere?

[tuggie76]

I teach my students that ISO should best be thought of as a setting that puts constraints on the final print size. Thought of this way, it is just one more "tool" for you to leverage. If your requirement is only a 4x6 keepsake print then shooting at ISO 6400 (or higher) is not an issue. But if your goal is a 24"x36" print then yes ISO 6400 is going to be a problem. Likewise, shooting at ISO 100 is ideal for large prints but is more often than not overkill if the requirement is only for small prints.

Michael

P.S. it would be interesting to inspect the original file -- can you post it somewhere?

I tied to post the original raw file to Flickr, but it wouldn't take. Here is a jpg.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12202319@N02/albums/72157667335876946

[MJSfoto1956]

I tied to post the original raw file to Flickr, but it wouldn't take. Here is a jpg.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12202319@N02/albums/72157667335876946

yeah, that's not very helpful -- only a fraction of the original size. My flickr account allows full-res images to be uploaded -- do you have some sort of preferences set in flickr that is self-limiting? Alternatively, do you have DropBox (free)? If all else fails, you can PM me and send it to me via WeTransfer.com (also free)

Michael

[Rupert]

What I think....

My K5IIs is as good or better than a K3 at high ISO shooting, but out past 6400 it is just very "iffy". If you have decent light and just need more speed, you can go up to about 2500 with decent results...sometimes.

ISO 2500 F6.7 1/200 @500mm handheld.


12,800 is very chancy...



Squirrels can be shot with mediocre decency up to about 6400.....if the light is fair. Their texture hides a lot of noise.

ISO 6400 1/125 @ 500mm handheld


Overall, I find that 3200 is where you start to lose IQ in more noticeable ways than just noise. Colors and bleeding can occur, and detail is starting to fade.
I haven't found any noise reduction programs that don't also cause loss of detail, and they do nothing for the color problems of a very high ISO shot.

Of course, there are always shots that are exceptions and can be decent at very high ISO values, but I find them to be exceptions, not the rule.

If I have good light, and need more speed, this is where I find bumping the ISO works best. I believe that 51,200 is more likely to disappoint than not in most cases. It's just a fact of life I live with and shoot accordingly.

I expect the K1 to improve that for me to some extent, but I am not expecting any miracles. The lower you can keep the ISO on any camera, the more you are going to like the results. In some cases...flash may be the best alternative. Those that have mastered flash use can get very pleasing results without much worry. I'm not one of them, but wish I was!

Best Regards!

[tuggie76]

yeah, that's not very helpful -- only a fraction of the original size. My flickr account allows full-res images to be uploaded -- do you have some sort of preferences set in flickr that is self-limiting? Alternatively, do you have DropBox (free)? If all else fails, you can PM me and send it to me via WeTransfer.com (also free)

Michael

O/k, tried a bit harder and found if I used the old uploader I got it. I added another photo which has had nothing done to it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12202319@N02/albums/72157667335876946

Tuggie76

[tuggie76]

What I think....

My K5IIs is as good or better than a K3 at high ISO shooting, but out past 6400 it is just very "iffy". If you have decent light and just need more speed, you can go up to about 2500 with decent results...sometimes.

ISO 2500 F6.7 1/200 @500mm handheld.


12,800 is very chancy...



Squirrels can be shot with mediocre decency up to about 6400.....if the light is fair. Their texture hides a lot of noise.

ISO 6400 1/125 @ 500mm handheld


Overall, I find that 3200 is where you start to lose IQ in more noticeable ways than just noise. Colors and bleeding can occur, and detail is starting to fade.
I haven't found any noise reduction programs that don't also cause loss of detail, and they do nothing for the color problems of a very high ISO shot.

Of course, there are always shots that are exceptions and can be decent at very high ISO values, but I find them to be exceptions, not the rule.

If I have good light, and need more speed, this is where I find bumping the ISO works best. I believe that 51,200 is more likely to disappoint than not in most cases. It's just a fact of life I live with and shoot accordingly.

I expect the K1 to improve that for me to some extent, but I am not expecting any miracles. The lower you can keep the ISO on any camera, the more you are going to like the results. In some cases...flash may be the best alternative. Those that have mastered flash use can get very pleasing results without much worry. I'm not one of them, but wish I was!

Best Regards!

I haven't used the K3ii as much as I would like yet and thought this would be a great opportunity to test it's high iso qualities. I've always believed the lower the iso the better, normally I don't go over 800 but that was too slow in this case.

This was 400 with flash, the shadows spoil it a tad, but it's not Sports Illustrated!

Tuggie76

[TonyW]

As you know such high ISO is really pushing things, but..

Have you considered what you are actually looking at and what you want to do with the image.

I may be a little off here without the full info or the full original, but what I think you may be doing is looking at the image 1:1 i.e. 100% zoom in PS (or whatever your editor is).

If this is correct you are looking at a much magnified image of a print for instance sending the printer 300 ppi. In this case you are looking at a 300% magnified view of your image and you will see it, warts and all.

When you consider that you may want to reevaluate your needs in light of a much smaller image in print than on screen. While image is still not great the real print size will help to improve the overall view somewhat.

Assuming that your original posted image was a true crop of the 100% view I have made a quick image with the actual print size after applying a little chroma noise reduction in ACR. If your monitor is 100 ppi or thereabouts the small inset image should measure approx 3" this is true print size (unfortunately you do not have enough monitor resolution to judge at this size). Hoping it may help a little (this is a low res copy of a copy so you should try with original)

[Adam]

In the second shot, it looks like color noise was not reduced. Make sure you keep baseline color noise reduction on in your raw developer.

[tuggie76]

Thanks for all the advice guys, I've learned a lot, mainly to keep iso below 800! I had hoped there was some secret to getting usable pics out of extreme iso, but I guess not.

Thanks again.

Tuggie76

[ismaelg]

Wait,

Don't be afraid to venture into Hi ISO. While it shouldn't be your first option, sometimes it is the only way to go.
You need to be aware of its strong and weak points and know how to process and work with them.

I have sold prints of hi ISO shots like these:



ISO 8000



ISO 3200


ISO 8000 in almost total darkness with black lights. Yes, BLACK lights. Your naked eyes could only see the color stripes moving.
These were all with K5II and F50 f1.7

Thanks,

[tuggie76]

Wait,

Don't be afraid to venture into Hi ISO. While it shouldn't be your first option, sometimes it is the only way to go.
You need to be aware of its strong and weak points and know how to process and work with them.

I have sold prints of hi ISO shots like these:



ISO 8000



ISO 3200


ISO 8000 in almost total darkness with black lights. Yes, BLACK lights. Your naked eyes could only see the color stripes moving.
These were all with K5II and F50 f1.7

Thanks,

Thanks Ismaelg, those are pretty impressive shots! You've restored my faith!

Tuggie76

[howieb101]

Hi Tuggie.

Have a look at this post. This guy has got incredible hi iso with the K3 with appropriate use of noise reduction software and a fast lens.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/269926-concert-shot-k-3-sigma-18-35-a.html

Extreme hi iso can be done although a full frame camera would be easier and less work.

If you don't want to spring for the K-1 I think this software is worth the money if you regularly shoot hi iso.

Howie B

[tuggie76]

Hi Tuggie.

Have a look at this post. This guy has got incredible hi iso with the K3 with appropriate use of noise reduction software and a fast lens.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/269926-concert-shot-k-3-sigma-18-35-a.html

Extreme hi iso can be done although a full frame camera would be easier and less work.

If you don't want to spring for the K-1 I think this software is worth the money if you regularly shoot hi iso.

Howie B

That's some pretty amazing shots! I probably won't be doing too much high iso stuff, but it would be great to know how to handle it, with no on board flash sometimes you have to do what you have to do!

Tuggie76