[biz-engineer]

Green lake, Styria, Austria. (an area of Austria that's trying to look like a Canadian national park).

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 07-12-2019 at 03:34 AM. Reason: Adding picture frame

[aacjr]

[Tas]

K-1 and a Celestron Nextstar 6SE.

Need more practice at using this set up, but it's the closest I've been to the moon yet.


Tas

[BruceBanner]

Green lake pano, Styria, Austria.

I was only joking about the border! Put it back on!

[biz-engineer]

I was only joking about the border! Put it back on!

Yes, I copied your image border style ,attempting to get more likes on my images, and because your border style was cool

[BruceBanner]

Yes, I copied your image border style ,attempting to get more likes on my images, and because your border style was cool

But I copied it from someone else, keep the copy train going! (but no seriously, I was totally joking, it is not mine to own, if you like that border style run with it! pls! I would feel truly awful if you felt you couldn't but liked it )

[biz-engineer]

But I copied it from someone else, keep the copy train going! (but no seriously, I was totally joking, it is not mine to own, if you like that border style run with it! pls! I would feel truly awful if you felt you couldn't but liked it )

No problem at all. For some images, a border helps separate the image from the background, other photographs look fine without a border. Anyway, digital framing is a lot cheaper than wooden frames and glass.

[Rondec]

Kiawah River Panorama (FA 77 limited)



Golf Course at Dawn (DFA 24-70mm/pixel shift)

[gaweidert]

So I went to a local park yesterday and saw:

Fireworks, a bathing beauty and her admiring beau.

[Erictator]

This is interesting to hear. Only a few days ago I was having this conversation with a fellow Pentaxian about how ISO seems to be so random, and that 3200 can look awful one day and another clean as a whistle! So your statement has got me thinking indeed.

Perhaps it's not exposure per se but rather heavily dark images? For example, the shot may be required to be underexposed heavily as you have a particular part of the image with highlights that you really want to expose correctly (low key, such as a concert and a singer with microphone stand under a gentle light etc) and thus the grain really shows up in the dark areas? Do brighter images (well exposed, no issue with shadows or highlights etc) 'get away with it' better even if the two images have the same ISO?

I wonder if there is some kind of test I can perform to see how 3200 or 6400 ISO differs in terms grain/noise from different kind of exposures or shots? Hmm...

I know I already replied to this once, but as I was admiring Kengoh's fireworks shots, I got curious and looked at Exif info on Flickr.... yup... ISO 100 for his night fireworks. Squeaky clean too.
To add to the original topic at hand, in reasonable daylight I've used ISO3200 on long tele's to get the shutter speed up to freeze action, and as long as exposure is on the money, grain isn't an issue.
Eric

[Franc]

dame woodpecker

[fs999]

FF Mode • 100 ISO • Pentax F 50mm F1.7


FF Mode • 1600 ISO • Sigma Art 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM


FF Mode • 25600 ISO • Sigma Art 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM
For Adrian

[Erictator]

There's a new sheriff in my bag, and here is the obligatory first LBA shot.

smc PENTAX-FA 31mm F1.8AL Limited ƒ/3.5 31.0 mm 1/125 iso250

[gaweidert]

There's a new sheriff in my bag, and here is the obligatory first LBA shot.

smc PENTAX-FA 31mm F1.8AL Limited ƒ/3.5 31.0 mm 1/125 iso250

Great place to think things out when a problem has you stumped.

[BruceBanner]

I know I already replied to this once, but as I was admiring Kengoh's fireworks shots, I got curious and looked at Exif info on Flickr.... yup... ISO 100 for his night fireworks. Squeaky clean too.
To add to the original topic at hand, in reasonable daylight I've used ISO3200 on long tele's to get the shutter speed up to freeze action, and as long as exposure is on the money, grain isn't an issue.
Eric

Yeah, I'm gonna do some testing of this when I get the chance. I'm going to do in and outdoor tests, and at 3200 and 6400 I am going to shoot at the same scenes (same focus point etc) and compare how natively clean or noisy the images are when comparing ev compensation values to the scene. Does each image look to be carrying the same grain despite carrying the same ISO, just because one is high key and the other low key etc.

I'm not interested in the fixing exposure in PP, I'm curious to know that if perhaps certain style shots like low key ones that I shouldn't be so caring about ISO, or perhaps the opposite is true and it's the darkness sections in low key images that really highlight the noise. Perhaps the darkness is fine but the subject matter in light just looks very bad etc.

I remember editing this shot being quite amazed at how clean it felt at ISO 800;



I think the darkness shows the grain quite high, but on the subject and where it matters... it's not so noticeable. It almost feels like ISO 800 around the subject and then something like ISO 400 or 200 for the face.

It's this kinda thing I want to explore with 1600, 3200 and 6400. 6400 I rarely encounter ever, I would rather lose a lot of shutter speed and spam the shutter for a shot that keeps the ISO low.

This is another example of a high ISO shot (3200) which in comparison to the above shot doesn't actually look that different in grain;



They almost look like they both have the same ISO, yet they do deviate massively.

If I could discover through a learning curve when ISO is really going to 'hurt' an image I think that would be beneficial.

This one for example was 3200 ISO and I really felt it during the editing process. I couldn't do much about it, I was already wide open at f1.8 and 1/40th, yet I recall in PP that I had a lot of denoising around the main subject matter etc and that he still looked grainy despite trying to find that balance. I think many shooters wouldn't have shot this at 1/40 and f1.8 so ISO really should have been 6400 or higher! It would have been eww....