[reknelb]

I shoot some indoor arena events for my own enjoyment. I have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with the k10D. I want to shoot in the lowest iso I can for the quality. What methods do you use to achieve the highest quality photos in low light sport photography without a flash? For example: If I shoot in iso 400 and under expose my shots (because of the fast shutter speed and apperture setting), should I use the sensitivity adjuster in Pentax Lab. OR does that add noise the same as if I shot in 800 iso? Should the post processing be done in photoshop?

[MikeH]

I wouldn't recommend pushing your images by more than 2/3 or 3/4 of a stop. You will encounter undesireable noise in the image which is probably worse than shooting at a higher ISO to begin with.

Just bump it to 800. Your final result will look better than an ISO 400 image pushed to 800.

[roscot]

Just bump it to 800. Your final result will look better than an ISO 400 image pushed to 800.

Agreed. In fact, try using the Tav mode. You get to choose your shutter speed/aperture combination, and the camera will "float" the ISO as needed.

[jeffkrol]

I shoot some indoor arena events for my own enjoyment. I have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with the k10D. I want to shoot in the lowest iso I can for the quality. What methods do you use to achieve the highest quality photos in low light sport photography without a flash? For example: If I shoot in iso 400 and under expose my shots (because of the fast shutter speed and apperture setting), should I use the sensitivity adjuster in Pentax Lab. OR does that add noise the same as if I shot in 800 iso? Should the post processing be done in photoshop?

Actually, your push process idea has more merit than you think EXCEPT w/ the K10 (VPN may be a problem). Any other Pentax DSLR I'd say go for it. The topic of "correct" exp at high iso vs "push processing" at low iso filled threads at the Nikon forums... There is also the discussing of ACR NOT being the best RAW editor to do the push because of inherent processes that actually produce more noise than other RAW converters..
You could start here re: theory.
Re: An extreme example, RAW....: Nikon D80/D70/D50/D40 Forum: Digital Photography Review

[slip]

I wouldn't recommend pushing your images by more than 2/3 or 3/4 of a stop. You will encounter undesireable noise in the image which is probably worse than shooting at a higher ISO to begin with.

Just bump it to 800. Your final result will look better than an ISO 400 image pushed to 800.

Lately I have been experementing putting the flash exposure 1/2-2/3 stops underexposed and then bring the exposure up with raw. as long at the camera is at 100 ISO the noise doesn't increase all that much.
this way the lighting looks a lot less harsh on the subject, even with bounced/diffused light.
yes I could bump the ISO but that would not give the advantage of less light from the flash on the subject.

cheers

randy

[khardur]

as other's have said, use 400 or 800 for the iso, rather than underexposing your shots by a lot. I'd then use the Pentax Photo Laboratory and turn up the "Suprious Color Signal Reduction" and "Random Noise Reduction" options. I accidentally shot a few pictures at ISO 800 in full sun (and wasn't looking for the grainy effect) - and turning up the noise reduction in the PPL software saved them.

ACR couldn't pull the same noise reduction as the PPL software did. One of the areas where the supplied software actually works very nicely!

[jeffkrol]

as other's have said, use 400 or 800 for the iso, rather than underexposing your shots by a lot. I'd then use the Pentax Photo Laboratory and turn up the "Suprious Color Signal Reduction" and "Random Noise Reduction" options. I accidentally shot a few pictures at ISO 800 in full sun (and wasn't looking for the grainy effect) - and turning up the noise reduction in the PPL software saved them.

ACR couldn't pull the same noise reduction as the PPL software did. One of the areas where the supplied software actually works very nicely!

Down and dirty quick compare using Pentax D..... results are not scientific but I'll leave that to each of you. Images were shot 1)ASA400 -2EV, 2)1600 0EV.
Decide for yourself, but better yet, check for yourself. I prefer the pushed shot
OPP's had some defaults in RSE that made the orig comparison "not so fair". Corrected error.

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 04-23-2007 at 07:44 PM.

[WMBP]

I shoot some indoor arena events for my own enjoyment. I have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with the k10D. I want to shoot in the lowest iso I can for the quality. What methods do you use to achieve the highest quality photos in low light sport photography without a flash? For example: If I shoot in iso 400 and under expose my shots (because of the fast shutter speed and apperture setting), should I use the sensitivity adjuster in Pentax Lab. OR does that add noise the same as if I shot in 800 iso? Should the post processing be done in photoshop?

I have been doing quite a bit of photography in school gyms for the last year, and taking better basketball/volleyball pics was one of the initial rationales I gave myself for moving to a digital SLR in the first place late last year. I do NOT underexpose my shots any more than I have to, as I have found that fixing the exposure in post-processing creates results that are noisier than I get when I simply shoot at a higher ISO to start with. I shoot either with a Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 or a Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4. I shoot now almost exclusively in TAv mode (which is fabulous and built for this particular purpose, I think). I permit fractional ISOs. I try to keep the aperture at f/2 or wider, and I try to keep the shutter speeds at or above 1/250sec. The ISO ends up landing somewhere from 800 to 1600. Here is a recent gallery. I converted those images to grayscale not to disguise the noise but rather to finesse the colors - the blue-gold uniforms in the blue-gold gym were really ugly.

I post-process in Adobe Lightroom and I do use a little bit of noise reduction. It's not Lightroom's strong point, though. I might check out Pentax Photo Lab, which someone here recommended just for this purpose.

The inescapable fact is that these school gyms are badly lit - and you can't take photos in the dark.

Will

[slip]

I have been doing quite a bit of photography in school gyms for the last year, and taking better basketball/volleyball pics was one of the initial rationales I gave myself for moving to a digital SLR in the first place late last year. I do NOT underexpose my shots any more than I have to, as I have found that fixing the exposure in post-processing creates results that are noisier than I get when I simply shoot at a higher ISO to start with. I shoot either with a Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 or a Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4. I shoot now almost exclusively in TAv mode (which is fabulous and built for this particular purpose, I think). I permit fractional ISOs. I try to keep the aperture at f/2 or wider, and I try to keep the shutter speeds at or above 1/250sec. The ISO ends up landing somewhere from 800 to 1600. Here is a recent gallery. I converted those images to grayscale not to disguise the noise but rather to finesse the colors - the blue-gold uniforms in the blue-gold gym were really ugly.

I post-process in Adobe Lightroom and I do use a little bit of noise reduction. It's not Lightroom's strong point, though. I might check out Pentax Photo Lab, which someone here recommended just for this purpose.

The inescapable fact is that these school gyms are badly lit - and you can't take photos in the dark.

Will

not sure if this would help, Will...
when I shoot indoor sports I put the camera at +1/2-+2/3 of a stop and it seems to help lower the noise if you are shooting raw.
something you might want to experement with

hope this helps

randy

[Ash]

Hi all. I may be a little out of my league, but I'm interested to know why the K100D has as its lowest sensitivity as 200, and not 100 like most other standard cameras and even the K10D?

I've shot some night time landscapes at 400 and 800 and have been quite unimpressed with the noise of both of them - I guess because of auto exposure adjustments by ACR - seems the RAW images had quite low contrast and exposures. Is the general consensus then for still life shots to increase EV or shutter speed rather than ISO?

I have the opinion that I'd be happier with a 100 setting than a 3200 setting, which I'm not sure I'll use (1600 is pretty sensitive, but even then noise is almost unacceptable from what I've seen even with NR). The Pentax website explanation didn't quite fit the bill for me and so I'm hoping others would be able to shed some light on the subject. Anyone else had a similar problem with noise?

[aabram]

ISO 200 is K100D sensor's cleanest ISO. It's the bottom default for that sensor. It is as clean as ISO 50 or ISO 100 on some other cams. Think of it this way - K100D can come up with as clean images from step higher than cameras with minimum ISO 100.

You wouldn't get cleaner image from that same sensor with lower ISO. If you would have ISO 100 on K100D it would look exactly like ISO 200. So there wouldn't be really any point to it.

[jeffkrol]

ISO 200 is K100D sensor's cleanest ISO. It's the bottom default for that sensor. It is as clean as ISO 50 or ISO 100 on some other cams. Think of it this way - K100D can come up with as clean images from step higher than cameras with minimum ISO 100.

You wouldn't get cleaner image from that same sensor with lower ISO. If you would have ISO 100 on K100D it would look exactly like ISO 200. So there wouldn't be really any point to it.

Actually iso 100 may have a tad less dynamic range and a tad more noise than iso 200.............

[Finn]

ISO 200 is K100D sensor's cleanest ISO. It's the bottom default for that sensor. It is as clean as ISO 50 or ISO 100 on some other cams. Think of it this way - K100D can come up with as clean images from step higher than cameras with minimum ISO 100.

You wouldn't get cleaner image from that same sensor with lower ISO. If you would have ISO 100 on K100D it would look exactly like ISO 200. So there wouldn't be really any point to it.

There were a few sunny days this winter when I would have liked ISO 100, when I was at f/11 and 1/4000 sec. I don't like to stop down the lens much smaller than that, so an extra stop (in sensitivity, that is) could be quite useful.

[reknelb]

I did a comparason with the k10d shooting a properly exposed picture at 1600 iso and then shooting the same picture under exposed at 400iso. The 400 iso pushed did not look good. 1600 wasnt bad, but then it was even better after using some techniques in photoshop. I will try the same thing with my gx-1l tonight and see how the pushed 400 iso looks.

[jeffkrol]

I did a comparason with the k10d shooting a properly exposed picture at 1600 iso and then shooting the same picture under exposed at 400iso. The 400 iso pushed did not look good. 1600 wasnt bad, but then it was even better after using some techniques in photoshop. I will try the same thing with my gx-1l tonight and see how the pushed 400 iso looks.

What software? It does matter..and I believe the k10 is not so good w/ push as the other Pentax line..
Quote from one of my fav authors (link in my first post here)............................

...so you should not be able to see difference in the shadows between camera set to ISO 1600 and ISO 800, given the exposure (aperture/shutter speed/ligt) was constant between 2 shots. what you will see is the highlights being clipped one stop more in the ISO 1600 shot.

If noise is higher then the modest amount above, it is possible that ISO 400 shot 2 stops "underamplified" (that is what you refer to as "underexposed") will not show any difference from ISO 1600 shot, except for highlights, that now are 2 stops more clipped (at 1600).

now, the results can be even more interesting if in-camera amplification that performs ISO boost adds its own noise, and in substantial amounts. some experiments we run with my friends show no difference in shadows at all between ISO 200 3 stops underexposed and ISO 1600 shots.
Of course, not many raw converters will alow this, ACR is most certainly being *not* one of them. some raw converters will not show you any benefit in highlights, because they clip them the same way the camera does - but then you can use two renders from the same raw and blend them in Photoshop, like HDR.
(favorite part)..........
test your camera and workflow, determine how they tolerance "underamplification", adjust your shooting style and raw conversion methods accordingly.
..........unquote.......
Glad you checked it out. K10 handling of underexposed images is the main reason for me not considering the camera at this time....
You should post your comparisons as well.......
Now if you think about it, if the aperature and shutter speed are identical, then the light flux hitting the sensor is identical. Only difference is, do you amplify it in-camera (there really is no iso per se) or in your RAW editor???