[pcarfan]

I thought I'll post these images here as well. I think iso 3200 can be used in situations where there is no other options. Exif is intact, all at iso 3200 and very low shutter speeds. All shots were hand held of course.

This is my first attempt at real life low iso shots. These had NR done in Noiseware pro and PP in CS2. Rawtherapee for raw conversion.

---

Last edited by pcarfan; 08-30-2009 at 03:55 PM.

[aerodave]

Thanks for the real-world examples of the high-ISO performance.

And having been to the Air Force Museum (NMUSAF homepage) many times (I work on base) I can attest to how awful the lighting is in there for photography. Especially the "Early Years" hangar where you took those shots. Things improve a good bit in the "Modern Flight" hangar.

[rawr]

They look good. Aren't some museum interiors dimly lit nowadays? It's sometimes just hard to read the signage, let alone view the exhibits.

It would be interesting to see a 'Before' and 'After' example of one of those shots, to see what the image looked like straight out of the camera, and then after your PP.

[aerodave]

Just as a note, I have a very similar shot of the Wright brothers from my K100D....it's just a bit wider view. Mine was 21mm with the kit lens vs. your 10mm, but I was probably a lot farther away.

In that case, I had the same exposure, but did it with f/4, 1/8 sec @ISO 800. I may have risked having too thin a DOF at f/4. But I didn't worry too much about camera shake, even at 1/8 sec due to SR and the short focal length. And in your case, you used an even shorter focal length, so I bet you didn't have to push the ISO as much as you did. But still, excellent samples of the ISO3200 performance in tough lighting.

[Mystic]

i do not know if this is so good post processing or ISO 3200 is really usable..

[pcarfan]

Thanks for the real-world examples of the high-ISO performance.

And having been to the Air Force Museum (NMUSAF homepage) many times (I work on base) I can attest to how awful the lighting is in there for photography. Especially the "Early Years" hangar where you took those shots. Things improve a good bit in the "Modern Flight" hangar.

Thank you. The place truly has some awful lighting there. I really needed to remove a lot of distracting light elements and position strategically to get decent results. PP skills definitely helped.

[pcarfan]

They look good. Aren't some museum interiors dimly lit nowadays? It's sometimes just hard to read the signage, let alone view the exhibits.

It would be interesting to see a 'Before' and 'After' example of one of those shots, to see what the image looked like straight out of the camera, and then after your PP.

Lighting is horrendous. I had posted some test shots (not these, just some test shots) without post processing in an earlier thread.

---

Last edited by pcarfan; 08-30-2009 at 05:58 PM.

[pcarfan]

Just as a note, I have a very similar shot of the Wright brothers from my K100D....it's just a bit wider view. Mine was 21mm with the kit lens vs. your 10mm, but I was probably a lot farther away.

In that case, I had the same exposure, but did it with f/4, 1/8 sec @ISO 800. I may have risked having too thin a DOF at f/4. But I didn't worry too much about camera shake, even at 1/8 sec due to SR and the short focal length. And in your case, you used an even shorter focal length, so I bet you didn't have to push the ISO as much as you did. But still, excellent samples of the ISO3200 performance in tough lighting.

I think you are talking about the last images posted. That was the first shot I took and was working with the shutter, and wasn't overly confident of the SR, so I used a lengthy 1/15 . I used the sigma 10-20 and not all images are at 10mm, and a lot of them are wide open or slightly stopped down. I was also definitely concerned with the dof.

Also, I think the 1/focal length rule sort of diminishes after a certain point. I don't think there is any difference SR effectiveness of a 10mm lens and a 21mm lens based on shutter speeds. So, I think I couldn't have lowered the shutter much lower than the 1/8th like I did with most others. Usually I wouldn't even go 1/8th...it was adventurous enough.

[pcarfan]

i do not know if this is so good post processing or ISO 3200 is really usable..

If iso 3200 is not usable, then PP will not help. So, it is both.

[JackieLimited]

Nice photos but noise reduction looks like a soft focus filter has been used. Not a particularly
valid test in my estimation. Am I the only one who thinks K7 colors are weird? The pink color is ugly.

[KungPOW]

Nice photos but noise reduction looks like a soft focus filter has been used. Not a particularly
valid test in my estimation. Am I the only one who thinks K7 colors are weird? The pink color is ugly.

Maybe this is not a "test" but rather an example of the camera actually being "used" to take photos. How novel.

So, in my estimation, what pcarfan has posted is a great example of what can be done with ISO 3200.

Not sure where you are looking at "ugly pink"...

Thanks for posting pcarfan.

[pcarfan]

Nice photos but noise reduction looks like a soft focus filter has been used. Not a particularly
valid test in my estimation. Am I the only one who thinks K7 colors are weird? The pink color is ugly.

Thank you for the C&C. Don't rely on the pink colors form these photos. There was not just tungsten light there, but a variety of light sources including red and yellow colored lights. There are no problems with the K-7 colors.

[pcarfan]

Maybe this is not a "test" but rather an example of the camera actually being "used" to take photos. How novel.

So, in my estimation, what pcarfan has posted is a great example of what can be done with ISO 3200.

Not sure where you are looking at "ugly pink"...

Thanks for posting pcarfan.

Thank you.

[eva2000]

thanks for sharing.. love the first 2 photos

[pcarfan]

I've been posting these high iso images, and test images only in this 'Pentax DSLR' section. For the sake of completion, and for those who don't go to the 'post your photos' section, I should include images taken at standard iso's as well. Otherwise it only shows sub-par shots taken in extreme conditions.

EXIF intact.