Learning to not be afraid of high ISO shooting

[Stephen Berger]

Despite the advances in camera design and noise reduction software capabilities both inside of the Creative Suite software and - probably especially - outside of it I've tended to be both quite conservative with shooting at high ISO's (say a cloudy day where I'd have to stay above say ISO 2000 the whole time) and was erring on the side of around a -3 (or lower) EV exposure when using higher ISO's.

Recently I was out and despite a forecast of partly cloudy it was fully overcast and instead of bailing I decided to just shoot, and shoot at high ISO's and at more like -1 EV and I discovered what Im sure many if not most of you know, it works beautifully!

The main thing I learned is that shooting at say ISO 2000 but at -3 or -4 EV may keep the ISO lower but when processing the image ultimately leads to a noisier and more difficult to work with photo than shooting at ISO 4000 or above and being at -1 EV. Meaning - duh - that shooting a properly exposed image, even at higher ISO's leads to better results than an underexposed image at lower ones. It's slightly embarssaring to admit I didn't realize that sooner but wanted to share it in case anyone else has been avoiding the higher ISO's in the same way.

 

[John Navitsky]

i think we drag a lot of baggage around wrt ISO from the film days and the early digital days that doesn't necessarily suit us super well these days.

my general inclination is to focus on getting a decent exposure for *the subject* and let the chips fall where they may with regard to ISO.

imo the big problem is it's typical for shadow areas to clip the blacks, esp. with dark subjects. if you aren't exposed enough to the right, the detail just isn't in the image at all. there's no recovering data that isn't recorded. and if you're intending to push those shadow areas in post, well, there's nothing to push.

THAT SAID, we do loose color as we increase ISO, so to get those high fidelity images, we do have to manage ISO as well.

 

[Butlerkid]

I quit worrying about very high ISO's in 2015. On my first trip to Africa....on the first night....we were shooting lions with a kill an hour after sunset (ISO 5000). Yes, the guides had a large torch....but the light was still dim for shooting. Knowing that the image would be thrown away if they were OOF, I used the slowest shutter speed I dared and let the ISO float. Afterwards, I discovered the wonderful advances in noise reduction s/w that could tame the noise while doing a good job of preserving much detail.

NR software has dramatically improved since 2015!

Hummingbird, ISO 10,000 D5 in 2018

 

[DRwyoming]

Despite the advances in camera design and noise reduction software capabilities both inside of the Creative Suite software and - probably especially - outside of it I've tended to be both quite conservative with shooting at high ISO's (say a cloudy day where I'd have to stay above say ISO 2000 the whole time) and was erring on the side of around a -3 (or lower) EV exposure when using higher ISO's.

Recently I was out and despite a forecast of partly cloudy it was fully overcast and instead of bailing I decided to just shoot, and shoot at high ISO's and at more like -1 EV and I discovered what Im sure many if not most of you know, it works beautifully!

The main thing I learned is that shooting at say ISO 2000 but at -3 or -4 EV may keep the ISO lower but when processing the image ultimately leads to a noisier and more difficult to work with photo than shooting at ISO 4000 or above and being at -1 EV. Meaning - duh - that shooting a properly exposed image, even at higher ISO's leads to better results than an underexposed image at lower ones. It's slightly embarssaring to admit I didn't realize that sooner but wanted to share it in case anyone else has been avoiding the higher ISO's in the same way.

Good on ya for trying stuff outside of your comfort zone.

Sure it's great when you have sufficient light to stop down for as much DoF as desired and still keep shutter speeds high without pushing ISO but since going full time to Manual Exposure with Auto ISO (or full manual ISO) and running very high ISO caps I've found the same as you that modern cameras can handle much higher ISOs than days of old and have learned not to fear high ISOs. That's doubly true since tools like Topaz products have hit the market.

Also FWIW, as you've observed in most cameras across much of their working ISO range there's nothing to be gained by shooting -EV in the field if you'll just pull it back up in post processing. IOW, most modern cameras have a fairly wide range of ISO Invariance where a stop in camera and a stop in post have the same impact regarding DR and noise. Sure if -EV helps by eliminating clipped highlights that's great but generally speaking there's no noise or DR advantage to negative exposure comp in the field if you'll just pull it back up in post across most of modern camera's ISO range though there can be specific regions where a stop in the field is not strictly equal to a stop in post.

 

[JAS]

Do not be afraid. We went to Kearney, NE this year for the Spring Sandhill Crane migration. We went for the evening photo experience and captured wonderful shots in low light. In fact, one of my shots, (ISO 11400 (Z6, 100-400 S lens at 400MM 1/1000 sec and f/5.6) was selected for their annual calendar. Processed in LrC and PL5 for Prime noise reduction and a little help. Do not be afraid of high ISO. The tools are out there to make it work.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

i

 

[EricBowles]

Despite the advances in camera design and noise reduction software capabilities both inside of the Creative Suite software and - probably especially - outside of it I've tended to be both quite conservative with shooting at high ISO's (say a cloudy day where I'd have to stay above say ISO 2000 the whole time) and was erring on the side of around a -3 (or lower) EV exposure when using higher ISO's.

Recently I was out and despite a forecast of partly cloudy it was fully overcast and instead of bailing I decided to just shoot, and shoot at high ISO's and at more like -1 EV and I discovered what Im sure many if not most of you know, it works beautifully!

The main thing I learned is that shooting at say ISO 2000 but at -3 or -4 EV may keep the ISO lower but when processing the image ultimately leads to a noisier and more difficult to work with photo than shooting at ISO 4000 or above and being at -1 EV. Meaning - duh - that shooting a properly exposed image, even at higher ISO's leads to better results than an underexposed image at lower ones. It's slightly embarssaring to admit I didn't realize that sooner but wanted to share it in case anyone else has been avoiding the higher ISO's in the same way.

I just finished a foxhunting event with the Z7ii and 70-200 f/2.8. My Selects had the following distribution. I was at f/3.5 or less the entire time. It wasn an overcast day.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[NorthernFocus]

... duh - that shooting a properly exposed image, even at higher ISO's leads to better results than an underexposed image at lower ones. It's slightly embarssaring to admit I didn't realize that sooner but wanted to share it in case anyone else has been avoiding the higher ISO's in the same way.

This is a topic that has been beat to death with many people arguing both ways. Way back in D300 days I did my own testing and reached the same conclusions as your recent experience. However nowadays some sensors are purported to be "ISO invariant" meaning that you get the net same result whether you increase ISO to get proper exposure in camera or correct exposure in PP. Which is nothing more than a theoretical argument IMO. If it doesn't matter then why not just expose properly in camera? At any rate, same net result, you're better off in either case to expose properly in the field and let ISO fall where it falls.

 

[kimball]

This is a topic that has been beat to death with many people arguing both ways. Way back in D300 days I did my own testing and reached the same conclusions as your recent experience. However nowadays some sensors are purported to be "ISO invariant" meaning that you get the net same result whether you increase ISO to get proper exposure in camera or correct exposure in PP. Which is nothing more than a theoretical argument IMO. If it doesn't matter then why not just expose properly in camera? At any rate, same net result, you're better off in either case to expose properly in the field and let ISO fall where it falls.

This is generally the correct advice. Let the ISO fall where it falls once you can't increase sensor exposure anymore.

However, if you wish to protect highlights in an otherwise low-light scene, there's very good reason to shoot at a much lower ISO and then raise your image lightness in post (assuming you're employing an ISO-invariant sensor). There will be no noise penalty in doing so.

Interestingly, in non-ISO-invariant sensors, you actually pay a noise penalty by shooting at lower ISOs and lightening the photo in post. Electronic read noise is higher in such sensors at lower ISOs. As ISO is raised, read noise is reduced. This is shown quite clearly in Bill Claff's "Read Noise vs ISO Setting" chart, which in this example shows read noise on the Nikon D6 dropping dramatically as ISO is increased, whereas on the D7000, which has an invariant sensor, read noise is practically constant regardless of ISO:

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

 

[soundbyte]

I have taken images that I have thought would be totally unusable as the ISO was high.
Shot when the bird moved into the shade and I was not quick enough to change settings to suit the new subject environment.

Now with products such as the Topaz offerings I have found that high ISO does not in itself make images unusable.
A screenshot of a poor quality image loaded in Topaz Photo AI (Default Settings) and the preview of what it did with this image.
1/1600, ISO 25600, F 8.0, EC -.3

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Stephen Berger]

i think we drag a lot of baggage around wrt ISO from the film days and the early digital days that doesn't necessarily suit us super well these days.

my general inclination is to focus on getting a decent exposure for *the subject* and let the chips fall where they may with regard to ISO.

imo the big problem is it's typical for shadow areas to clip the blacks, esp. with dark subjects. if you aren't exposed enough to the right, the detail just isn't in the image at all. there's no recovering data that isn't recorded. and if you're intending to push those shadow areas in post, well, there's nothing to push.

THAT SAID, we do loose color as we increase ISO, so to get those high fidelity images, we do have to manage ISO as well.

That all makes sense and I have (as I'm sure many have) also long been in the habit of protecting for highlights.

 

[Stephen Berger]

I quit worrying about very high ISO's in 2015. On my first trip to Africa....on the first night....we were shooting lions with a kill an hour after sunset (ISO 5000). Yes, the guides had a large torch....but the light was still dim for shooting. Knowing that the image would be thrown away if they were OOF, I used the slowest shutter speed I dared and let the ISO float. Afterwards, I discovered the wonderful advances in noise reduction s/w that could tame the noise while doing a good job of preserving much detail.

NR software has dramatically improved since 2015!

Hummingbird, ISO 10,000 D5 in 2018

Yeah, those are great... and yes, dramatic improvements in noise reduction since 2015 but it also demonstrates that I've been overly worried about for FAR too long.

 

[Stephen Berger]

Good on ya for trying stuff outside of your comfort zone.

Sure it's great when you have sufficient light to stop down for as much DoF as desired and still keep shutter speeds high without pushing ISO but since going full time to Manual Exposure with Auto ISO (or full manual ISO) and running very high ISO caps I've found the same as you that modern cameras can handle much higher ISOs than days of old and have learned not to fear high ISOs. That's doubly true since tools like Topaz products have hit the market.

Also FWIW, as you've observed in most cameras across much of their working ISO range there's nothing to be gained by shooting -EV in the field if you'll just pull it back up in post processing. IOW, most modern cameras have a fairly wide range of ISO Invariance where a stop in camera and a stop in post have the same impact regarding DR and noise. Sure if -EV helps by eliminating clipped highlights that's great but generally speaking there's no noise or DR advantage to negative exposure comp in the field if you'll just pull it back up in post across most of modern camera's ISO range though there can be specific regions where a stop in the field is not strictly equal to a stop in post.

Yes... I was throwing out the most basic principal of photography - proper exposure - in the circumstances where I perhaps needed it the most.

 

[Stephen Berger]

I just finished a foxhunting event with the Z7ii and 70-200 f/2.8. My Selects had the following distribution. I was at f/3.5 or less the entire time. It wasn an overcast day.
View attachment 48923

Thanks for that. I would start to get antsy if ISO hit 1000. Not anymore though!

 

[Stephen Berger]

This is a topic that has been beat to death with many people arguing both ways. Way back in D300 days I did my own testing and reached the same conclusions as your recent experience. However nowadays some sensors are purported to be "ISO invariant" meaning that you get the net same result whether you increase ISO to get proper exposure in camera or correct exposure in PP. Which is nothing more than a theoretical argument IMO. If it doesn't matter then why not just expose properly in camera? At any rate, same net result, you're better off in either case to expose properly in the field and let ISO fall where it falls.

I don't know if the A1 sensor is meant to be ISO invariant or not but my - unscientific - recent experience shows me that the images look better (or should I say come out of things like Topaz looking cleaner and clearer and sharper) properly exposed at higher ISO's than under exposed with lower ones.

 

[John Navitsky]

one other random thought. new technology, specifically greatly improved vr and high shutter speeds give us another tool with exposure. for static subjects we can lower shutter below what would previously be prudent and shoot a high frame-rate sequence and chances are we’ll get a couple of sharp ones

 

[Stephen Berger]

This is generally the correct advice. Let the ISO fall where it falls once you can't increase sensor exposure anymore.

However, if you wish to protect highlights in an otherwise low-light scene, there's very good reason to shoot at a much lower ISO and then raise your image lightness in post (assuming you're employing an ISO-invariant sensor). There will be no noise penalty in doing so.

Interestingly, in non-ISO-invariant sensors, you actually pay a noise penalty by shooting at lower ISOs and lightening the photo in post. Electronic read noise is higher in such sensors at lower ISOs. As ISO is raised, read noise is reduced. This is shown quite clearly in Bill Claff's "Read Noise vs ISO Setting" chart, which in this example shows read noise on the Nikon D6 dropping dramatically as ISO is increased, whereas on the D7000, which has an invariant sensor, read noise is practically constant regardless of ISO:

View attachment 48937

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

Very interesting.

 

[Stephen Berger]

one other random thought. new technology, specifically greatly improved vr and high shutter speeds give us another tool with exposure. for static subjects we can lower shutter below what would previously be prudent and shoot a high frame-rate sequence and chances are we’ll get a couple of sharp ones

Thought I try to always be ready for action, since I'm in full manual mode I do often do this for a shot to two for a static subject.

 

[John Navitsky]

this is one of the advantages of running manual with auto iso. you can simply dial down the shutter in these situations

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I don't know if the A1 sensor is meant to be ISO invariant or not but my - unscientific - recent experience shows me that the images look better (or should I say come out of things like Topaz looking cleaner and clearer and sharper - properly exposed at higher ISO's and then under exposed with lower ones.

My experience also with the OM-1
Tom

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I deal with High ISO all the time as my go to lens is f/6.3. I find the Topaz Photo AI to be an automatic finishing add-on to Photoshop. I find that it cleans up noise quite well and sharpens the subject which it usually identifies quite well. If I need more I run it a second time.

If I need to blur the background and create a mask of the images within the subject's focal plane, I use Topaz Mask AI because after adding areas via a brush the AI seems to identify the correct edges quite well.

However, if I need to do really cool stuff, I have DXO Photo Lab 6 and ON1 Photo Raw.

 

[Ductape]

I tend to grab my 300 2.8 over my 500 5.6 any time around sunrise/sunset because I fear the ISO.

 

[FB101]

I don't know if the A1 sensor is meant to be ISO invariant or not but my - unscientific - recent experience shows me that the images look better (or should I say come out of things like Topaz looking cleaner and clearer and sharper) properly exposed at higher ISO's than under exposed with lower ones.

Iso invariance is a lab measure. It’s certainly helped a lot to improve post processing flexibility, but I don’t find it to be the same as exposing properly in camera. I know, on paper, it should make no difference but my experience is different. I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that iso invariance is only a noise (s/n ratio) measure. It says nothing about colors, or contrast.
‘I’ve come to the same conclusion as yours - I’ll take higher iso in camera to get the exposure right any day over underexposing 3 or 4 stops. But I also know that when it happens (usually by mistake), I can salvage the picture if I need to, so that’s definitely a safety I like to have.

Thats not the same as saying that a properly exposed picture at iso 6400 is as good quality as a properly exposed picture at iso 800. So I do Steve’s iso “insurance” as often as I can. Start at high iso to secure the shot then progressively drop speed and iso to try and get lower-iso keepers. ‘That’s when a solid tripod and gimbal are worth their weight and complexity because that method is more limited when handheld.

 

[bleirer]

In my view exposure is shutter speed and aperture at base iso, period. Once maxed out iso to the rescue for gain, but on my camera anything over 800 might as well stay at 800 but I'd rather it looked good in preview.

 

[ohpleaseno]

If you’re going to pick one to ruin your image, noise or image blur from too slow a shutter speed, image blur is more unusable 99 times out of 100

 

[EricBowles]

This is a topic that has been beat to death with many people arguing both ways. Way back in D300 days I did my own testing and reached the same conclusions as your recent experience. However nowadays some sensors are purported to be "ISO invariant" meaning that you get the net same result whether you increase ISO to get proper exposure in camera or correct exposure in PP. Which is nothing more than a theoretical argument IMO. If it doesn't matter then why not just expose properly in camera? At any rate, same net result, you're better off in either case to expose properly in the field and let ISO fall where it falls.

I agree with this. But outside of ISO invariance, I've heard of some situations where a proper exposure results in better and more consistent focus. I have not seen that myself, but I do try to keep the ISO high enough for a relatively accurate exposure. The problem area with high ISO levels is the darker areas and the shadow. If you have a subject that is dark, it is more problematic to try to fix it with software. On the other hand, a midtoned subject has plenty of room for mild processing and noise reduction if needed.

Also keep in mind the relative impact of cropping. The deeper you crop, the more issues you have with higher ISO levels or recovery in post processing. And noise reduction becomes more evident.