street @ ISO 4000 (Fuji X-E1)

Discussion in 'Street and Documentary' started by Petach, Feb 26, 2013.

  1. Petach

    Petach Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2011
    UK, Essex
    Peter Tachauer
    It was pretty grey, dismal and dim yesterday. I wanted to maintain 1/250s shutter with a reasonable f8 - f13 but without ramping up the ISO too much. The 1/250s at those f numbers and at iso 4000 produced underexposure by about 2 - 2.5 stops. Tweaking in LR4 with exposure seems to have done the trick and ISO looks quite useable to me.

    street @ ISO 4000 XE1 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

    street @ ISO 4000 XE1 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

    street @ ISO 4000 XE1 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

    street @ ISO 4000 XE1 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

    street @ ISO 4000 XE1 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

    street @ ISO 4000 XE1 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Gary

    Gary All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    I dunno Pete. The noise seems a bit distracting to me, especially in #3, #5 and #6. (I think California and ISO 400 is calling to you Pete.)

  3. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I find the noise distracting in a couple of these too, Pete. I shoot a lot at 6400 with the X-Pro and I think exposing properly at a higher ISO ends up with cleaner results (or more grain-like noise) than under-exposing at ISO 4000 and then pulling the shadows up. Here are a couple just to illustrate:

    View attachment 65943
    Philly Valentines Day-545-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

    View attachment 65944
    Philly Valentines Day-552-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

    These sensors are capable of a LOT - don't be afraid to push them. That said, I'm not sure 6400 is a true 6400. Using the same EFL and same aperture on my OMD, I get the same exposure at about the same shutter speed at 3200 on my OMD that I do at 6400 on my X-Pro. So the ISO numbers look impressive but the actual low light capability of the two cameras isn't really very far apart at all...

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    For an 18mm lens on an APS-C sensor you're being very conservative with your apertures with respect to depth-of-field. I'd be happy to use f/5.6 or even f/4 since the distance to subject doesn't vary greatly in that kind of situation.

    You're asking a lot of that sensor in pushing an ISO 4000 file by 2-2.5 stops!
  5. Gary

    Gary All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    I agree with Ray. that a proper exposure, even at a higher ISO, delivers less noise than an underexposed image pulled-up in post.

    OM-D w/ O15 lens cap, ISO 12800

  6. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    By conventional definition of ISO, an ISO 4000 file pushed 2+ stops is actually ISO 16000+ (many people say "effective ISO" it's just as legitimately "actual ISO"). So it's not really apples to apples to compare these to "properly exposed" ISO 6400 files. Pete's shots are properly exposed ISO 16000+ shots. On the other hand, Nic's point about being conservative with DOF (using a very deep DOF) holds.
  7. Gary

    Gary All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    We are reading this very differently. For clarity sake and so not to confuse others ... I read that Pete calibrated the camera's lightmeter/sensor to ISO 4000 then underexposed the image 2-2.5 stops and added those stops back by tweaking the images in Light Room.

    You're saying, essentially, that tweaking in LR, adding back the 2-2.5 stops by moving the slider, does not affect noise. Had Pete set the camera and shot at ISO 16000 - 24000, he would have the similar noise, per the adjustments after the fact, in LR. In summary, that underexposing and compensating in post does not effect noise quality or noise level.

    I haven't seen that, but then I haven't looked for that either.


    PS- I understand your point of apples to oranges, but our point is a proper exposure compared to an underexposure, is by its very nature, an apple to orange comparison.

    PPS- I do agree with you and Nic that there seems to be a lot of wiggle room for ISO adjustments that shouldn't have a significant impact on the image capturing.
  8. alessandro

    alessandro Regular

    Sep 5, 2011
    Vicenza, Italy
    Nothing, sorry, I got confused by numbers.
    I'll just say that this extreme use of the xtrans APSC seems to give worse results than the GRD. Perhaps it's the conservative aperture setting.
  9. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    I thought only landscape shooters and macro heads ever went over f8. Those shots are definitely NOT indicative of what the Fuji files should look like at ISO4000. I use ISO6400 all the time and they are clean as a whistle.

    Around Christmas time I shot a photo of our tree and the only light in the room was from the TV. Just for giggles, I turned it up to ISO25600 (!) It's not pretty, but it's useable in a pinch. This is a JPEG straight from camera with no additional noise reduction so it could obviously be improved as well.
    ISO 25600 by Lukinosity, on Flickr

    Don't baby the Fuji.....PUSH it.
  10. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    What I am saying is that if Pete set his camera to ISO 4000, 1/250s, f/8 and needed to push his RAW file by 2 full stops (+2EV on the exposure slider in Lightroom) to get a resulting image of "normal brightness", then that resulting image is an ISO 16,000 image and will have about as much noise as you'd expect from an image taken under those same conditions with the camera set to ISO 16,000 if the camera had such a setting.

    Here's a brief experiment to explain my point:

    Shoot any image at ISO 3200 and write down the shutter speed, and f-number you used.

    Repeat the same shot with the same shutter speed and f-number, but ISO 800 instead of 3200.

    Open both RAW files in Lightroom and click on "Auto Tone" for each - they will look pretty much the same. The second one may have a hair more shadow noise, but there won't be much in it if you're using any of the recent cameras with low read noise sensors (E-M5, Fuji, etc).