ISO on digital camera

[ngythanh]

I am new to digital, and I have a question about "film speed".

Please let me know the different results in setting of high and slow ISO on digital camera. Since we can use Phase One during post processing of raw files, I wish to know what if I just set my camera to 1600-ISO to gain more DOF and avoid vibration during trekking, or while shootinbg from a moving vehicle. Please advise. Thanks.

[doitashimashite]

Depending on the type of camera you use, the higher-ISO pictures will be noisier than the pictures taken with standard ISO setting (50-100).
In very low light situations, using higher ISO settings can be necessary, and the noise in those pictures can be removed using software, like Photoshop, The Gimp or Noise Ninja.

As a general rule, I would say: avoid using high ISO as long as you can.

[Darren]

All digital cameras will provide much less noisy photos at their lowest ISO settings. If you are using a DSLR, you can get pretty good results at ISO 1600, if your exposure is good, but they will pale in comparison to the same shot taken at ISO 100 or 200. NeatImage or Noise Ninja can help to clean up the noise, but with a resulting loss of detail. Always shoot at the lowest ISO your shutter speed will support.

[AdrianW]

Low ISO values will usually yield the best results, software like CaptureOne can reduce the noise, and NeatImage may reduce it still further - but often it will cause a loss of fine detail. Also recovering shadow detail may well be close to impossible.

If you have a low noise dSLR (say EOS20D), and make perfect exposures during daylight then ISO800 is probably doable, but I'd try and stay away from it if you can avoid it.

For reference I always tend to shoot my EOS10D at ISO100 - I'll only use higher if I can't get the shot any other way...

[ngythanh]

Thank you Rene, Darren and Adrian for all your advice. So I would use the ISO in digital as same manner (and result) as in film. At first I assumed so, but had no confidence.

By the way, I have another questions popped up when reading your reply about CaptureOne.

- How many times does the CaptureOne let us install into different computer? [any difference between an online-download purchase and ordered disc?]
- I downloaded a 30-day trial version and didn't have much chance to pratice or play with it. Could you tell me the steps you used to process your raw files, please? I got confused with friends who, some of them told me C1 is better than Photoshop, some others said Photoshop is enough.
- I just gave up film-camera and packed my Canon EOS-3 into storage. In the next few weeks, I am going to have a 4-week-trip back to Asia (Kunming/China, Sa Pa/Vietnam, Vientiane/Laos, Angkor Wat/Cambodia = remote areas where repair, replacement or refreshment of equipment are not available). Please advise me what should I prepare when my Canon 10D is the only weapon. Any dos and donts that you have experienced, please share (or teach) me. Thanks.

Sincerely.

ngythanh

[thien]

With the 10D, although 800-1600 ISO is usable, it is only good with perfect exposure. Any underexposed picture will results in blotchy clumps of noise, not really good even if you savage it.

You can install CaptureOne on many computer as you would like on the condition that you only can use one of them at any instance. There is no difference between the downloaded and the one on the CD.

CaptureOne and Adobe RAW plugin gives about the same level with Canon FVU a bit behind. Adobe gives a much closer default settings to the original shooting parameters than CaptureOne. CaptureOne has their own camera color space and the ones that shipped with the product is not precise enough (tend toward green and "luminous" blue). If you need a proper color profile, ETC software provides excellent camera profile for CaptureOne. If you only do occasionally RAW processing then the Adobe is a fine solution.

Why some features does not work in PS
Some features of PS only works with 8 bits file. It does not matter if it is JPEG or TIFF but it has to be 8 bits before those feature can be used. JPEG saving is one instance where you need to be in 8 bits before the item show up in the file format list.

Ultimate workflow
1) Capture in RAW
2) White balance, exposure correction, mild sharpening, export to 16 bits TIFF Wide Gamut color space.
3) In PS, crop, resize, color fine tuning, sharpen in 16 bits as much as possible
4) Convert to sRBG space and 8 bits before printing or web display.

Middle ground workflow
1) Capture in RAW
2) White balance, exposure correction, mild sharpening, export to 16 bits TIFF sRGB color space.
3) In PS, crop, resize, color fine tuning, sharpen in 16 bits as much as possible
4) Convert to sRBG space and 8 bits before printing or web display.

Lazyman RAW workflow
1) Capture in RAW
2) White balance, exposure correction, sharpening, export to 8 bits TIFF sRGB color space.
3) In PS, crop, resize, color fine tuning.

Really Lazyman RAW workflow
1) Capture in RAW
2) White balance, exposure correction, sharpening, export to 8 bits JPEG sRGB color space.
3) In PS, crop, resize, color fine tuning.

Most of the time, I use the lazyman approach and the middle ground option. I used to do the ultimate way until I found out that non of the printers that I will use, approach the colorspace of wide gamut.

[AdrianW]

Thien: Have you used Canon DPP? I think it's much better than FVU, and I actually think I prefer the it's results to those from Adobe CRAW. Of course YMMV ;)

[thien]

Hi Adrian,

I have tried DPP when I got my Mark II. The results that it gives are quite good for landscape but it gives a green cast for skin tones. Adobe CRAW is better at handling skin tones. FVU is of course at the bottom of the RAW food chain :D. I have heard Bible 4.x is pretty good and had promissed to give it a try but haven't got a chance yet.

Regards,
Thien

[AdrianW]

LOL, I was going to say I hadn't noticed any green cast, then I realised I've never taken a picture of anyone using RAW! Can you remember which version of DPP you used? I'm running 1.5

Oddly it was a slightly odd hue shift on a landscape shot from a CRAW conversion that made me prefer DPP ;)

[thien]

I used both DPP 1.1 and 1.5, they have the green cast on both version.

ACR does have a red tint, that's why it looks better for skin tone. :D

CaptureOne is also crap if you use its default camera profile. You will need ETC profiles for better results. :D