Cropping? Better Drop Your ISO!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2024
- Site:
backcountrygallery.com
Books:
bcgwebstore.com
Let's face it - sometimes we need to crop. However, when you're faced with a photo in the viewfinder that's gonna need an appointment with the crop tool, you gotta be careful. Noise is a tricky thing and it's especially hard on images where cropping is required.
In this video, we’ll take a look at why your personal maximum ISO for your camera may be too high if the image in the viewfinder is destined for the crop tool. A must watch for every photographer!
Thank you! This was a big help and explains why I'm creating the poor cropped images in my D850. I have so much to learn!
Just amazing... I always learn something very important from your videos... That explains a lot about the more crop, more degraded image... ISO is the key... Thanks Steve
Fascinating! Instead of "blah blah" like a lot of "educational" videos**, this is actually saying something refreshingly different - something both useful and intelligent! Thanks a whole heap, Steve. Now I think I'll go & dip into my credit at PayPal& buy the book!
**Unfortunately, so many of them really focus on suggesting everyone should do B - instead of everyone doing A - which really doesn't do a thing, to improve their photography, if they're all still playing "follow the leader".
Thanks! I honestly just try to present the info from as many angles as I can think of and let the shooter decide :)
The balancing act of compromises we wildlife photographers must make is always tricky. Having all three of your books and frequently going back to them keeps me moving along that learning curve (and I suspect many others too). Acknowledging more times than I would like that there just isn't a shot to be had is humbling but crucial learning too. Thanks, Steve.
UPDATE - Please note that when I mention dropping your maximum ISO in the video, I don't mean that you should keep your shutter speed and F/stop the same and allow the camera to underexpose. Underexposing will result in a situation where you need to bring the exposure back up in your RAW processor and your noise will look just like you had shot at the higher ISO. Instead, you'll need to increase the amount of light hitting the sensor through either a wider F/stop or slower shutter speed. Also, when I refer to max ISO, I'm referring the the maximum ISO you're willing to tolerate - regardless of it's set via Auto ISO or you are dialing it in yourself.
I think perhaps you should make another clarification. This video is already being shared in social media groups, and it seems people do not know you are talking about auto-iso ranges, which I believe you are. Also, you should be plugging your focus book! I must have missed some mailings because I didn't know you had an exposure book out!
@@williamgollatz1911 Hi William - Thanks for the feedback. Actually, by max ISO I am simply referring to the maximum ISO you are willing to tolerate from your camera. It can be the max Auto ISO, but it can just as easily be the maximum you would personally set. I plugged the metering book in this one since it was more directly related to the topic.
The under exposure is the first thing that came to mind, thanks for addressing this. Always a challenge to choose what to sacrifice in low light wildlife situations.
Thank you Steve for continuing to put out relevant content not discussed in most other places and continuing to try while attempting to closely controlled your environment (Glad you didn't have to tack a live duck to your target in the garage). Every time I believe I understand a specific topic, your explanation ultimately improves my comprehension and incorporation of the topic. Agree, that this is also a good reason to rethink the shot if your subject does not fill the frame to include the surrounding environment or wait for a better opportunity to come along. Great way to start the year Steve! Keep up the great work.
I knew it! I’ve been noticing that whenever I crop my images. Thanks for pointing out this issue!
Thanks for the upload Steve, great stuff as always!!!
Thanks, I should have figured that out myself. It explains some of the results I've gotten. As usual, you explained it very well.
Great experiment! It shows precisely the effect of crop factor on noise! The exact science would be (with same sensor) crop factor squared
Thanks Steve, having recently watched your tutorial on Tele converters this information ties in nicely.
I don't shoot past ISO 3200 on my Nikon D500 and D850. I also use DXOPhotolab2 with Prime Noise Reduction to reduce the noise, and Affinity photo which also has a noise reduction feature, at the end of the day, the less noise in the original file the better it is for the finished product.
Affinity Photo supports D850 RAW files now? If so, I would like to give it a try.
Thanks Steve for another great video!! I own your all 3 books and they are awesome. Really nice detail in each book, Thanks.
Thank you!!
An excellent demonstration and example Steve.
Outstanding - Highly recommend Steve's book.
Great explanation, Steve. I knew to keep my ISO a stop or two lower when using crop sensor cameras (I use FF, APS-C and Micro Four-thirds), but I never considered it when cropping into full frame. I'm not a wildlife photographer, but I think your images are outstanding.
Steve, your "Manual Mode with Auto ISO" video from 5 years ago is an excellent precursor to this lesson. I watched that recently and it helped me decide on upgrading my camera. I had been using a Canon 400D from 2006 which forced me to change the ISO manually. It took great pictures so I had no complaints. I didn't want to upgrade unnecessarily but your explanation of using auto iso (with manual aperture/shutter) was a light bulb moment for me. I got a Canon t6 and my ability to capture great wildlife moments increased dramatically solely based on that feature.
Some things are just bells and whistles. Some features truly make a difference! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us
Hi Daniel. I generally shoot FULL manual.. except of course for auto focus.. and some mates of mine suggested using auto ISO.. but I did not like the lighting on all the photos.. i.e. in many instances over-exposed, so I've gone back to manual ISO and just use my light meter to set the ISO just on bar below neutral.. if I can call it that.. OF course when we are out shooting moving objects the auto ISO could be very helpful and from what Steve has share here I should look at my max ISO setting .. that is .. if I understand correctly of course .. still learning ..:-) and going to share this video with my photography group on fb.. would be interesting to see their comments too :-)
@@bonitaread4747 I think Steve missed a concept here because he forget some of his audience is new. I believe he assumes that one would of course set an auto-iso within acceptable parameters, then adjust the upper limit, and then if you hit your native iso, then you must change your aperture or shutter speed. He does not do a lot of videos, and this concept is no natural, I think he forgot some people needs to hear it, even though he was speaking about "max iso," NOT simply "iso." He even had a graphic of the max iso's he uses. So I would assume he is using auto-iso, and different camera brands and different camera models may have different names so he just might have left that out.
Thanks, Steve, for another helpful video!
Very helpful and informative content. Thanks Steve as always 👍
Great video Steve, thanks very much!!
Your spot on I totally agree , when taking shots of wild owls I always have to think about the iso and cropping. Gem 👍🏻😃
Thank you for the videos.
Extremely helpful video.
It’s somewhat reminiscent of my long ago film days when we considered what ASA to use to get a decent image. Which is why we used a lot of Tri-X print film which was ASA 400 in low light and ASA 64 Kodachrome for great daylight shots.
Awesome informative video Steve , ty 😀
When I argued with people about noise, it’s usually because they are a portrait photographer. As a wildlife photographer can cropping is a common thing and stinking noise gets brutal in a crop.
Thanks for making this video.
Thanks!! Great video
Hi Steve, another excellent video. Thanks for sharing your expertise. Would you have any telephoto lens recommendations for a beginner with a DX camera, on a fairly tight budget?
Great info
Very informative
A few months ago, I took pictures inside a cathedral with my D500. No tripod and interior dimly lit. So I was up to ISO 12800 to be able to take the photos by hand. Processing with DXO PhotoLab and PRIME NR. Of course, one notices a certain lack of sharpness when looking at 100%. But for me, the subject and the moment (i.e. the conditions that can not be changed) are more important than a small amount of noise ;-) .
Great video. The book is also a great source of information. I understand that in case I use e.g. a Nikon D850 on a Nikkor 600mm 4.0, I would get the same results (I mean resolving fine details) as a Nikon D850 in crop mode on a Nikkor 400mm 2.8. The max ISO would have to be 1 stop lower in the last case but the shutter speed could stay the same as the aperture goes up from f/4 (600mm) to f/2.8 (400mm). And by the way, you book "Secrets To Exposure And Metering For Nikon" is simply a great source of information and explanation. Highly recommended.
Thank you!! Most informative. When you talk about setting the ISO max, am I to assume this is for the purpose of shooting on AUTO ISO?
It can be, although it can also be just the max ISO you're willing to set in any other mode.
I don't understand anything but I signed up anyway. you're too good at explaining that I almost think I understand. hahahahaaaa. I am Italian
This apply s when shooting non moving targets in good light. My problem is I shoot sports such as soccer at night using stadium lighting where I need to use high ISO because I also need high shooing speeds 800-1000th. on my D4s. I also need to crop pretty heavily on some shots. It's the worst of all worlds. But a great challenge
Absolutely, I try to shoot at ISO 100 most of the time that way I can crop to the picture I really want.
ISO 100 is the best place to be, I wish I saw it more often myself!
Hey Steve, what lights are you using to light the target, I need to get new lights for when I fine tune with FoCal software. Thanks for your time and great video.
Doug
Hi Doug - they are sort of old - I think they are from Cowboy Studio.
Steve Perry: thanks Steve
Hello Mr. Huff - Would buying a Nikon D700 in 2020 be odd because of all the newer Full Frame Bodies out there if you are budget conscious? Any suggestions would help! Thank You .... Mike DelRossi
The main point you make very well is that noise is more apparent and may interfere will perceived detail when you crop the image generated by any sensor size. However, your use of the “cropped sensor” term may confuse some people when discussing your video. We should not forget that getting more pixels on the target is also an important motivator for wildlife photographers to purchase “cropped sensor” cameras. At the same distance from the target for 20 MP cameras used for wildlife photography (D4 [1x], D500 [1.5x] and OMD M1II [2x], the cropped sensors are getting proportionally more pixels on the target producing larger details. Said another way, the full frame D4 camera would need a 600mm lens to get as many pixels on a distant bird as a an OMD M1II camera with a 300mm lens. Certainly there are many other factors affecting the capture of excellent image details. Differences in noise reduction software used in editing can make substantial differences in the usability of noisy images. My recent discover of Topaz DeNoise AI has “saved” many of my otherwise unusable bird images taken in the dim mountains of Columbia.
I agree, but I do try to keep the videos straightforward - in this case, not comparing FX and DX in addition to cropping, but focusing on what happens with a single camera. When I'm "too thorough" people complain that I need to just get to the point, so I try to stick with the main topic and not veer off if possible. I do have another video (or maybe it's an article) that discusses in detail the difference between crop and full-frame cameras of similar pixel density and it echos what you say - if you have to crop anyway, switch to the crop camera and put more pixels on the duck :)
Where can one get that focus target
Exactly
This is a very good point, especially for beginners. Ideally we'd be always using base ISO's on our cameras. Something not discussed here that'd relevant at least to my camera is ISO invariance. On a camera like my Sony it's actually better to shoot at iso 640 rather than ISO 400 due to the dual gain used in the camera. Conversely if you shot using the same shutter speed and aperture at ISO 800, 1600, and 3200 then adjusted them in post they would all have the same noise levels so really it comes down to getting enough light on your subject and enough exposure to the sensor. With wildlife I think many of us find that it's often not easy to get close so we're forced to crop and as you have illustrated not having enough exposure/light to work with can cause noise to eat up the image, if possible it's always better to crop in camera. There's also the case where a lens may not be sharp enough to render small details as we crop in as well especially with high pixel density sensors.
Honestly, I could have added about 20 minutes to this video for related topics, but RUclips tends to have a short attention span when I get too detailed, unfortunately. I do agree with you though - you have to keep in eye on your ISO with dual gain (for my D850, it's 400). I still tend to use in-camera ISO amplification though, simply because I like to see what the image actually looks like when I review it, not the 3 stop under version. :) However, if I'm in a tricky situation and worried about clipping highlights, I do leverage ISO invariance (I actually teach this technique in my workshops).
@@backcountrygallery I figured you were versed in it, I just enjoy adding to the comments, sometimes I learn as much from the comments that come forth from a video as the video itself. I too tend to shoot auto ISO and not use 640 when 3200 is needed for the same reason I want to see a preview in camera (or see what I'm shooting if you have live view result turned on). I only learned about the dual gain perhaps half a year ago and how many cameras are invariant... in the case of wildlife unless it's a very sunny day with good light it seems we're always performing a balancing act and trying to use the slowest shutter speed possible to get those low effective ISO's. What is nice with the knowledge is if you absolutely need say 1/2000 at f/5.6 and your iso is up around 6400 for "proper" exposure you can simply dial it back a stop or two to be sure you're not losing highlights, I turn on zebras and go from there but if a bird flies from dark into light it's easy to blow the feathers against a dark background. I do agree about long videos, often they're not at all suitable for someone learning and after awhile the viewer will tune out so your decision to keep it brief and on topic is prudent. - Rob
A blindingly obvious point - when it's pointed out to me!!
Thanks Steve.
Would a tele comverter 1.4x help me fill the sensor to get more detail and less noise?
It's a balance. It will fill the frame more, but you'll lose a stop of light in the process.
I always keep my iso on my d500 as low as possible
If your a Nikon shooter the E books are well worth the $. I have all of them and I learned several things I did not know
Thanks for the kind words :)
They have been a real game changer for me.
@@backcountrygallery 👍
bassangler73: of all the books I own and have read, the 3 from Steve always seem to be on top... not just easier to get to. Ya know like the favorite tee shirt seems to always be up front in the closest. Fantastic reads.
@@douglasmichel6361 well said
My wife recognizes the intro music from the next room, I have to remind her that I'm learning, not shopping.
ALMOST FIRST 😀
Great video and thanks for making these Steve!
A few points to re-emphasize. With your D500 you are already cropped from the D850 so with the same lens set you are much less likely to crop to begin with.
Also for less optimally lit subjects the grain and acceptable ISO values are less. This is especially true if you are pushing pulling exposure, highlights and shadows in post.
Finally maybe a better test would be two frame filling shots of the chart, one like the left, the other far back enough that a 1.5x crop identically filled the frame?
Maybe a better test
Yup, agree with the D500 / D850 comparison - the D850 is basically a D500 when it's in crop mode :) Also, I agree with your assessment of dimly-lit subjects (why I put a note in the video that the amount to drop your ISO will vary depending on the camera and situation :) ) I thought about mentioning highlight pulling, but I've discovered that if I get too long-winded and detailed in a video, I get taken to task for it so I try to keep it simple :)
However, I'm not sure what you mean regarding the alternate test. If both images were filling the frame the same way, the result would be the some. If I used a D850 and maybe a D500 so both are frame-filling, the results would look like what we saw here.
@@backcountrygallery I think there's a lot of confusion about apsc sensor cameras being better for wildlife and "magnification" of said cameras. With that said I do find myself using the crop mode in my full frame camera when birds are just too far away because making the subject larger in the frame seems to allow for better autofocus and in the case of eye AF can make or break it being viable. Also why store all that unnecessary information on your hard drive? It can bite you though when the subject comes in close quickly and you're unable to switch modes in time. I guess the advantage of some apsc camera sensors is the pixel density tends to be higher so it's possible to get more pixels on your subject but often at the cost of more noise too. Good glass and/or getting closer to the subject are still really important when we want detail.
I thought the same thing as well, doing the test in this manner would visually make it easier to see how having more pixels on the subject is advantageous in regards to s/n ratio.
@@robwasnj Oh, I agree. I have, one numerous occasions, recommended a D500 over a D850 if the user told me they were always far away or cropping a full frame image. No sense capturing stuff you don't need. In fact, I often switch to the 1.2 or 1.5X crop mode on my D850 if I know I'm going to need to crop. Deeper buffer, less storage required, faster to import, lots of advantages.
@@backcountrygallery I think a lot of amateur wildlife photographers underestimate how much work and dedication the pros put into getting closer to their subjects respectfully. I'm enjoying your video this windy afternoon so you may have one covering the topic but I'd love to see more discussion/videos on gear other than lenses and cameras that help us get better wildlife photos. Some of my personal favorite photos were shot in my own backyard from a hunting blind where I could get 10' away from the birds with a 400mm lens. I hear many amateurs say thing like "if I could afford a $17,000 setup I could get images like that too" and while gear is part of the equation the amount of skill, patience and knowledge is overlooked.
drop expecially if it’s a ‘iso invariant’ sensor
I often shoot at ISO 640 on my Sony and raise things in post for that reason. It avoids clipping the highlights. The caveat of doing this is all your previews are quite unviewable so if you need to check things especially in camera it can be difficult. Of course this applies to RAW shooting not jpeg.
@@robwasnj Don't forget the histogram is your friend when shooting.
Although, in this situation, the idea is not to drop ISO and adjust image lightness in post. The idea is #1 to increase exposure (slower shutter speed or wider aperture) which allows you to #2 lower ISO and get the same image lightness out-of-camera as the earlier exposure that required a higher ISO.
What about 25,600? 51,200? When are they usable?
For me, pretty much never. However, it really depends on your subject. For less detailed subjects (i.e. no fur / feathers) sometimes they can certainly work.
5:59 Topaz: "Hold my AI"
I wonder who disliked!!! What's there not to like man WTF???
I know, I can never understand who and why some people down vote a genuinely helpful video like this?? does not make sense as it's just not offensive in any way? Keep up the great work Steve, you get a thumbs up from me!
LOL, I gave up on trying to please everyone :) No matter what I do, no matter how hard I try, there are always dislikes... As long as my regulars are happy with the videos, I'm happy!
I think it's because what they shoot with. To some people, it is all about the gear. Smh
@@davecrissinger8967 Very true - and very sad.
or because your name is Steve Perry and they were thinking you were someone else
Hey Steve! I sent you an email a few days ago via your website. No reply yet though
I just looked through my messages, I don't see any I missed (not sure on your name). I have replied to quite a few - maybe it didn't go? I guess just give it another go.
Devils advocate: when cropping motion blur also becomes more noticeable when cropped so iso might need to be increased more when cropping to keep a sharp image.
This is true as well, however, if the detail is gone, then it's a non-starter as well. One thing I like to point out that many photographers kind of refuse to accept is that sometimes, there just isn't a shot (or there isn't the exact shot you want).
@@backcountrygallery - There just isn't a shot. A lesson I've learned the hard way.
@@martharetallick204 Agreed - I think that's been a hard lesson for all of us at one time or another.
crop ratio * crop ratio * Iso photo taken = iso photo crop roughly
I don't speak math, but that seems about right to me :)
Steve, I absolutely love your videos and your channel. I've learned a lot from you, over the years. That said, I wonder if you could have more clearly gotten your point across by talking about the need to ensure adequate exposure rather than the related outcome of adjusting ISO?
I'm guessing you kept f-stop constant and used shutter speed to control exposure and require the increasingly higher ISOs to maintain consistent image lightness. With each reduction in exposure, there was a corresponding reduction in signal-to-noise ratio which, as you so expertly demonstrated, robbed ever more detail from the images.
ISO, itself, does not add or subtract noise from an image. It is the corresponding change in exposure (light delivered to the sensor) that determines SNR.
Focusing on changes to ISO sets the table for a person to come away with the mistaken impression that just lowering ISO without compensating by adjusting shutter speed or f-stop to increase exposure will improve SNR. It won't and that will become evident when the photographer increases image lightness in post (effectively increasing ISO) and sees the lost fine detail in the shadows.
Thanks again for your channel and all the excellent educational content you produce.
Hi Bill - Thanks for the kind words :)
Yes that was the testing procedure - and yes, I was doing to that way to create a progressive deteriorating SnR. I had thought about explaining that it's the light level and not ISO that determines noise, but the mention of that would have required a lengthy explanation so I use ISO as sort of a rough guide. I go over the SnR completely in the book and it actually takes more than a few pages to explain it form scratch. In the end, I hope the viewer does realize that I'm talking about max ISO and not underexposing. As you mention, underexposing and then pulling it up in post has the same affect as using the higher ISO in-camera.
Hi again Bill -
OK, I got to thinking about it and while I do hope / think that most watching the video realize the implied exposure adjustment increase through shutter speed or F/stop, I decided to post an update and pin it to the top of the comments just in case. You made me paranoid LOL :)
Hi Steve, I think that's a nice clarifier and should hopefully address any questions a person might have. Thank you for adding it. And thanks, again, for the video. You have a real gift for getting at the core of an issue, and finding simple & effective ways to demonstrate how to adapt and get the most out of your camera. Plus you do great work. As much as I like your educational content, I also look forward to seeing the occasional vid in which you share photos from a recent shoot you enjoyed. All the best - B
That duck was tasty...
This is why higher megapixels are better--the noise is smaller relative to the size and detail of the image
Not sure this is completely true Johnny, but a complete comparison is complicated. Generally, noise can be thought of as Upstream (generated by pixel capture) and Downstream (generated by electronics used to process). The upstream noise in full frame cameras is dependent on the electronic processing of the pixels on the sensor. If we just add smaller pixels to the same size sensor, in most cases the difference in upstream noise is negligible. Downstream noise (amplification of acquired signal) has been generally greater in smaller pixel/higher density sensors although the amount in today's cameras many times is not as great as in older generation sensors. For a better discussion than I can provide check out the following reference. www.dpreview.com/articles/0388507676/sources-of-noise-part-two-electronic-noise. You are correct about the increased ability to crop an image within reason and maintain detail (dependent again on the camera/sensor/processing software (management of upstream noise)).
Steve, why Nikon over Canon?