yesterday i had a conversation with my get-pushed partner, Nancy (@nanderson), on the subject of ISO... Nancy is finding that she gets better/richer tones when using a higher ISO... i was curious as to whether i got the same effect with my camera... the part of the image on the left is ISO-800... on the right is ISO-100... what do you think?
@nanderson - not for my get pushed challenge (that may have to wait until i have a bit more time towards the end of the week), but thought i'd tag ya after our conversation on the subject of ISO... i'm not seeing the difference here, but i admit the subject may not be conducive to a decent test of your theory for my camera...
Wow....I will be curious to see your responses. :) I was immediately drawn to the shot on the left but in this case the tone may be richer and more mysterious on the right! Love the title and what you did!
Personally, I can't see a difference, given that the top on the right of the line is lit similarly to the left side lower down. I've never noticed it with any of my cameras, the T3/1100D, the 60D and the current 6D. I have tried with all of them taking the same scene on a tripod, and flicking through the ISO's, with no noticeable change when pixel peeping.
That's clever! On the right is more shade so it's not really a comparison! If your camera can handle high ISO, it is actually used by more professionals !
it looks like an elongated pacman! :-) sometimes, i notice the ISO difference with my nikon but i have yet to see how it is with my canon. but then again my eyes can't be trusted. i like this shot, makes me want to reach for a boiled egg from the fridge. now, i'm hungry.
Hmm, I would like to see it with same light source as the right side is quite different from the left side in terms of light. Great idea! Did you edit as well?
I agree with the above -- the light source makes it hard to make the comparison directly, but the idea behind the experiment and the resulting image is interesting.
I can definitely see a difference at the top of the egg. The rest is in shadow so it's not so easy to tell. The brown is just that little bit deeper, but more interestingly there is more detail in the texture of the shell. I've seen that before in my own shots, but assumed it was a known "thing".
Hmm. Thinking about it, it makes sense I suppose. You must have changed *something* to get both 100 and 800 shots - whether it be aperture, shutter speed, or lighting - so it may be that one or both are not "perfectly" exposed. By that I mean that they are not exposed to exaclty the same level as each other. It would be interesting if you could do the same eggsperiment with an external light meter, if you have one.
I happen to prefer the 800 shot, but I think it's a personal thing.
I can't see a difference but then the amount of light is different on each side, so I don't know that you can fairly compare.
Everything manual so that it's just ISO that's changed?
This is absolutely stunning. I wish I hadn't seen it before I did my egg photo today. I had already planned to photograph a raw egg, possible side lit, possibly on a black background. So I went ahead anyway, hope you don't mind. I really love the use of sugar …..
I think the detail on the egg shell is clearer with the ISO 100. Great egg-speriment.
I can't see a difference either, but, i think maybe the best way to compare the shots would be to either print it at maybe A3 size, or project it on to a large white wall. That could help you see the difference @northy
Sorry to be a pain but Ive somehow missed my notification of who I'm paired up with this week for the get pushed challenge and Ive tried doing a search but cant find it that way either.
@darylo@lynnb i adjusted both the ISO and the exposure in camera to get approx same amount of light in each shot... used same aperture in both... then edited both with exact same settings in lightroom...
@kaesebiscuit using a light meter would be a good exercise for me... i don't actually have a light meter right now, and i do have other equipment i really need to learn how to use properly already, so likely the light meter will have to wait ;p
Neat shot(s). I can't tell any difference between the two personally. I tend to go for as low an ISO as I can usually as I'm not keen on graininess in my own shots xx
Viewed it large. I see a band of lighter shade between the light and darker shades. There is definitely richer texture and color in the ISO 100 section.
Hi Northy, loved this egggsperamental shot so chose this one to ask you a question about lenses and cameras ( I hope you don't mind). I saw your name pop up in a discussion about upgrading a lens for a T2i, I have the same camera and as I'm going round and round in research circles I wonder if and what you upgraded with and your review of that lens. I have the kit lenses and the nifty fifty currently. I'm also looking at the mirror less systems due to size and weight if you care to share any information on your sony nex.
@sianipops hi Nia... I don't mind a bit... The short answer is I upgraded to the 17 to 55 f/2.8 - it is an AWESOME lens but a bit of a monster to lug around... However I have taken it out (brought it w me to shoot at night at an amusement park decked out for Halloween) and it wasn't too bad...
On the whole I have to say the lens performs really well... Fast and accurate and crisp... To the point where I think it spoils me ;)
I have the 1.8 nifty fifty and I do not love it... I never had the kit lens... Started out w the lens I got a zillion years ago w a 20d - 17 - 85... Which is lighter than the f2.8 17-55 and in general a really decent walk around lens... But not as fast as the 2.8 and I think not quite as crisp... That said, I still really like the 17 to. 85... When mine broke, I bought a second hand one as a replacement... It's pretty versatile, lighter than the 2,8, and still decent quality...
The sony nex is a whole burger story... Gotta run right now, but just quickly I will say I like it, just still struggling to learn the controls... Will post more later
@northy lol at the burger story! thanks so much for the great response, I did a different search about mirror less cameras and did see your comment about the sony nex - I'm trying to decide whether to buy an upgrade lens for my t2i or get a mirrorless, so let's of research going on.
Interesting comparison. I don't see enough difference here, but have experienced this on a few occasions myself and been stumped by it. Then promptly forgot… Thanks for bringing it up. Will have to test it out myself.
November 30th, 2013
Leave a Comment
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
I happen to prefer the 800 shot, but I think it's a personal thing.
Everything manual so that it's just ISO that's changed?
I think the detail on the egg shell is clearer with the ISO 100. Great egg-speriment.
Got to be a fav.
@kaesebiscuit using a light meter would be a good exercise for me... i don't actually have a light meter right now, and i do have other equipment i really need to learn how to use properly already, so likely the light meter will have to wait ;p
Not sure if I can tell though. The light is different on each side. Maybe above and below shots with different ISo?
On the whole I have to say the lens performs really well... Fast and accurate and crisp... To the point where I think it spoils me ;)
I have the 1.8 nifty fifty and I do not love it... I never had the kit lens... Started out w the lens I got a zillion years ago w a 20d - 17 - 85... Which is lighter than the f2.8 17-55 and in general a really decent walk around lens... But not as fast as the 2.8 and I think not quite as crisp... That said, I still really like the 17 to. 85... When mine broke, I bought a second hand one as a replacement... It's pretty versatile, lighter than the 2,8, and still decent quality...
The sony nex is a whole burger story... Gotta run right now, but just quickly I will say I like it, just still struggling to learn the controls... Will post more later