Exposure problem

[astroNikon]

I shoot 8 people at f/8

I think the rule is shoot people at dawn.

blindfolds and cigarettes for all

 

[astroNikon]

Here's the article I mentioned; 6 Phrases to Help you Learn Photography Faster

It includes some suggested ISO values for various lighting situations.

Yikes! Seriously bad article. Lots of incorrect information -- stay away.

Joe

Can't say I agree with that assessment. It's generic but I wouldn't say "bad information".

Care to point out your disagreements (and provide your corrections) instead of just saying "stay away"?

For a newbie that doesn't understand much, I didn't see anything totally wrong with the article. It gave good basic/beginner understanding of concepts and techniques without getting to in depth with technical stuff.

 

[soufiej]

For a newbie that doesn't understand much, I didn't see anything totally wrong with the article. It gave good basic/beginner understanding of concepts and techniques without getting to in depth with technical stuff.

Yep! Pretty much how I read it.

 

[Ysarex]

Here's the article I mentioned; 6 Phrases to Help you Learn Photography Faster

It includes some suggested ISO values for various lighting situations.

Yikes! Seriously bad article. Lots of incorrect information -- stay away.

Joe

Can't say I agree with that assessment. It's generic but I wouldn't say "bad information".

Care to point out your disagreements (and provide your corrections) instead of just saying "stay away"?

"Many people get confused by the purpose of ISO, and how to use it when controlling light."
ISO is not used to control light.

"Unlike the other two big settings (aperture and shutter speed) when used properly, ISO gives your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to the available light."
ISO does not give your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to available light.

"Do not hand hold and shoot below 1/60th of a second. You are a vibrating creature, you are always moving."
Looking at my hand right now -- do not see any vibrating -- maybe if I turn up the music -- nope, still not vibrating.

"The focal plane is determined by the spot where you tell your camera to focus. The higher the f-number, the larger the distance of that plane."


"The lower the f-number, the smaller the distance between the front and the back of the focal plane and less is in focus."
Focal planes are 2D not 3D.

And that's just a quick scan.

Joe

 

[soufiej]

"Many people get confused by the purpose of ISO, and how to use it when controlling light."
ISO is not used to control light.

It IS used when controlling light.



"Unlike the other two big settings (aperture and shutter speed) when used properly, ISO gives your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to the available light."
ISO does not give your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to available light.

Seems to be a matter of semantics. ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the "photograph" is recorded.

"Do not hand hold and shoot below 1/60th of a second. You are a vibrating creature, you are always moving."
Looking at my hand right now -- do not see any vibrating -- maybe if I turn up the music -- nope, still not vibrating.


Don't look at your hand. ("I'm looking at my hand and I'm not playing a guitar. Oh, God! I'm not a guitarist!")

Take a photo of your hand at 1/60 shutter speed and handheld. You may be able to pull this off but most student photographers can't.

"The focal plane is determined by the spot where you tell your camera to focus. The higher the f-number, the larger the distance of that plane."


OK, clumsy sentence structure.

"The lower the f-number, the smaller the distance between the front and the back of the focal plane and less is in focus."
Focal planes are 2D not 3D.


Again, clumsy but not incomprehensible. I'd mark the article down for clumsy language more than "bad information".

After all, the title of the article is
6 Phrases to Help you Learn Photography Faster

 

[Ysarex]

"Many people get confused by the purpose of ISO, and how to use it when controlling light."
ISO is not used to control light.

It IS used when controlling light.

No, it is not.

"Unlike the other two big settings (aperture and shutter speed) when used properly, ISO gives your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to the available light."
ISO does not give your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to available light.

Seems to be a matter of semantics. ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the "photograph" is recorded.

It's not a matter of semantics it's just wrong. ISO does not give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light.

"The focal plane is determined by the spot where you tell your camera to focus. The higher the f-number, the larger the distance of that plane."

OK, clumsy sentence structure.

Clumsy sentence structure is very kind. She's taken up the task of explaining to others how something works and has gone so far as to publish what she's written and it's incomprehensible nonsense that only an expert can understand since they know what she was probably trying to say: I'm going with burn it and fire her.

I'd mark the article down for clumsy language more than "bad information".

The ISO information is bad. Focal planes are not 3D.

After all, the title of the article is
6 Phrases to Help you Learn Photography Faster

All the more reason to be clear and accurate. We should be especially carefully when trying to help those trying to learn. They're more easily confused.

Joe

 

[Bebulamar]

When I was using film and increasing ISO is simply not possible. There are much more grain grain with ISO400 than 100. My decision was not to take the picture. Using tripod would cause too much disturbance and using flash destroy the mood unless I have enough light to recreate the lighting that was there but at brighter level.

 

[soufiej]

"Many people get confused by the purpose of ISO, and how to use it when controlling light."
ISO is not used to control light.

It IS used when controlling light.

No, it is not.

"Unlike the other two big settings (aperture and shutter speed) when used properly, ISO gives your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to the available light."
ISO does not give your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to available light.

Seems to be a matter of semantics. ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the "photograph" is recorded.

It's not a matter of semantics it's just wrong. ISO does not give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light.

"The focal plane is determined by the spot where you tell your camera to focus. The higher the f-number, the larger the distance of that plane."

OK, clumsy sentence structure.

Clumsy sentence structure is very kind. She's taken up the task of explaining to others how something works and has gone so far as to publish what she's written and it's incomprehensible nonsense that only an expert can understand since they know what she was probably trying to say: I'm going with burn it and fire her.

I'd mark the article down for clumsy language more than "bad information".

The ISO information is bad. Focal planes are not 3D.

After all, the title of the article is
6 Phrases to Help you Learn Photography Faster

All the more reason to be clear and accurate. We should be especially carefully when trying to help those trying to learn. They're more easily confused.

Joe

You're certainly welcome to your opinions. I hardly see the article as "dangerous".

I'd say, let anyone reading the information decide for themself.

 

[Ysarex]

"Many people get confused by the purpose of ISO, and how to use it when controlling light."
ISO is not used to control light.

It IS used when controlling light.

No, it is not.

"Unlike the other two big settings (aperture and shutter speed) when used properly, ISO gives your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to the available light."
ISO does not give your photograph the ability to be more sensitive to available light.

Seems to be a matter of semantics. ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the "photograph" is recorded.

It's not a matter of semantics it's just wrong. ISO does not give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light.

"The focal plane is determined by the spot where you tell your camera to focus. The higher the f-number, the larger the distance of that plane."

OK, clumsy sentence structure.

Clumsy sentence structure is very kind. She's taken up the task of explaining to others how something works and has gone so far as to publish what she's written and it's incomprehensible nonsense that only an expert can understand since they know what she was probably trying to say: I'm going with burn it and fire her.

I'd mark the article down for clumsy language more than "bad information".

The ISO information is bad. Focal planes are not 3D.

After all, the title of the article is
6 Phrases to Help you Learn Photography Faster

All the more reason to be clear and accurate. We should be especially carefully when trying to help those trying to learn. They're more easily confused.

Joe

You're certainly welcome to your opinions. I hardly see the article as "dangerous".

I'd say, let anyone reading the information decide for themself.

Show me where I said "dangerous."

The article contains incorrect information. In your defense of it you also presented incorrect information and that's very easy to prove as fact not opinion. And worth pointing out for the benefit of those wanting to learn.

Joe

 

[soufiej]

Joe, I'm betting you take the Bible and the Constitution literally word for word too.

IMO, you've taken this much further than necessary. You've made a lot of accusations and seem willing to make more.

Do what ever you think best, Joe. Like many here, I'm willing to learn.

Though, I'll warn you in advance, I'm not opposed to performing Hamlet in cowboy boots.

 

[Ysarex]

Joe, I'm betting you take the Bible and the Constitution literally word for word too.

IMO, you've taken this much further than necessary. You've made a lot of accusations and seem willing to make more.

Do what ever you think best, Joe. Like many here, I'm willing to learn.

Though, I'll warn you in advance, I'm not opposed to performing Hamlet in cowboy boots.

You sure seem to know a lot about me. And now to further attempt to deflect the fact that you're wrong you've managed to resort to the Bible, the Constitution and Shakespeare all in one post.

You said this: "ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the 'photograph' is recorded." You were trying to defend the article that implied the same. That's not how digital cameras work. That is factually wrong and easy to prove. That's all.

I understand that it's a common misconception (wonder how that happened). I think it's a mistake to perpetuate the misconception. It is not a case of literal versus sloppy language. The ISO adjustment on a digital camera has no effect on the light sensitivity of the sensor. And I think learners especially benefit from correct information.

Joe

 

[soufiej]

Joe, I'm betting you take the Bible and the Constitution literally word for word too.

IMO, you've taken this much further than necessary. You've made a lot of accusations and seem willing to make more.

Do what ever you think best, Joe. Like many here, I'm willing to learn.

Though, I'll warn you in advance, I'm not opposed to performing Hamlet in cowboy boots.

You sure seem to know a lot about me. And now to further attempt to deflect the fact that you're wrong you've managed to resort to the Bible, the Constitution and Shakespeare all in one post.

You said this: "ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the 'photograph' is recorded." You were trying to defend the article that implied the same. That's not how digital cameras work. That is factually wrong and easy to prove. That's all.

I understand that it's a common misconception (wonder how that happened). I think it's a mistake to perpetuate the misconception. It is not a case of literal versus sloppy language. The ISO adjustment on a digital camera has no effect on the light sensitivity of the sensor. And I think learners especially benefit from correct information.

Joe

OK, I get it.

You're a troll.

You write like a troll.

You rebut like a troll.

And you answer like a troll.

In short, you're a troll.

 

[Ysarex]

Joe, I'm betting you take the Bible and the Constitution literally word for word too.

IMO, you've taken this much further than necessary. You've made a lot of accusations and seem willing to make more.

Do what ever you think best, Joe. Like many here, I'm willing to learn.

Though, I'll warn you in advance, I'm not opposed to performing Hamlet in cowboy boots.

You sure seem to know a lot about me. And now to further attempt to deflect the fact that you're wrong you've managed to resort to the Bible, the Constitution and Shakespeare all in one post.

You said this: "ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the 'photograph' is recorded." You were trying to defend the article that implied the same. That's not how digital cameras work. That is factually wrong and easy to prove. That's all.

I understand that it's a common misconception (wonder how that happened). I think it's a mistake to perpetuate the misconception. It is not a case of literal versus sloppy language. The ISO adjustment on a digital camera has no effect on the light sensitivity of the sensor. And I think learners especially benefit from correct information.

Joe

OK, I get it.

You're a troll.

You write like a troll.

You rebut like a troll.

And you answer like a troll.

In short, you're a troll.

Well alright then!

First you tried the ploy of claiming facts are opinion along with a suggestion that I'm hysterically over-reacting. You tried to make it about me and not the facts.

When that didn't work you notched up the attempt to discredit me using the Bible and the Constitution and tossed in a little condescension for effect. You doubled down on making it about me and not the facts. (What I think is best is a clear presentation of accurate facts).

And now after failing twice you're back for a third attempt to try and discredit me by crying troll.

If I am a troll what's that say about you swallowing the hook?

And you're still wrong, adjusting ISO on a digital camera has no effect on the light sensitivity of the sensor.

Joe

 

[soufiej]

Joe, I'm betting you take the Bible and the Constitution literally word for word too.

IMO, you've taken this much further than necessary. You've made a lot of accusations and seem willing to make more.

Do what ever you think best, Joe. Like many here, I'm willing to learn.

Though, I'll warn you in advance, I'm not opposed to performing Hamlet in cowboy boots.

You sure seem to know a lot about me. And now to further attempt to deflect the fact that you're wrong you've managed to resort to the Bible, the Constitution and Shakespeare all in one post.

You said this: "ISO does give your camera's sensor the ability to be more sensitive to light and your sensor is where the 'photograph' is recorded." You were trying to defend the article that implied the same. That's not how digital cameras work. That is factually wrong and easy to prove. That's all.

I understand that it's a common misconception (wonder how that happened). I think it's a mistake to perpetuate the misconception. It is not a case of literal versus sloppy language. The ISO adjustment on a digital camera has no effect on the light sensitivity of the sensor. And I think learners especially benefit from correct information.

Joe

OK, I get it.

You're a troll.

You write like a troll.

You rebut like a troll.

And you answer like a troll.

In short, you're a troll.

Well alright then!

First you tried the ploy of claiming facts are opinion along with a suggestion that I'm hysterically over-reacting. You tried to make it about me and not the facts.

When that didn't work you notched up the attempt to discredit me using the Bible and the Constitution and tossed in a little condescension for effect. You doubled down on making it about me and not the facts. (What I think is best is a clear presentation of accurate facts).

And now after failing twice you're back for a third attempt to try and discredit me by crying troll.

If I am a troll what's that say about you swallowing the hook?

And you're still wrong, adjusting ISO on a digital camera has no effect on the light sensitivity of the sensor.

Joe

Joe, it's clear you are a "reactionary".

A reactionary with little sense of humor.

It is less clear you are well informed.

I didn't swallow your hook, Joe. I baited my own.

You, like all trolls will do, took it and now you cannot get away.

You wish others to think you have "won" when what you've managed is to dig yourself further and deeper into a hole where you must either produce your supposed superior knowledge or you need to shut up.

That, IMO, is the classic definition of what a troll does on a public forum including the personal insults you are throwing at me.

You don't explain, you simply proclaim.

You say you have superior knowledge but you do not provide such information.

That's exactly what a troll does.

"You're wrong and I'm right, nah nah nah."

I cannot get away from the fact that you are acting like any garden variety, adolescent, immature, time wasting internet troll.

And, therefore, if A = B and B = C and past experience is a predictor of future events, you are a troll.

And it's very likely you'll remain a troll.



You have been invited on several occasions to explain your objections by providing the superior knowledge you claim to possess.

You refuse to do so.

Even when doing so would clear up everything.

You prefer invectives and ad hominems.

That is classic troll behavior.

Therefore, Joe is a garden variety, adolescent, immature, time wasting internet troll.



Now, as I said, I'm willing to learn from anyone with knowledge I do not presently possess. It is, after all, why forums can be useful locations.

I am perfectly willing to blow off anyone who cannot provide anything more than invectives and ad hominems and who continues to act as a troll.




I think anyone researching ISO will find a statement which roughly translates into "adjusting ISO adjusts the light sensitivity of the camera/sensor."

As we see here, "Your camera's ISO setting controls how sensitive its sensor is to the light that reaches it"; What is ISO Speed? | Photography Mad

This is perfectly acceptable language which can be used when explaining ISO.

Do some research, Joe, it is the language you will see in all but the most technically descriptive explanations of ISO.


While that may not be a perfectly 100% accurate technical explanation of how ISO operates, it is widely accepted as a useful way to explain ISO.

Particularly when speaking or writing for a novice.

If adjusting ISO is related to light sensitivity, then it stands to reason it is used WHEN the photographer is "controlling" light.

You've, so far, done nothing to disprove those words. Now's your chance. Use it or remain a troll.



How the camera's systems work to change light sensitivity is a matter, as far as I can tell, of how any one camera operates.

Not at all unlike an audio amplifier where circuit "sensitivity" can be adjusted by changing values prior to, after the fact or within the circuit itself. Change the amplifier in some manner; add a pre amp, add a buffer, increase negative feedback, pursue a feed forward implementation, etc., and you'll change the manner in which gain and sensitivity are applied. In the end though, they and other circuit designs work and, how they work is typically beyond the scope of the average user. Walk up to any audiophile and ask if they know the input sensitivity of their power amp and be prepared for a blank stare. Ask if they know the output wattage and you'll likely get a half-assed answer since they don't know the input sensitivity nor the load values.

(That these digital gain stages have become increasing better at doing their job and have continued to be reduced in size and power requirements accounts for the superior performance of today's DSLR's at ever higher ISO values than were deemed acceptable, say, a decade ago.)

Therefore, it is common to abbreviate watts into how many on paper and nothing more and to do the same with ISO as a function of altering the light sensitivity of the camera/sensor.




Basically, as I understand ISO, the signal is being amplified when ISO values are raised. The circuit noise within (and as a result of ) the amplification stage(s) results in what we see as digital noise within the image.

Agreed?

Where the amplification occurs depends upon the sensor and processor arrangement. In some cases, the amplifier sits on or "within" the sensor itself while in other systems, the amplifier is prior to or following the sensor. The results are all slightly different but typically of little to no concern for the end user.

I cannot envision a potential camera purchase which begins with someone walking into a shop and saying anything similar to, "Show me all you cameras with the ISO gain stage located on the corner of the sensor." Or "with the gain stage applied prior to the anti-aliasing filter's output".

Now, I can see a situation where somone walks into a shop and asks for a camera with good image quality at higher ISO's.




In the end, however you care to discuss the matter, it is commonly accepted to say "adjusting ISO adjusts the camera's/sensor's sensitivity to light".

And, if we accept that terminology, it is used when the photographer wishes to further control light.

 

[Overread]

Ysarex and soufiej that's enough. Take it to private messages from now on or ignore each other and move on.