Im new here, seeking some advice.

[Ysarex]

Ah, good point about those who correlate noise to ISO. I agree with what you're saying.

Personally, I loosely associate the ISO speed rating to sensitivity. In a digital sensor, there's actually only one level of sensitivity and everything else is amplification (or attenuation). That's why the association is loose. And that applies when I'm using my DSLR's. But I can't find any circuitry embedded in my 4x5 sheet film. And yet it has an ISO rating. And film is reasonably described as having a certain sensitivity to light.

I find (and especially for those starting out) that recognizing the sensitivity to light as one of the balancing factors is helpful (and entirely adequate) in determining proper exposure.

Photography is somewhat unique in its ability to captivate both left-brained and right-brained folks. As soon as we go much further than describing ISO as a sensitivity value, half the audience is disinterested.

I think a lot of the confusion fog out there has resulted from our original attempts to equate ISO in film with ISO in digital. The analogy is weak in too many ways, and when we say to a beginner, "...you remember film right? digital ISO is just like film only you can change it as needed," we start a cascade of misunderstanding and before you know it high ISO on a digital camera becomes the cause of digital noise. Noise in a digital photo is primarily a function of exposure.

Absolutely we need to deal with the light sensitivity of the medium both film and digital. Can't we do that without confusing folks? Hell, you can go straight to Nikon's website and find them telling beginners that changing ISO on a digital camera changes light sensitivity. We're pretty deep in the hole we've dug.

Joe

 

[dasmith232]

^^^^ And these are the same people telling us that a smaller sensor increases focal length, right?

 

[smoke665]

any constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

Welcome, you'll find a lot of constructive critique on here. Don't get discouraged because some might be brutal, this isn't a pat you on the back type of place. For those who listen, you'll learn a lot. I liken photography to playing golf, the more practice you get, the better you play the game. You might not become one of the greats, but at least you can play well enough to enjoy it (without embarrassing yourself).

n a digital sensor, there's actually only one level of sensitivity and everything else is amplification (or attenuation). That's why the association is loose. And that applies when I'm using my DSLR's. But I can't find any circuitry embedded in my 4x5 sheet film. And yet it has an ISO rating. And film is reasonably described as having a certain sensitivity to light.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on your analogy. Yes a film has a stated ISO rating, but the sensitivity of that film can be effectively pulled or pushed in processing.

 

[dasmith232]

Yes, film can be pulled or pushed. I've done that myself. But it doesn't change the fact that film *has* a particular sensitivity. And 125 film is less sensitive than 400. Pulling or pushing doesn't change that. What I stated was that film has a certain sensitivity to light. I'm not sure if I understand how this point (pull/push) invalidates that statement.

 

[Derrel]

I guess the my main question for now would be, how can the advanced guys see such subtle differences from one picture to the other? is that a skill that develops with time?

...shifting back to the OP's main question...Yes, over time one can learn to see a lot of different things in photographs; color palettes, color hues, color problems, white balance issues, focus issues, camera movement problems from bad shutter release technique or poor camera support, subject motion blurring, poor composition, bad framing, and on and on.

Learning about photography is a process, and people approach that process in different ways. But there's also a NEW field: digital imaging, and digital imaging is not quite, exactly the same thing as photography. And I mean that seriously; photography is an older field of endeavor. Digital imaging is newer. Different. And yet, in many respects, similar or the same as classic photography.

As KmH mentioned, being able to literally see, and identify and use light and lighting...very important. More important than seeing the subject for itself is being able to see the subject as it is lighted. I want to offer you a quick example of the same subject, lighted differently, and yet lighted identically. One shot is back-lighted, the other is front-lighted. The FINAL effect was determined not so much by the lighting, as by my utilization of the sunshine that was present at the scene. The photographer's literal approach to the light is a huge issue.

The difference here is moving about 50 feet, and turning to my left. Same roadway, same repair tarring, photographed within literally, one minute apart from one shot to the next. Same light present, but utilized differently. Moving the camera can be a big deal. Where the camera is aimed makes a difference many times. This is perhaps one of the most boring subjects imaginable, but it makes a point: how you approach the light, and how you "use" the light, is a large factor in how your photos turn out.

 

[smoke665]

I'm not sure if I understand how this point (pull/push) invalidates that statement.

Trying not to get off post of the OP, but your first statement seemed to imply that film sensitivity and the sensitivity of a CMOS sensor were somehow completely different in that film sensitivity or ISO was locked in stone. In reality they are both sensitive to a range. If you'll recall there have been numerous changes to the way film sensitivity has been measured and stated over the years, after the change to ISO in the early 70's some film "sensitivity ratings" actually changed without a corresponding change in emulsions. The point here is that ISO ratings, are a dinosaur that people use as a comparison in digital. Truth be told, we would be better off with a measurement scale that more accurately reflected the sensitivity of a modern sensor.

Going back on point Kmh and Derrel both have provided your good answers to your question. The ability to recognize the aspects of a good image, comes with practice.