Do you always shoot in ISO 100?

[sscarmack]

Heck, I was shooting at 12,800 yesterday hahahhaa

 

[manaheim]

Hey I do a lot of night photography and am often tempted to shoot ISO 100 however i blow out some of the bright city lights. I don't know where to find a happy medium. What do you all do in a situation like this? View attachment 85244

I do a ton of night photography and always use the lowest possible ISO I can (and a tripod). So usually ISO 100. I'm confused as to how lights would get blown out on a lower ISO vs a higher one.

Less burn in due to a shorter exposure.

But... you can get the same burn in at a faster rate with a higher ISO. And it's not like the highlights are going to burn in faster just because it takes longer to expose.

Unless I'm really missing something...

 

[Derrel]

I do a ton of night photography and always use the lowest possible ISO I can (and a tripod). So usually ISO 100. I'm confused as to how lights would get blown out on a lower ISO vs a higher one.

Exactly...at the lowest ISO, the dynamic range of virtually every digital camera is at its peak; with the new Nikons the lab results are in the 13.7 to 14 EV range at Base ISO; by the time the ISO is jacked up two stops, there's more or less a two EV drop in total dynamic range...so..."bridging the gap" between the highlights and the upper level tones in a night shot is easiest at the lowest ISO setting...

The other poster mentioned blowing out the lights in a night scene; that's not a factor of using low ISO, but it is a factor of exposing too long for the lights. The goal ought to be to get the lights exposed decently, and then to "lift the shadows" in software, post-capture. This process, of exposing to keep the highlights use-able, but then lifting the shadows, has become easier and easier as sensors have grown better AND as software has become better. Lightroom 4 was Adobe's master stroke at designing software that is so smart that it can basically, auto-analyze images, and create seamless, on-the-fly automatic masking, and allow the photographer to do incredible software adjustments-INSTANTLY--in a way that simply was not possible before Lightroom 4 was made.

Tonal Adjustments in the Age of Lightroom 4

 

[unpopular]

^^^ with all fairness, the x-trans is a really good high ISO sensor, You're not likely going to get these results from a traditional CMOS of similar format and price point. But Fuji cameras aren't necessarily everyone, either.

50% of the posted images were captured with a traditional CMOS sensor. I do not understand your point. I was reacting to a post by ILOVEHATEPHOTO.COM who had quoted me. I wanted to punctuate my response with examples of low light/high ISO images as well as address the OP with why a photographer should not be stuck with only one ISO. I had no intent of addressing ISO noise or the pros/cons of Fuji cameras.

I like your avatar.

Gary

My point was just that that Fuji sensor is an excellent low-light performer and that it's not for everyone. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

The 5D is also full-frame, which again isn't right for everyone (due to cost).

 

[unpopular]

BTW- even here the traditional CMOS examples are far inferior to the X-Pro, at least in terms of noise and sharpness.

 

[petrochemist]

One of my cameras doesn't actually go lower than ISO200.
Many of the others are usually set around ISO400, but as with all the controls the actual value used will depend on the situation.
If shooting static subjects in a fully controlled environment there is probably no need to vary from the cameras base ISO, but for real world photography it's terrible advice - are you sure he didn't want to rule you out as a future competitor?

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

I shoot at ISO 100-25600, depending upon light

 

[Vince.1551]

I wished I could


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

BTW- even here the traditional CMOS examples are far inferior to the X-Pro, at least in terms of noise and sharpness.

The X-Trans is a very good sensor but it isn't magical. But it does je ne se qua ... at least to my eye.

ISO 3200

Gary

 

[acparsons]

I've recently started using Auto ISO up to 400, sometimes auto is miscalculated with some lenses. It's pretty good because I am usually moving when shooting. On my camera, I lose Dynamic range at 100.

 

[EIngerson]

Overread, great advice.

OP, there is no "setting" that is set in stone with photography. settings are situationally dependent on light.

 

[JustJazzie]

Hmm, my Nikon is on auto Iso capped at 6400 most of the time. My Sony I try to keep at 1600 or less if I can. Most often between 4-800. Even when using a flash I think I keep it at 200-400 for faster recycle time.

 

[TheStunch]

when I tripod up, I use lowest iso I can, unless I'm photographing the stars or something, when I'm off tripod, I'll let the lighting dictate. On some cameras I know you can set your auto iso range, and if noise is a concern, sometimes I'll dial down the top end iso setting, to where the noise is more manageable, if I need the high iso sensitivity.

One of my cameras actually looks really nice at high iso with good glass on it, kind of a film-y quality to it, especially in b&w, so I'll let the auto iso run wild on that one, if the project would benefit from a film look.

 

[bc_steve]

Hmm, my Nikon is on auto Iso capped at 6400 most of the time. My Sony I try to keep at 1600 or less if I can. Most often between 4-800. Even when using a flash I think I keep it at 200-400 for faster recycle time.

I do the same thing. I have it set to auto-ISO with a maximum of 6400, but if I am shooting on a tripod I will set it to manual ISO and if I have enough light I will set it to 100.

 

[JustJazzie]

Hmm, my Nikon is on auto Iso capped at 6400 most of the time. My Sony I try to keep at 1600 or less if I can. Most often between 4-800. Even when using a flash I think I keep it at 200-400 for faster recycle time.

I do the same thing. I have it set to auto-ISO with a maximum of 6400, but if I am shooting on a tripod I will set it to manual ISO and if I have enough light I will set it to 100.

There are times I over ride it for sure.

Shamefully, I apparently lied in this thread. Looking at my exif data for my iced web picture I shot it at iso 100, 1/50. It was supposed to be on a tripod but I couldn't get it balanced on that part of the hill and I forgot to change my settings, no wonder it wasn't sharp. :-( so let me amend my statement to "if I'm shooting after my first cup of coffee, and I actually think about what the heck I'm doing, then I don't worry about staying at iso 100"