Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible

[Gavjenks]

If carbon and chromium additives, or whatever, did the exact same thing to knife performance properties, when added in the same ratios, then no, professional chefs and butchers would not care whether they had carbon or chromium in their knives. I believe that is the case here. It is true that ISO is not technically exposure, but thinking about it that way gets you to the same exact decisions you would have made if you don't think about it that way. No matter how pro you are.


Unless you can provide some example scenarios where it wouldn't? I may be wrong, it would be pretty interesting to hear some.

 

[JerryLove]

Guy 1: using a more acute angle causes magical fields to cancel electron bonds in meat so that it slices more easily.

Guy 2: Though a more acute angle does make it easier to slice meat, that's not why. It has to do with (insert correct reason).

Guy 1: While you are technically correct....

I suppose "right effect, wrong reason" has some validity in discussion.

 

[manaheim]

In fact none of it is semantics. All of it is technically correct. All of it directly affects the image quality of capture data. And until a photographer does understand the significance of it (though not necessarily the technical details) their photography will be limited by that lack of understanding.

You're making it overly complicated. We don't need to know the physics behind why the knife cuts, to know that it does.

Ask any professional chef about knives. Ask any professional butcher about knives.. They won't agree with you about knives any more than I'm going to agree about what affects photography. You don't have to know about the physics, unless you want to be better at photography tomorrow than you are today!

Why do you feel it is necessary to denigrate what you don't care about or understand? Your lack of interest or understanding is not what does or not make something significant. I don't understand vast amounts of what Pablo Picasso thought was important about making art or images. I don't deride him or his knowledge.

You know, I'm getting a little tired of you stomping around TPF, and making allusions to people's supposed lack of understanding of whatever piece of information you happen to consider yourself an expert on.

I'm simply trying to tell you that the person asked a very simple question- along the lines of a basic operational level question- and you responded with a physics lecture.

It's the equivalent of a my seven year old child coming up to me and asking if babies come from storks, and for my response to be a three hour lecture on cellular mitosis.

I'm not arguing your facts. I'm arguing your approach.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Well, that was a fun read. I suppose if I had been drunk it'd been more entertaining. Sadly I have places to be in the morn and haven't had anything but half a beer and no buzz. Regardless, OP, ISO is the last thing I ratchet up... Not that it makes a difference for anyone else but myself it helps myself to think of ISO as a side of the exposure triangle even though I know how it works technically. I think Gav is right that regardless how you see it you're going to end up at the same result.

 

[MichaelRyanSD]

 

[fokker]

If shooting a scene on a tripod such as a low light landscape, the native iso of 100 or 200 depending on model is normally better for dynamic range than low expanded 50 or whatever values are in low expanded. So lowest iso settings possible are not always the best choice

Well yeah you're quite right there, though I guess most people take 'lowest ISO' to mean the lowest native ISO. I know on my 5d2 shooting at ISO50 produces about the same amount of noise as shooting at ISO3200 - pretty unbelievable but true!

 

[minicoop1985]

If shooting a scene on a tripod such as a low light landscape, the native iso of 100 or 200 depending on model is normally better for dynamic range than low expanded 50 or whatever values are in low expanded. So lowest iso settings possible are not always the best choice

Well yeah you're quite right there, though I guess most people take 'lowest ISO' to mean the lowest native ISO. I know on my 5d2 shooting at ISO50 produces about the same amount of noise as shooting at ISO3200 - pretty unbelievable but true!

You suck! My 7D does a pretty fair amount of noise at 1600. But that's full frame vs crop sensor for ya...


This has been quite entertaining. Sheesh.

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh drat. Don't tell me I missed manny's three hour lecture on cellular mitosis. I was really looking forward to it too.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[ratssass]

I sure miss HelenB

 

[robbins.photo]

I sure miss HelenB

Well I went to my local butcher today and was completely stunned to discover he didn't know squat about metallurgy.

He seemed to be of the opinion that it didn't matter at all that he couldn't describe the exact alloy used in constructing his knives.

The guy just looked at me and shrugged and said I sell steak, not knives.

The temerity of some people - sheesh. Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[glun]

I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?

I'd say i generally tried to go as low ISO as possible. Increasing ISO will be my last option if there is absolutely no other choice since it creates noise.

 

[bribrius]

I usually keep it above a hundred. im not a genius on camera (no duh) but just kind of figured the sensor, like most things designed performs better in a certain range. so I usually don't go to the lowest iso settings. I don't really try to avoid it. I just don't go that low. I could be wrong. shot in the dark (not literally that would take a higher iso) im pretty happy in the 150-250 range. well, depending on which camera. Lowest I usually go is a hundred. I used to go for the LOWEST iso. Then after looking at enough photos between 80 iso and 300 iso I grew up. Another reality, going for the lowest iso messes with your depth of field. Also it limits your shutter speed. I would rather crank up the shutter and not go for the lowest iso possible than deal with a slower than molasses shutter speed. Most of the time this wont matter anyway. you will find yourself 400, 600, 800 or higher iso. without much choice.
Another weird though, I have liked noise in certain photos before, so I crank up the iso for them....

 

[nzmacro]

Gees, some people in forums get so side tracked and carried away

The question being .... Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible.

For me personally, yes it is.

For BIF's I shoot at ISO 200-400, on a perched bird I shoot at ISO 100-200, exactly the same as motor sports, fast action and stationary. The lenses are all used wide open only and the shutter speed is as fast as possible, but the ISO is as low as I can get. Others will have different subjects and needs, so we are all different, but I prefer a very low ISO for the subjects I take.

Danny.

 

[AceCo55]

This is, after all, a discussion forum. If you are not interested in the discussion why not just hike along until you find a discussion you are interested in. There is nothing to be gained from posting flame bait...

Seriously ... BEGINNERS FORUM. What a great way to sidetrack and highjack a thread looking for a simple confirmation.
It is not appropriate for you to do what you have done here. Future beginners will come across this thread and get totally lost and confused.
You may well be technically right but you haven't helped the OP.
If you can't respond at an appropriate level maybe you would be better off in the "BEYOND the BASICS" ... or another forum that would be happy to listen to your dissertations.
But what you did here was just wrong.

 

[WayneF]

This is, after all, a discussion forum. If you are not interested in the discussion why not just hike along until you find a discussion you are interested in. There is nothing to be gained from posting flame bait...

Seriously ... BEGINNERS FORUM. What a great way to sidetrack and highjack a thread looking for a simple confirmation.
It is not appropriate for you to do what you have done here. Future beginners will come across this thread and get totally lost and confused.
You may well be technically right but you haven't helped the OP.
If you can't respond at an appropriate level maybe you would be better off in the "BEYOND the BASICS" ... or another forum that would be happy to listen to your dissertations.
But what you did here was just wrong.

We do need an out of the way forum for crackpots. I suppose it ought to be funny, but who has the patience for nonsense, just for the sake of noise?