Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible

[Derrel]

When I talk about a threshold like 800 ISO, what I mean is basically just that I wouldn't think twice about any numbers below that, whereas for numbers above that I will start considering stabilization options or switching to a faster lens or whatever. And may or may not take those options, but will consider them.

YES, that is exactly the way a seasoned shooter leverages his equipment. It's a BALANCE of many things, of potential options, of differing lenses, and differing shooting and post-processing strategies. That's a good way to look at things; that way of thinking of things is the exact opposite of the common, anal-retentive obsession about minute bits of noise, and the fetishistic worrying about going over base ISO that sooooo many people have.

 

[nzmacro]

When I talk about a threshold like 800 ISO, what I mean is basically just that I wouldn't think twice about any numbers below that, whereas for numbers above that I will start considering stabilization options or switching to a faster lens or whatever. And may or may not take those options, but will consider them.

YES, that is exactly the way a seasoned shooter leverages his equipment. It's a BALANCE of many things, of potential options, of differing lenses, and differing shooting and post-processing strategies. That's a good way to look at things; that way of thinking of things is the exact opposite of the common, anal-retentive obsession about minute bits of noise, and the fetishistic worrying about going over base ISO that sooooo many people have.

Minute bits of noise can become rather large if cropping is what is used often. The more we need to crop, the more noise shows up no matter what the exposure. So a lower ISO still has huge benefits. We are all different for sure and I would crop around 95% (probably more) of my shots. Low ISO makes a large difference.

All the best.

Danny.

 

[seanpatrick]

You are over thinking it. I turn the ISO dial and my picture gets lighter, therefore ISO affects exposure.

Don't confuse the op.

When you shoot with a film camera, do you say that changing to higher speed film is a change in exposure? Or do you change film and then change the exposure to match the different ISO...

Lets not confuse people with incorrect definitiions, such as saying anything that makes an image brigher is a change in exposure. Keep in mind that exposure with film was exactly the same as is exposure with digital.

So is it better to have more light or less light in the photo? In between?

 

[bribrius]

You are over thinking it. I turn the ISO dial and my picture gets lighter, therefore ISO affects exposure.

Don't confuse the op.

When you shoot with a film camera, do you say that changing to higher speed film is a change in exposure? Or do you change film and then change the exposure to match the different ISO...

Lets not confuse people with incorrect definitiions, such as saying anything that makes an image brigher is a change in exposure. Keep in mind that exposure with film was exactly the same as is exposure with digital.

So is it better to have more light or less light in the photo? In between?

perfect exposure would be the goal. However generally speaking, if I had a choice between under or over I would pick over with more light than under with less. it is easier to darken a photo without negative effects in post than try to brighten one up without getting visible noise.
two cents

 

[minicoop1985]

When you shoot with a film camera, do you say that changing to higher speed film is a change in exposure? Or do you change film and then change the exposure to match the different ISO...

Lets not confuse people with incorrect definitiions, such as saying anything that makes an image brigher is a change in exposure. Keep in mind that exposure with film was exactly the same as is exposure with digital.

So is it better to have more light or less light in the photo? In between?

perfect exposure would be the goal. However generally speaking, if I had a choice between under or over I would pick over with more light than under with less. it is easier to darken a photo without negative effects in post than try to brighten one up without getting visible noise.
two cents

While I prefer slight underexposure at times for some reason, Bribrius here is right. Overcook it and you can simmer it down a little. Undercook it and you'll end up burning it if you try to fix it.

 

[manaheim]

Are we still going on about this? 5 pages for a question where the answer is : "yes"? Or, if you like, "Yes, but don't panic if you have to up the ISO a little because if you have to choose between noise and getting the shot... get the shot."

Sure, a few more words, but the answer is still fundamentally yes. Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove on. Sheesh.

 

[robbins.photo]

Are we still going on about this? 5 pages for a question where the answer is : "yes"? Or, if you like, "Yes, but don't panic if you have to up the ISO a little because if you have to choose between noise and getting the shot... get the shot."

Sure, a few more words, but the answer is still fundamentally yes. Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove on. Sheesh.

Shhh... manny, I think you missed the subtle genius here. At the moment they're all to busy answering this to argue about what is and isn't art. Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[manaheim]

Oh. I'm sorry. I missed that.

Have we started debating what the professional approach would be?

 

[bribrius]

Oh. I'm sorry. I missed that.

Have we started debating what the professional approach would be?

nope. wanna start it?

 

[manaheim]

I think I just did.

 

[Braineack]

When I talk about a threshold like 800 ISO, what I mean is basically just that I wouldn't think twice about any numbers below that, whereas for numbers above that I will start considering stabilization options or switching to a faster lens or whatever. And may or may not take those options, but will consider them.

YES, that is exactly the way a seasoned shooter leverages his equipment. It's a BALANCE of many things, of potential options, of differing lenses, and differing shooting and post-processing strategies. That's a good way to look at things; that way of thinking of things is the exact opposite of the common, anal-retentive obsession about minute bits of noise, and the fetishistic worrying about going over base ISO that sooooo many people have.

buy a camera that ISO doesnt even matter

 

[bribrius]

When I talk about a threshold like 800 ISO, what I mean is basically just that I wouldn't think twice about any numbers below that, whereas for numbers above that I will start considering stabilization options or switching to a faster lens or whatever. And may or may not take those options, but will consider them.

YES, that is exactly the way a seasoned shooter leverages his equipment. It's a BALANCE of many things, of potential options, of differing lenses, and differing shooting and post-processing strategies. That's a good way to look at things; that way of thinking of things is the exact opposite of the common, anal-retentive obsession about minute bits of noise, and the fetishistic worrying about going over base ISO that sooooo many people have.

buy a camera that ISO doesnt even matter

I just kept mine on shutter mode and auto iso all day yesterday and ignored it.
Didn't bother me a bit.

 

[manaheim]

And what kind of lighting conditions were you working in?

 

[bribrius]

And what kind of lighting conditions were you working in?

4 afternoon cloudy sun peaking through behind me. The shots are on the panning thread.
had it that way pretty much all day though on and off. I think the max it hit was 1600 once (that I noticed) ill go through the photos and let you know for sure if you want..

 

[table1349]

I think I just did.

You have been duly reported to Terri for this one.