ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

[Overread]

exposure triangle is Aperture, Shutter and signal to noise ratio, that is it, NOT ISO. ISO setting is APPLIED AFTER the shot was taken..

So if signal to noise ratio is basically the same as the ISO you're actually saying that it is part of the exposure Triangle; just that ISO in digital cameras isn't functionally the same as ISO in film cameras - which no one has ever argued against. Of course they are different as one is digital and one is chemical based. ISO is simply a much easier terminology to use than "signal to noise ratio" and is easier to adapt too for the masses who came from a film background into digital photography.

Furthermore ISO is more than just cranking up the light because in most side by side tests you get noticeably better performance raising the in camera ISO than you do raising the brightness in editing after the shot is taken. If it were 100% purely a software thing then you can bet that even if Adobe didn't manage to crack it; Canon and Nikon would have bundled the ability to universally raise ISO in their own RAW processing software after the effect.



The only time its closer to what you're arguing is with the newer ISO Invariant sensors where after photo capture it is possible to raise the brightness/exposure value and not have the same image quality loss that you'd get from previous generation sensors. Though I've not seen/recall reading a comparison between in camera ISO raising and out of camera Exposure/brightness increase for ISO Invariant sensors to see if there's any real world difference there too.

 

[donny1963]

But you did disagree with me, I think you forgot what you typed?
or did some one else type it for you?

You said "You already know this can't be true otherwise external light meters wouldn't work."
and also said "ISO isn't just something totally made up."

Not looking to argue because i don't have to look for it it comes to me when i post something like this, when people on here think they
know more about this topic then most. LOL

it's so easy to get these people making replies trying to say others are wrong, it's so easy to get them to do that, even when they are
totally wrong..
I guess when one thinks something for years, and when some one comes up with the real truth they can't handle it, seems to be the case.

Donny










Sorry, but if you're just going to make BLANKET STATEMENTS about what you think I know, you have zero credibiltiy.

Fact is, I haven't even disagreed with you.

But apparently you simply want to argue. Towards that end, I'll let you win.

[/QUOTE]

 

[donny1963]

exposure triangle is Aperture, Shutter and signal to noise ratio, that is it, NOT ISO. ISO setting is APPLIED AFTER the shot was taken..

So if signal to noise ratio is basically the same as the ISO you're actually saying that it is part of the exposure Triangle; just that ISO in digital cameras isn't functionally the same as ISO in film cameras - which no one has ever argued against. Of course they are different as one is digital and one is chemical based. ISO is simply a much easier terminology to use than "signal to noise ratio" and is easier to adapt too for the masses who came from a film background into digital photography.

Furthermore ISO is more than just cranking up the light because in most side by side tests you get noticeably better performance raising the in camera ISO than you do raising the brightness in editing after the shot is taken. If it were 100% purely a software thing then you can bet that even if Adobe didn't manage to crack it; Canon and Nikon would have bundled the ability to universally raise ISO in their own RAW processing software after the effect.



The only time its closer to what you're arguing is with the newer ISO Invariant sensors where after photo capture it is possible to raise the brightness/exposure value and not have the same image quality loss that you'd get from previous generation sensors. Though I've not seen/recall reading a comparison between in camera ISO raising and out of camera Exposure/brightness increase for ISO Invariant sensors to see if there's any real world difference there too.

i didn't say signal to noise ratio AT THE TIME the shot is taken is the same as ISO, NO i did not say that..
Signal to noise ratio is at the time of the shot, signal to the sensor , get it? Analog Light signal to the sensor, to Noise Ratio meaning not enough light to the sensor or enought light or too much, That is what i'm talking about SNR... The signal to the sensor not to the Digital Gain..

Donny

 

[tirediron]

i didn't say signal to noise ratio AT THE TIME the shot is taken is the same as ISO, NO i did not say that..
Signal to noise ratio is at the time of the shot, signal to the sensor , get it? Analog Light signal to the sensor, to Noise Ratio meaning not enough light to the sensor or enought light or too much, That is what i'm talking about SNR... The signal to the sensor not to the Digital Gain..

Donny

I for one am the first to admit that I don't know the intricacies of the digital camera, and I'm always interested in learning, so when someone makes a statement which contradicts my understanding of a given topic or process, my ears perk up. That said, I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the statement above and the only conclusion I can arrive at, viewing it as objectively as I can, is that you don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal.

Can you pls provide your definition?

 

[Ysarex]

Almost entirely wrong.

You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.

Joe

i'm not wrong

You are.

i said this before the videos was made and now got 2 others who back up what i said,
if you think ISO is part of the Exposure triangle then you don't know much about digital photography and are confused with FILM photography.
this is a fact and for you to just say i'm wrong doesn't change them facts,
Want to prove me wrong show me some hard facts (Evidence) Prove me wrong, i would love to see the proof..

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

There's a digital camera and there it is: ISO. It's real.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN,

Partially correct. What ISO does in processing your image does occur a few nanoseconds after the shutter closes. What ISO does to the meter in your camera however occurs before the picture is taken.

all it is, is applied GAIN

That is wrong. the ISO standard does not specify how the image data is processed. Gain and/or amplification of the analog sensor signal is one method used but not the only method used. It is incorrect to just make the blanket statement that ISO is applied GAIN. In a Nikon D7000 for example all ISO values above 1000 are implemented without analog amplification. Here's proof: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

In cameras where there is analog gain applied the process tends to reduce noise not create more noise. You're confused about the process.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

You just said ISO "is applied GAIN." Now you just said it's not. Lightroom certainly can't apply gain to the data inside your camera now can it. You're going to have to make up your mind which incorrect statement is the one you want to be wrong about.

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..

I think it's fair to say that "well after" and a few nanoseconds aren't the same thing.

Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Absolutely you are wrong about that. And here's proof of that: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-004_EN.pdf The camera manufacturers do a very good job of following the standards and they note in the EXIF data with the images what standard they are applying.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

The Exposure Triangle - A Beginner's Guide
The Exposure Triangle in Nature Photography
Exposure Triangle - How ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture Affect Exposure
The Exposure Triangle Reloaded
The Exposure Triangle Explained - Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO | Click and Learn Photography
Exposure: The Exposure Triangle

You're confused. You're probably trying to parrot something you heard about ISO not being part of exposure which would be technically correct. But The Exposure Triangle exists and is used by many and ISO is certainly part of it.

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...

You've got to stop watching Ken Wheeler. He blathers on about nonsense just to create worthless clickbait to make a buck.

Joe

 

[donny1963]

Almost entirely wrong.

You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.

Joe

i'm not wrong

You are.

i said this before the videos was made and now got 2 others who back up what i said,
if you think ISO is part of the Exposure triangle then you don't know much about digital photography and are confused with FILM photography.
this is a fact and for you to just say i'm wrong doesn't change them facts,
Want to prove me wrong show me some hard facts (Evidence) Prove me wrong, i would love to see the proof..

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

View attachment 170665

There's a digital camera and there it is: ISO. It's real.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN,

Partially correct. What ISO does in processing your image does occur a few nanoseconds after the shutter closes. What ISO does to the meter in your camera however occurs before the picture is taken.

all it is, is applied GAIN

That is wrong. the ISO standard does not specify how the image data is processed. Gain and/or amplification of the analog sensor signal is one method used but not the only method used. It is incorrect to just make the blanket statement that ISO is applied GAIN. In a Nikon D7000 for example all ISO values above 1000 are implemented without analog amplification. Here's proof: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

In cameras where there is analog gain applied the process tends to reduce noise not create more noise. You're confused about the process.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

You just said ISO "is applied GAIN." Now you just said it's not. Lightroom certainly can't apply gain to the data inside your camera now can it. You're going to have to make up your mind which incorrect statement is the one you want to be wrong about.

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..

I think it's fair to say that "well after" and a few nanoseconds aren't the same thing.

Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Absolutely you are wrong about that. And here's proof of that: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-004_EN.pdf The camera manufacturers do a very good job of following the standards and they note in the EXIF data with the images what standard they are applying.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

The Exposure Triangle - A Beginner's Guide
The Exposure Triangle in Nature Photography
Exposure Triangle - How ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture Affect Exposure
The Exposure Triangle Reloaded
The Exposure Triangle Explained - Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO | Click and Learn Photography
Exposure: The Exposure Triangle

You're confused. You're probably trying to parrot something you heard about ISO not being part of exposure which would be technically correct. But The Exposure Triangle exists and is used by many and ISO is certainly part of it.

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...

You've got to stop watching Ken Wheeler. He blathers on about nonsense just to create worthless clickbait to make a buck.

Joe

LMAO i'm not wrong, yeah camera's have a setting called ISO but it's not what the real ISO is like in Film Camera..
And it's not what people think it is in digital camera, and IT"S NOT part of the exposure triangle at all.
If the ISO (applied gain) is applied after the shot is taken, then it's not part of the exposure triangle.

 

[donny1963]

i didn't say signal to noise ratio AT THE TIME the shot is taken is the same as ISO, NO i did not say that..
Signal to noise ratio is at the time of the shot, signal to the sensor , get it? Analog Light signal to the sensor, to Noise Ratio meaning not enough light to the sensor or enought light or too much, That is what i'm talking about SNR... The signal to the sensor not to the Digital Gain..

Donny

I for one am the first to admit that I don't know the intricacies of the digital camera, and I'm always interested in learning, so when someone makes a statement which contradicts my understanding of a given topic or process, my ears perk up. That said, I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the statement above and the only conclusion I can arrive at, viewing it as objectively as I can, is that you don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal.

Can you pls provide your definition?

Wait your saying ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography, and then telling me
"don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal. "

LMAO

i know exactly the differene between analogue and digital 100%.
what ever think what you want.
Sad to say you will go on thinking what you think ISO is, and probably try and teach people that incorrect information, SO SAD!!

Donny

 

[Strodav]

It's amazing that facts about how digital cameras work optically and electronically are denied. The Op is right. The sensitivity of the sensors in digital cameras do not change with ISO. What does change is the amplifier gain between the sensor and analog to digital converter. When the gain is increased (bigger ISO number) the noise increases with it. Increasing or decreasing exposure during PP either adds or subtracts a number from the pixels in the image file you have. Adding brightens pixels. Decreasing it darkens pixels.

Knowing or not knowing how a camera or PP actually work does not change how they do work. The ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed triangle does not change. Low light situations requiring images taken at higher ISO numbers will show more noise than images taken at lower ISO numbers. Don't worry about what's inside the case, just shoot and learn what adjustments give you the results you want. Yes, ISO and ASA are very different. ASA film number was "fixed" so you adjusted exposure for a whole roll of film. Note: you can adjust chemical processing times to make film act more or less sensitive than it was designed for. On dslrs, ISO is part of adjusting exposure at the time you take each individual shot. Don't let the technology get in the way of taking and making great images.

 

[Derrel]

By the way here is more info explained on this i'm not going to type it all.
This video explains what this is all about because you and the other 3 people replying to this don't know..

]

I started watching the video above, but quickly clicked on this one;

 

[Ysarex]

Almost entirely wrong.

You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.

Joe

i'm not wrong

You are.

i said this before the videos was made and now got 2 others who back up what i said,
if you think ISO is part of the Exposure triangle then you don't know much about digital photography and are confused with FILM photography.
this is a fact and for you to just say i'm wrong doesn't change them facts,
Want to prove me wrong show me some hard facts (Evidence) Prove me wrong, i would love to see the proof..

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

View attachment 170665

There's a digital camera and there it is: ISO. It's real.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN,

Partially correct. What ISO does in processing your image does occur a few nanoseconds after the shutter closes. What ISO does to the meter in your camera however occurs before the picture is taken.

all it is, is applied GAIN

That is wrong. the ISO standard does not specify how the image data is processed. Gain and/or amplification of the analog sensor signal is one method used but not the only method used. It is incorrect to just make the blanket statement that ISO is applied GAIN. In a Nikon D7000 for example all ISO values above 1000 are implemented without analog amplification. Here's proof: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

In cameras where there is analog gain applied the process tends to reduce noise not create more noise. You're confused about the process.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

You just said ISO "is applied GAIN." Now you just said it's not. Lightroom certainly can't apply gain to the data inside your camera now can it. You're going to have to make up your mind which incorrect statement is the one you want to be wrong about.

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..

I think it's fair to say that "well after" and a few nanoseconds aren't the same thing.

Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Absolutely you are wrong about that. And here's proof of that: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-004_EN.pdf The camera manufacturers do a very good job of following the standards and they note in the EXIF data with the images what standard they are applying.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

The Exposure Triangle - A Beginner's Guide
The Exposure Triangle in Nature Photography
Exposure Triangle - How ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture Affect Exposure
The Exposure Triangle Reloaded
The Exposure Triangle Explained - Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO | Click and Learn Photography
Exposure: The Exposure Triangle

You're confused. You're probably trying to parrot something you heard about ISO not being part of exposure which would be technically correct. But The Exposure Triangle exists and is used by many and ISO is certainly part of it.

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...

You've got to stop watching Ken Wheeler. He blathers on about nonsense just to create worthless clickbait to make a buck.

Joe

LMAO i'm not wrong, yeah camera's have a setting called ISO but it's not what the real ISO is like in Film Camera..

And now go back to your original post and show us where you said that. You didn't say that. In fact the word film doesn't occur in your original post at all. And now show us who says ISO in film is "the real ISO."

And it's not what people think it is in digital camera, and IT"S NOT part of the exposure triangle at all.
If the ISO (applied gain) is applied after the shot is taken, then it's not part of the exposure triangle.

According to Donny1963 ISO is NOT applied gain. And I quote: "Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is.."

Joe

 

[tirediron]

Wait your saying ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography, and then telling me "don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal. "

Sorry, where did I say that?

i know exactly the differene between analogue and digital 100%.
what ever think what you want.

Soooooooooo... why not support that statement by defining it for us? It's easy to say, "I know how something works" when you don't have to back up your statement....

Sad to say you will go on thinking what you think ISO is, and probably try and teach people that incorrect information, SO SAD!!

Well, to be fair, to me (and pretty much everyone who actually uses a digital camera) it matters not a whit HOW a camera actually deals with light from a technical perspective as long as we know how to utilize it from a practical one. When I do teach (something i do regularly) I will continue to explain it as being analogous to a film's ASA rating, in other words, the control which manages the cameras sensitivity to light. Big ISO numbers mean high sensitivity, low ISO numbers mean reduced sensitivity. Whether that is in fact the way it works from an engineer's point of view is immaterial. That IS how it works from the photographer's.

So... right, wrong, or in-between, your assertion has exactly zero relevance to 99.999999999999999999999% of photographers.

 

[donny1963]

Almost entirely wrong.

You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.

Joe

i'm not wrong

You are.

i said this before the videos was made and now got 2 others who back up what i said,
if you think ISO is part of the Exposure triangle then you don't know much about digital photography and are confused with FILM photography.
this is a fact and for you to just say i'm wrong doesn't change them facts,
Want to prove me wrong show me some hard facts (Evidence) Prove me wrong, i would love to see the proof..

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

View attachment 170665

There's a digital camera and there it is: ISO. It's real.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN,

Partially correct. What ISO does in processing your image does occur a few nanoseconds after the shutter closes. What ISO does to the meter in your camera however occurs before the picture is taken.

all it is, is applied GAIN

That is wrong. the ISO standard does not specify how the image data is processed. Gain and/or amplification of the analog sensor signal is one method used but not the only method used. It is incorrect to just make the blanket statement that ISO is applied GAIN. In a Nikon D7000 for example all ISO values above 1000 are implemented without analog amplification. Here's proof: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

In cameras where there is analog gain applied the process tends to reduce noise not create more noise. You're confused about the process.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

You just said ISO "is applied GAIN." Now you just said it's not. Lightroom certainly can't apply gain to the data inside your camera now can it. You're going to have to make up your mind which incorrect statement is the one you want to be wrong about.

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..

I think it's fair to say that "well after" and a few nanoseconds aren't the same thing.

Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Absolutely you are wrong about that. And here's proof of that: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-004_EN.pdf The camera manufacturers do a very good job of following the standards and they note in the EXIF data with the images what standard they are applying.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

The Exposure Triangle - A Beginner's Guide
The Exposure Triangle in Nature Photography
Exposure Triangle - How ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture Affect Exposure
The Exposure Triangle Reloaded
The Exposure Triangle Explained - Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO | Click and Learn Photography
Exposure: The Exposure Triangle

You're confused. You're probably trying to parrot something you heard about ISO not being part of exposure which would be technically correct. But The Exposure Triangle exists and is used by many and ISO is certainly part of it.

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...

You've got to stop watching Ken Wheeler. He blathers on about nonsense just to create worthless clickbait to make a buck.

Joe

LMAO i'm not wrong, yeah camera's have a setting called ISO but it's not what the real ISO is like in Film Camera..

And now go back to your original post and show us where you said that. You didn't say that. In fact the word film doesn't occur in your original post at all. And now show us who says ISO in film is "the real ISO."

And it's not what people think it is in digital camera, and IT"S NOT part of the exposure triangle at all.
If the ISO (applied gain) is applied after the shot is taken, then it's not part of the exposure triangle.

According to Donny1963 ISO is NOT applied gain. And I quote: "Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is.."

Joe

first of all ISO stands for, International Organization for Standardization, and it's not just for Camera's either.
it's just a standardization..
Before International Organization for Standardization existed, it was ASA, but then that changed.

i never said i didn't say the word digital Film, not sure why you are bringing that up..

 

[limr]

 

[Ysarex]

It's amazing that facts about how digital cameras work optically and electronically are denied. The Op is right.

The OP said a whole lot of stuff in his post and most of it is very wrong.

The sensitivity of the sensors in digital cameras do not change with ISO. What does change is the amplifier gain between the sensor and analog to digital converter.

Unless of course it doesn't change or if there is no amplifier at all between the sensor and the ADC. There's no amplifier in a Sigma DSLR. Amplifier gain is not a sufficiently accurate description of what's going on and it confuses the facts about how digital cameras work. Nothing in the ISO specification references implementation at the sensor/hardware level.

When the gain is increased (bigger ISO number) the noise increases with it.

What happens with bigger ISO numbers when no gain is increased? Doesn't increasing gain also decrease noise? It does.

Joe

Increasing or decreasing exposure during PP either adds or subtracts a number from the pixels in the image file you have. Adding brightens pixels. Decreasing it darkens pixels.

Knowing or not knowing how a camera or PP actually work does not change how they do work. The ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed triangle does not change. Low light situations requiring images taken at higher ISO numbers will show more noise than images taken at lower ISO numbers. Don't worry about what's inside the case, just shoot and learn what adjustments give you the results you want. Yes, ISO and ASA are very different. ASA film number was "fixed" so you adjusted exposure for a whole roll of film. Note: you can adjust chemical processing times to make film act more or less sensitive than it was designed for. On dslrs, ISO is part of adjusting exposure at the time you take each individual shot. Don't let the technology get in the way of taking and making great images.

 

[Ysarex]

OK, Sorry, it's late and I've been drinking.

Joe