ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

[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

first of all ISO stands for, International Organization for Standardization,

Wow! Really, you mean these guys: ISO - International Organization for Standardization

They maintain all kinds of standards for the whole world -- awesome! Now you should probably sit down for this one because you'll never guess what they did. When digital cameras were invented -- you're not going to believe this really -- but when digital cameras were invented -- wait for it -- they revised the standard for digital cameras. OMG!!!!!! and they did it back in 1998!!!!

They made ISO real for digital cameras. Amazing! ISO standards undergo regular evaluation and revision and so until very recently we've referred to the 2006 revision: ISO 12232:2006

But guess what? Better sit back down cause it's time for the new standard revision to be released and here's ISO for digital cameras 2019: ISO 12232:2019

And you know what -- it's very real.

Joe

P.S. Have you contacted them yet with the news that you've declared them not real? How'd they take it?

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..

 

[Vtec44]

What's real ISO and what's fake ISO?

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

i don't care if your tired of it, in fact it pisses you off because you can't admit your wrong.
Oh well..
If you think ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography then you don't know how digital photography works.. SIMPLE AS THAT!!!

this is a fact, ISO is applied after the picture is taken, and i have proof just as tony does he shows 2 pictures to prove it..
i went out and shot some images and saw the same exact results.

So to paraphrase: You've mis-understood ISO for so long now because you watch these videos, that when you finally realise that ISO does not conform to how you think it should work and how it should be *defined/labelled* the explanation *MUST* be that it's all a big conspiracy against you and that everybody has been lying...

The insurmountable and overwhelming evidence clearly points to you being correct, that the rest of the world has misled you into a false belief. What other possible answer can their be?

Your argument is as pointless as it is unreal. It looks like a mix of the *straw man* and psychological projection. You project your own thoughts onto others by accusing them of what you got wrong then destroy that *straw man* with other theories gleaned from the internet. Videos, by the way, that require you don't think for yourself, TAP especially. All he does is give you a list of words/labels and allows you to construct a logic based on how you link the definitions of those words. His intent is to satisfy your desire to prove yourself correct and therefore be an expert with no effort other than applying your/his definition of words. But of course for you to be the expert everybody else must be wrong, and so to prove yourself correct you must first construct a belief where everybody else is wrong...

Pointless garbage.

P.s. ISO on a camera is simply a calibration of the middle grey tone to an RGB co-ordinate.

 

[greybeard]

It is true that ISO has to do with the amount of gain added by the camera to an image. And, you might then assume that by shooting everything at the lowest possible ISO and adding gain in PP will give you the same results as boosting ISO on the camera. In my experience, my camera does a better job of boosting gain than I can do with Lightroom etc. That is because the my camera is smarter than I am at this task.

 

[Soocom1]

Why is this even a discussion?


Seriously.

 

[smoke665]

, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting

I've tried to resist commenting but as others have already pointed out your understanding is not fully correct. Your statement above implies that all ISO adjustments are gain obtained by increasing voltage to the sensor to increase signal sensitivity (that's the definition of gain). The fact is that's only partially correct dependent on camera manufacturer.

There's actually three methods of adjusting ISO: native, amplified, and simulated. "Native" ISO is the ISO setting that does not require the camera to increase the voltage to the sensor to increase ISO. My K1MII has "native" ISO 100-819200. In years past "native" referred to the base ISO that the camera processor was able to handle without increasing voltage to the sensor or gain as you call it, but as processors and sensors have advanced the need to apply gain has decreased. Amplified ISO is an ISO that requires an increase in voltage to the sensor to achieve an increase in ISO. This is where you are correct in your OP statement, but this is also old technology. There might still be some manufacturers out there that do this but I'm not aware of them. Finally, Simulated ISO is when the camera uses a software algorithm to simulate even higher (or lower) ISOs. My understanding is it's applied after the shutter clicks, so if my understanding is correct then that would be another thing you were partially correct on.("it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN"). The Nikon D850 for example has "native" ISO 64-25600, and software enhanced from 32-102400.

So what appears to be happening are mixed assumption partially correct and partially false. I suspect the videos you've been basing your assumptions on were either old, or the individual making them was basing their claims on older technology, and as shown above, blanket statements on ISO are not correct in today's world.

 

[limr]

Why is this even a discussion?


Seriously.

This.

 

[JonFZ300]

It's a decent troll. 4 pages is not bad. All you have to do is read the thread title to see that this is not about a discussion of ISO. "Camra's"?????????? LOL

 

[Designer]

Why is this even a discussion?

The OP thought it was important.

 

[Derrel]

I think there is at least SOME truth in the first video Donny1963 offered in his OP, which would be the Tony Northrup video on Northrup's "take" on the wholeASA/ISO/manufacturers mis-representing sensor performance for selfish purposes/inaccurate labeling of sensor performance as it relates to "true" ISO level,etc.. I have noted for quite some time the DxO Mark sensor tests have, for years now, shown use both "nominal" and "actual" ISO sensitivity levels...

Anyway..the idea of "how ISO is defined" is relatively unimportant to me these days..we have come a LONG way in the digital realm since I entered around 1998-1999... ISO performance, noise, color, dynamic range, software options, and ISO invariance have ALL , to one extent or another,made older ideas that were once considered "truths" or Best Operating Practices, much less of either.

 

[donny1963]

It's a decent troll. 4 pages is not bad. All you have to do is read the thread title to see that this is not about a discussion of ISO. "Camra's"?????????? LOL

it started out as a discussion of ISO that is how i posted it, not my fault people Deviated it..

 

[BillM]

It reads more like a manifesto than a discussion

 

[donny1963]

I think there is at least SOME truth in the first video Donny1963 offered in his OP, which would be the Tony Northrup video on Northrup's "take" on the wholeASA/ISO/manufacturers mis-representing sensor performance for selfish purposes/inaccurate labeling of sensor performance as it relates to "true" ISO level,etc.. I have noted for quite some time the DxO Mark sensor tests have, for years now, shown use both "nominal" and "actual" ISO sensitivity levels...

Anyway..the idea of "how ISO is defined" is relatively unimportant to me these days..we have come a LONG way in the digital realm since I entered around 1998-1999... ISO performance, noise, color, dynamic range, software options, and ISO invariance have ALL , to one extent or another,made older ideas that were once considered "truths" or Best Operating Practices, much less of either.

that was one of the things i stated if you have a full frame camera lets say Sony, and i got a Nikon Full frame, your ISO 100 is most likely not going to produce the same exposure as the my Nikon in fact your 1600 ISO Is probably going to produce the same exposure as the Nikon would at ISO 800.
because your ISO 1600 is probably really ISO 800, In fact i'm sure my Nikon D850 set at ISO 64 is really ISO 36 or something close to that, reason i say this is because i compared my D850 to my D810 and the D810 with same lens and same settings produces a more exposed picture then the D850 like 2 stops or even more..

so i do believe what Tony Says about Camera manufactures lying about what their ISO 100 or ISO 3200 really is to make their camera look like they take better pictures at higher ISO settings, hey it would not be the first time Camera Manufactures lie about their products they do it all the time..

there is really no need to shoot at way high ISO settings really because even if the picture is under exposed some you can boost it up in post, which will grant you the same results as if you cranked up your ISO setting..

Some Post software does it better then others so you have to choose which one works best for you.

LightRoom works ok, but i found that capture ONE is way better in that , does a better job and does it more cleaner and it's way faster then lightroom,"
In fact i have notice that Capture One does the color rendering way better then lightroom, even before you start messing with adjusting anything you can see when you load it up the quality is better right off the bad, and it does a much better job if you Shoot jpeg and use Color profiles, it actually can read them correctly as your camera does when checking them out in the preview screen, unlike light room many times it's off and not what The nikon Profile intended, but Capture one nails it pretty well..

Plus Capture One is faster in processing your images then Lightroom because it doesn't use Camera raw software to process your images it uses it's own Engine which is so much faster at doing it..


Also another point i stated once before, is that Most Camera lenses go by F-stops like 24-70 F2.8 but it's really at F3.5 if you measure it,
which is a lie about the Aperture in my opinion, i do cinematography (music Videos) with a RED dragon 6k video, and all the lenses is measured by T-stops which is 100% accurate to light metering unlike most DSLR camera's lenses do, reason for this is cinematographers need to know the true metering and so they label all their lenses at T-stops so if you use multiple camera's you know that if you set your Aperture to 4.5 you know all of them camera's are going to be at true 4.5 not one lens producing F 4.0 and the other F 4.8 or something crazy.
This is a true statement.. most people say that is a lie but it's not..
Donny

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I think there is at least SOME truth in the first video Donny1963 offered in his OP, which would be the Tony Northrup video on Northrup's "take" on the wholeASA/ISO/manufacturers mis-representing sensor performance for selfish purposes/inaccurate labeling of sensor performance as it relates to "true" ISO level,etc.. I have noted for quite some time the DxO Mark sensor tests have, for years now, shown use both "nominal" and "actual" ISO sensitivity levels...

I think the truth is closer to some photographers love of reducing photography to mathematical formula that they wanted ISO to be an *absolute* by which they could draw an absolute logic and invent *exposure triangles* and equivalence arguments... ASA on the box was never an accurate representation of film speed, the ISO dial on the camera does not represent the actual ISO rating of the sensor. As far as I can tell it is just a jpeg calibration exercise based around a mid-grey tone so you could use different exposures, or exposure meters, and still predict the value of say *skin tones* in the finished image.

Sensor performance is what I see by comparing images, not theoretical numbers, or the ISO setting on the dial. I've never agreed with that logic and I'm slightly amused to see it's such a disappointment to many that some of the base assumptions they made in their theory have turned out to be not quite as absolute as they wished them to be. An attempt to reduce image IQ to a maths problem rather than a simple visual comparison...

In fact, so correct is the theory that describes ISO and how cameras work that when it turns out that it doesn't quite describe how cameras work then it's the manufacturers that have made the mistake by building the cameras wrong...

As you say, actual number stamped on the dial is un-important, the visual performance in the finished image is the main thing.

 

[Derrel]

I am pretty happy with the image quality/shooting envelop of my current Nikon pair, a D610 and a D800. Both perform well at all ISO values that I care to select.

Ever since Sony-made sensors in Pentax,Nikon,and Sony cameras (and in othe branded cameras) became common,and ISO invariance entered the lexicon, some of the ways we used to use ISO as an image quality control were changed profoundly.