ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

[Designer]

Effectively, I suspect. Perhaps I should have said "the sensitivity of the sites (characterized by the ISO)" and the system that process the sites... But then again, if we take the sensor as really a single sensitivity (ISO), the original statement may still be correct. Any effective change in ISO would then be due to processing.

(emphasis added)

I think that was his point.

 

[Designer]

..do you understand enough so that you make appropriate usage choices?

That is why I'm trying to learn more about my camera, specifically its digital operations.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Comparing film to digital can only be done in the most general of terms and concepts.

Photographic terminology is derived from the 100 years plus of film photography, just as lens terminology is based on centuries lens development. The objective is to capture an image, (usually in the visible light region) and display it.

The how and why different chemicals produced different results on photographic films and papers amused, mystified and occupied serious amounts of time amongst photographers. Some delving deeply into the understanding of the chemical processes and other simply happy with the results.

So to, today's digital format. There is nothing wrong with wanting an understanding of the detection amplification, modification and storage of the digital latent image; however, most folks are simply happy with the results and learning how to achieve them.

The OP's point that ISO technique are different between film and digital is inherently understood. Just as when you step on the accelerator pedal, the vehicle goes faster, be it gas or electric. The fact that we call it a gas pedal or use the expression "step on the gas" does not depend on the type of motor.

There, now I have managed to add even more opinion to a rather mundane topic.

 

[DanOstergren]

Why is this even a discussion?


Seriously.

Because the OP wants to feel superior.

 

[DanOstergren]

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..

Actually, there is great need in shooting at high ISO settings, as it saves us from spending time doing unnecessary editing in front of a computer.

 

[DanOstergren]

Wow six pages of serious discussion over what is basically opinion. Next we can start on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin". That has only been debated since the middle-ages.

That fact is with film, if I increase the ISO (ASA to us old folks), the exposure increases. With digital, if I increase the ISO, the exposure increases. How it was done chemically with film and how it is done electronically with digital does not make any difference.

The end result, with film and digital, is the higher ISO more exposure. The methodology is a moot point.

This, 100% correct.

 

[donny1963]

NO IT's not increasing voltage to the sensor, has nothing to do with ISO,
ISO is applied after the Image is taken.. NOT at the time the shot is taken, so voltage to the sensor has noting to do with ISO settings..
ISO is Applied Gain AFTER, I repeat AFTER the image is Taken..
the shot is taken from the sensor, to the Analog Gain, then to the AD converter, then ISO is applied as you see in the diagram..

So your wrong, and looks like YOUR your understanding is not fully correct at all..

First of all you've limited yourself to a very narrow view, completely ignoring the difference between analog and digital gain. Then you post a schematic that shows an analog amplifier receiving the signal from the sensor, but some how ignored it's contribution. Third you've pushed that ISO is nothing but applied gain, yet in your comment above you say "then ISO is applied", so if it's nothing but gain why do you claim it's applied? Finally you appear unwilling to accept that in 6 pages of comments no one has supported your position. I tried to support how you were arriving at some of you claims, only to be told I was wrong for agreeing that some or your points were true. This is one of those self feeding beasts that will dye down, come back and continue to clog the forum for years to come. I for one wish the powers above would create and UNFOLLOW button for threads so you can stop them from continuing to show up on the Active T0pics list.

applied gain, applied after the image was taken,..

2nd of all i didn't write the schematic, Sony did, all i did was post it for others to see where the ISO is applied, which is after the image is taken SO that proves that ISO is not part of the exposure triangle, can't be, Exposure is taken in before and after the picture is taken using what light is available, then processed, then ISO applied..

the other point is, Also because Camera Manufactures lie about what ISO 100 or ISO 1600 is, using a light meter won't really help you much because some camera's produce a brighter picture at the same ISO then others, that video by Tony Northrup shows proof of that.

 

[donny1963]

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..

Actually, there is great need in shooting at high ISO settings, as it saves us from spending time doing unnecessary editing in front of a computer.

Yes easier on the photographer, how ever not so good for a customer, Such as a wedding shoot.
let see, what do you think any wedding couple who hires a photographer would say if the photographer said this

"Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.

How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,

You won't notice it very much if you just use your pictures for Posting JPEG on facebook, How ever if you want to make enlargements bigger then 8X10 you will notice it, Unless i use ISO 100 the lowest ISO, Which would you like me to use?"

Now you think the customer is going to say, oh use the higher ISO we don't care if our pictures are lower quality then they could be? Or you think GO with the higher quality LOW ISO shots?

After all some couples are paying very good money for them pictures, Some wedding packages are running anywhere from $2500.00 to $10,000.00
Now you think it's fair to use a higher ISO to make your job easier and give them a crappy wedding package??

that's like going to a bakery and the baker saying now would you like a good quality wedding cake? or a lesser quality cake for the same price, Keep in mind if you choose the lower quality cake, it will take me less time to bake it and make my job easier..
This is really stupid statement In terms of commercial photography.

 

[tirediron]

...2nd of all i didn't write the schematic, Sony did, all i did was post it for others to see where the ISO is applied...

Where you say the gain is applied. Reposting a partial block-diagram (it's not actually a schematic, BTW) and then making some random circles to support your case, doesn't actually support your case. Again, please explain how the analogue amplifier is not relevant to the equation.

...Camera Manufactures lie about what ISO 100 or ISO 1600 is...

But... you said ISO in digital camra's [sic] is not real; if it's not real, than the camera manufacturer can't lie about it...

"Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.

How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,

You won't notice it very much if you just use your pictures for Posting JPEG on facebook, How ever if you want to make enlargements bigger then 8X10 you will notice it, Unless i use ISO 100 the lowest ISO, Which would you like me to use?"

Now you think the customer is going to say, oh use the higher ISO we don't care if our pictures are lower quality then they could be? Or you think GO with the higher quality LOW ISO shots?

After all some couples are paying very good money for them pictures, Some wedding packages are running anywhere from $2500.00 to $10,000.00
Now you think it's fair to use a higher ISO to make your job easier and give them a crappy wedding package??

And, ladies and gentlemen, I think we now have definitive proof that the OP not only doesn't understand ISO or exposure, but knows nothing about photography in general. Of course there is NEVER a circumstance where you might be using the best quality, "fastest" glass available and still have to shoot at [a not real] ISO of 3200 or higher.... Those of us who have used those [not real] ISOs are only doing it to make our job easier.

 

[DanOstergren]

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..

Actually, there is great need in shooting at high ISO settings, as it saves us from spending time doing unnecessary editing in front of a computer.

Yes easier on the photographer, how ever not so good for a customer, Such as a wedding shoot.
let see, what do you think any wedding couple who hires a photographer would say if the photographer said this

"Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.

How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,

You won't notice it very much if you just use your pictures for Posting JPEG on facebook, How ever if you want to make enlargements bigger then 8X10 you will notice it, Unless i use ISO 100 the lowest ISO, Which would you like me to use?"

Now you think the customer is going to say, oh use the higher ISO we don't care if our pictures are lower quality then they could be? Or you think GO with the higher quality LOW ISO shots?

After all some couples are paying very good money for them pictures, Some wedding packages are running anywhere from $2500.00 to $10,000.00
Now you think it's fair to use a higher ISO to make your job easier and give them a crappy wedding package??

that's like going to a bakery and the baker saying now would you like a good quality wedding cake? or a lesser quality cake for the same price, Keep in mind if you choose the lower quality cake, it will take me less time to bake it and make my job easier..
This is really stupid statement In terms of commercial photography.

This is absolute horse ****. It makes zero difference to any customer what ISO you shoot at, unless you're shooting for a client who cares more about the technical things that don't matter rather than caring about the artistry of a photograph, at which point I would fire said client. Furthermore, more noise absolutely does not equal out to a poor quality photograph. Bad lighting, poor composition, lack of color harmony, a poor understanding of your subject and bad editing is what creates poor quality in a photograph.

BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k+ for a wedding, and guess what? Clients love their photos. Real world experience outmatches your strawman speculations any day, and real artistry and talent will always prevail over meaningless technical bull crap.

Next.

 

[DanOstergren]

And, ladies and gentlemen, I think we now have definitive proof that the OP not only doesn't understand ISO or exposure, but knows nothing about photography in general.

AGREEEEEED.

 

[limr]

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..

Actually, there is great need in shooting at high ISO settings, as it saves us from spending time doing unnecessary editing in front of a computer.

Yes easier on the photographer, how ever not so good for a customer, Such as a wedding shoot.
let see, what do you think any wedding couple who hires a photographer would say if the photographer said this

"Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.

How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,

You won't notice it very much if you just use your pictures for Posting JPEG on facebook, How ever if you want to make enlargements bigger then 8X10 you will notice it, Unless i use ISO 100 the lowest ISO, Which would you like me to use?"

Now you think the customer is going to say, oh use the higher ISO we don't care if our pictures are lower quality then they could be? Or you think GO with the higher quality LOW ISO shots?

After all some couples are paying very good money for them pictures, Some wedding packages are running anywhere from $2500.00 to $10,000.00
Now you think it's fair to use a higher ISO to make your job easier and give them a crappy wedding package??

that's like going to a bakery and the baker saying now would you like a good quality wedding cake? or a lesser quality cake for the same price, Keep in mind if you choose the lower quality cake, it will take me less time to bake it and make my job easier..
This is really stupid statement In terms of commercial photography.

This is absolute horse ****. It makes zero difference to any customer what ISO you shoot at, unless you're shooting for a client who cares more about the technical things that don't matter rather than caring about the artistry of a photograph, at which point I would fire said client. Furthermore, more noise absolutely does not equal out to a poor quality photograph. Bad lighting, poor composition, lack of color harmony, a poor understanding of your subject and bad editing is what creates poor quality in a photograph.

BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k+ for a wedding, and guess what? Clients love their photos. Real world experience outmatches your strawman speculations any day, and real artistry and talent will always prevail over meaningless technical bull crap.

Next.

Dan, for the win!

 

[donny1963]

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..

Actually, there is great need in shooting at high ISO settings, as it saves us from spending time doing unnecessary editing in front of a computer.

Yes easier on the photographer, how ever not so good for a customer, Such as a wedding shoot.
let see, what do you think any wedding couple who hires a photographer would say if the photographer said this

"Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.

How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,

You won't notice it very much if you just use your pictures for Posting JPEG on facebook, How ever if you want to make enlargements bigger then 8X10 you will notice it, Unless i use ISO 100 the lowest ISO, Which would you like me to use?"

Now you think the customer is going to say, oh use the higher ISO we don't care if our pictures are lower quality then they could be? Or you think GO with the higher quality LOW ISO shots?

After all some couples are paying very good money for them pictures, Some wedding packages are running anywhere from $2500.00 to $10,000.00
Now you think it's fair to use a higher ISO to make your job easier and give them a crappy wedding package??

that's like going to a bakery and the baker saying now would you like a good quality wedding cake? or a lesser quality cake for the same price, Keep in mind if you choose the lower quality cake, it will take me less time to bake it and make my job easier..
This is really stupid statement In terms of commercial photography.

This is absolute horse ****. It makes zero difference to any customer what ISO you shoot at, unless you're shooting for a client who cares more about the technical things that don't matter rather than caring about the artistry of a photograph, at which point I would fire said client. Furthermore, more noise absolutely does not equal out to a poor quality photograph. Bad lighting, poor composition, lack of color harmony, a poor understanding of your subject and bad editing is what creates poor quality in a photograph.

BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k+ for a wedding, and guess what? Clients love their photos. Real world experience outmatches your strawman speculations any day, and real artistry and talent will always prevail over meaningless technical bull crap.

Next.

Of course it makes a difference, using higher ISO gives degrades your images period, thus, your giving them less quality product..

you said "BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k"
then your ripping them off, I feel sad for them.

 

[donny1963]

But... you said ISO in digital camra's [sic] is not real; if it's not real, than the camera manufacturer can't lie about it...


Really, not real meaning the ISO setting is not what it says in some camera's meaning they like about what ISO you have set, for example if you set it at 3200 in some camera's it's really 1600 compared to some other camera's they do this to make it look like the camera produces better quality images at 3200 ISO then the other camera's at that setting.
I'm not going to argue with you the facts was placed there if you can't understand the diagram i posted then not my problem it's very simple.
Believe what you want..

 

[Derrel]

Is it drawing close to the time to lock this thread...or is that just my opinion?