ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

[Vtec44]

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.

Why is that? Is ISO the primary determination of great photography?

 

[JonFZ300]

So, if what you're saying is true, (it's not) all the camera companies are involved in a conspiracy to make photographers believe that ISO settings change the sensitivity of the sensor and that it's part of the exposure triangle when it's really some kind of brightening effect that's added after the image is captured? Sorry, but even if that was true, (it's not) I just can't get worked up about it.

*in before the lock

 

[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.

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.

The truth of the matter is that you're not lining my wallet or paying my bills, and I can confidently assert that your work comes nowhere close to mine in terms of quality or artistry (which is made clear by your obsession with trivial technicalities and a pointless obsession with being right). If it didn't inconvenience them I would gladly give you the contacts of any of my past clients and invite you to attempt in convincing them as to how and why I'm ripping them off, but I'm certain they'd all simply rip you a new asshole instead and call you a fool.

You don't know what you're talking about Donny, and you've only proven such by insinuating that I rip my customers off by using a high ISO setting as your counter argument, and additionally by saying that it's "sad" when someone presents both a logical and opposing argument to yours, like you also said to Tirediron in response to his legitimate questions.

Maybe go outside and try taking a photograph rather than trying to lord your self imposed "superiority" over others on the internet like a narcissist. I would use your own words and say it's "sad" that you can't seem to see beyond your own narrow minded views about what attributes value and quality to photography, but it's not sad, it's just kind of pathetic.

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?"

Also just wanted to point out that there isn't a single photographer in the world who would say this to their clients. You arguments are absurdly weak and beyond ridiculous. By all means though, keep it up. This has been immensely funny.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

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.

Which is where the problem lies, you spend your time looking at diagrams and arguing over the numbers and your definition of what you think they mean.

Guess what? When people look at images they see faces and places they recognise, not the ISO setting. Like many you try to create a narrative based only on how a *camera* works, by a comparison of numbers that are not directly visible, and completely fail to realise that the value of an *image* is contained in how we as humans work, how it resonates with the viewer's experience and memory.

Believe what you want..

Which is almost what you are doing.

Seriously, stop watching YouTube and get out there and take some photos. Then instead of re-posting someone else's *controversial click bait* you may actually learn something, or even come up with your own opinion.

Which is where we came in... And where I leave...

 

[petrochemist]

[QUOTE="donny1963, post: 3942173, member: 211275
applied gain, applied after the image was taken,..[/QUOTE]

Applied within a few milliseconds of the shutter closing.
Until the data is de-mosaiced there is no photographic image. It's part of the process, similar to developing film which never happens while the image is taken, even instant cameras take longer to do this than digital.

 

[Designer]

Such opinions we have! This poor, tired thread has seen enough, IMO. Here we are, trying to dispute a hypothesis postulated (second hand) by someone who cannot articulate his position clearly, and has confounded his main point by pairing it with a secondary hypothesis totally unrelated to the first.

The OP is vilified for mis-stating (and mis-spelling) key parts of his statement. Instead of trying to understand what he has apparently failed to communicate, we simply brush him aside as someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Time to lock it up.

 

[TCampbell]

xkcd: Duty Calls

 

[vintagesnaps]

Hasn't been articulated clearly and not sure there is anything to understand, at least I gave up trying to make any sense of it.

I wondered if it would make it to 10 pages, I'm surprised it's almost there.

 

[Designer]

It's only one of many on the same topic.

 

[Original katomi]

Interesting. Like so many others who came from the olden days when ASA was used I have always thought digital iso was the same as film. As in higher the number the more sensitive to light.. Oh well even now I know different it does not really affect how I take pics... for lack of something better I will use the triangle and experience photography is a hobby for me and therefore to be fun. But thank you it will save me from making even more of a fool of myself

 

[Derrel]

Search on "ETTR" (from around 2005-2007,mostly, as I recollect) and then on "ISO invariant sensor" or "ISO invariance"...compare older dogma/accepted facts with the advent of Sony's fist generation EXMOR sensor technology...

 

[Overread]

Search on "ETTR" (from around 2005-2007,mostly, as I recollect) and then on "ISO invariant sensor" or "ISO invariance"...compare older dogma/accepted facts with the advent of Sony's fist generation EXMOR sensor technology...

Hey! It's not old Dogma for those of us still using non-ISO Invarient sensors

 

[DanOstergren]

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.

Why is that? Is ISO the primary determination of great photography?

Unfortunately many amateurs believe this to be the case. I wouldn't read too much into this guy's statements though. A quick look at his past threads makes it very clear that he just likes to post click-baity and inflammatory threads with statements meant to start arguments, and then argue with everyone.

 

[Vtec44]

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.

Why is that? Is ISO the primary determination of great photography?

Unfortunately many amateurs believe this to be the case. I wouldn't read too much into this guy's statements though. A quick look at his past threads makes it very clear that he just likes to post click-baity and inflammatory threads with statements meant to start arguments, and then argue with everyone.

Yeah I'm wondering if he's the guy in the video he's sharing. It's the same channel. Times are tough for Youtube revenue sharing so he needs the traffic I don't take anything from him seriously. Anyone can parrot specs and charts. Show me some great photos then we'll talk

 

[tirediron]

...Show me some great photos then we'll talk

Yep! A cousin of mine is a very accomplished [fine art] painter. I doubt if he could weave a canvas, but he makes a VERY good living applying oil to them... clients pay for results. They generally don't care how you get them.