ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

It's fair to draw a line and say how some tool is implemented isn't important to you -- moot point. But if you're going to be using whatever that tool is that you don't care how it works (a camera in this case) do you understand enough so that you make appropriate usage choices? Or do you also not care about the outcomes you produce with that tool? Given this thread's topic, digital camera ISO, do you know what happens photographically when you adjust that setting?

I have a neighbor kid who's always looking for a couple extra bucks and comes around wanting to help in the garden for some cash. The other day he was here pestering me and I had some dead viburnum that had be be cut out so I gave him a hand saw and told him to cut as low to the ground as possible. Then I said I was going to do something else in the garage and would be back to check on him in a few minutes. When I got back he was bending over the viburnum trunks and using the saw to chop at them like it was a hatchet (bent some saw teeth, grrrrrr).



Reminded me of how some people I meet use their cameras.

Joe

 

Back a page or so there's a lengthly post by TimC that contains considerable detail. One point he makes:

And he is completely correct.

Joe

 

Thinking about how to make a sensor "variable" might include some kind of moveable/changeable shade of some sort positioned on/in front of the sensor such that when the ISO setting was changed, the shade would change accordingly.

Seems rather complicated.

Not only do I think it will never happen, but I see no need for it, either.

 

(emphasis added)

I think that was his point.

 

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

 

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.

 

Because the OP wants to feel superior.

 

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.

 

This, 100% correct.

 

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.

 

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.