ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

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.

 

AGREEEEEED.

 

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.

 

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..

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

Which is almost what you are doing.

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

 

[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.

 

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.