ISO

[Ysarex]

This accounts for the vast majority of cases and it's critical to note that this implementation permanently alters what ends up in the raw data.

Oh I know, but for simplicity sake I only mentioned gain. There's some good reading on the process in the links I posted for those that really want to understand. Another point that adds confusion is there are no established standard as to "how" manufacturers achieve those high ISO.

There are no standards at all as to "how" any ISO increase is achieved. The only thing that's standardized is the amount of output lightening. They're all free to get there any way they want. But they're also not hiding anything from us in what they do. If you want to understand how it's done the information is available the problem is that for every good technical article available there's 1000 Youtube videos full of nonsense. The Richard Butler articles you linked are good information.

 

[smoke665]

. But they're also not hiding anything from us in what they do.

I might disagree with you slightly on this, as they all seem to have few proprietary methods that get overlooked. It's like determining "exactly" how much noise reduction gets applied to the raw file.

One thing mentioned earlier in a post is that you automatically reduce DR and color tone when you increase ISO. Manufacturers have made significant inroads on decreasing the side effects of higher ISOs and shot noise. For example, my K1MII, allows me to automatically apply noise reduction to slow shutter speeds, I can apply various levels of noise reduction independently by ISO, I can protect highlights and recover shadows thereby increasing or negating any DR reduction caused by an increase in ISO. Finally Pixel Shift, HDR and Facial Skin tone recognition make tonal variations moot. The technology has grown by leaps and bounds, but unfortunately many fail to learn how to fully operate their camera.

 

[smoke665]

I used 100 or 200, and it was very rare for me to use anything over 400. It’s unfortunate that ISO is used with digital, as Smoke pointed out, since there is little similarity between film and digital formats. I can say, I’m learning new things here. Glad to see folks are passionate about something. Just gonna keep this extinguisher close by..

Not all film ISO was cast in stone. Back in the 70's I did a lot of newspaper work, so I regularly pushed or pulled film when I didn't have the right film in the bag. I can tell you It's a whole lot easier to adjust the ISO in camera today. One thing I can tell you though is even then you had some side effects (enhanced grain, contrast, color shift) when you did it.

No fire extinguisher needed for me, but I do get irritated when things are said that don't hold up to the facts. I'm not an expert, don't claim to be, we're all here to learn.....never stop learning, but we need to disseminate the best information we can, and document as needed.

 

[ntz]

lol, I love this academic debate ... I've already told there is "some merit in it - technically" .. the most of us know this fancy theory .. but I still prefer to stick within realistic level - and that means, that I want my ISO low

 

[smoke665]

lol, I love this academic debate

But yet you continued to contradict Joe and others, who actually have knowledge on the subject with - "this is just rubbish", "OMG, it's coelho nonsense", "technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense". No one insulted your opinion, or called it rubbish, nonsense or anything derogatory, instead he asked you to "Back up what you said and be specific". Instead you feign humility, ultimately coming off as arrogant with being to busy to back up your claims. Now here you are again, doing the same thing. No one wants to offend you, but as to the "academic or technical" debate comment, this is a specialized forum that deals with highly specialized information at times. Most of us are here to learn, spreading baseless claims or disinformation hampers that learning. If you have serious documented information, theories or comments, lets hear it, I and others will gladly listen to what you have to say, otherwise leave it to the world wide disinformation highway.

 

[ntz]

lol, I love this academic debate

But yet you continued to contradict Joe and others, who actually have knowledge on the subject with - "this is just rubbish", "OMG, it's coelho nonsense", "technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense". No one insulted your opinion, or called it rubbish, nonsense or anything derogatory, instead he asked you to "Back up what you said and be specific". Instead you feign humility, ultimately coming off as arrogant with being to busy to back up your claims. Now here you are again, doing the same thing. No one wants to offend you, but as to the "academic or technical" debate comment, this is a specialized forum that deals with highly specialized information at times. Most of us are here to learn, spreading baseless claims or disinformation hampers that learning. If you have serious documented information, theories or comments, lets hear it, I and others will gladly listen to what you have to say, otherwise leave it to the world wide disinformation highway.

sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread

 

[jeffashman]

lol, I love this academic debate

But yet you continued to contradict Joe and others, who actually have knowledge on the subject with - "this is just rubbish", "OMG, it's coelho nonsense", "technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense". No one insulted your opinion, or called it rubbish, nonsense or anything derogatory, instead he asked you to "Back up what you said and be specific". Instead you feign humility, ultimately coming off as arrogant with being to busy to back up your claims. Now here you are again, doing the same thing. No one wants to offend you, but as to the "academic or technical" debate comment, this is a specialized forum that deals with highly specialized information at times. Most of us are here to learn, spreading baseless claims or disinformation hampers that learning. If you have serious documented information, theories or comments, lets hear it, I and others will gladly listen to what you have to say, otherwise leave it to the world wide disinformation highway.

sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread

I’ve been there and done that. [emoji16] Bunch of dark nothing. Then I started to wonder about the ISO stuff, especially given the prior to now, I’ve never paid much attention to ISO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ntz]

@jeffashman - using ISO should be based on know-your-camera basis .. I don't want to interfere with anybody else making input into this thread so everything I said is my personal opinion and my way of doing things ..

it depends on what you're shooting ... I recommend not using automatic ISO and if you do (while shooting sports or wildlife) I'd recommend to have set the upper limit to max acceptable ISO value based on current conditions and your knowledge of performance of your camera ..

for example with my APS-C Nikon (crop factor is 1.5, so the ISO performance is 1.5**2 lower than with crop factor 1.0 aka FX -- eg. now simplifying that but my performance with ISO 100 is eq~ to ISO 225 on full frame - 100 * 1.5**2) I have 99% of my photos < ISO 800 .. of course depends on what you're shooting .. for wildlife and sports in the daylight I use ISO 200-500 with my f/4 telephoto lens .. when I would be shooting in the really low light conditions like for example in club, I wouldn't want to have ISO higher than say 1600, it will will severely affect the photos ... as I said earlier, I tend to shoot 99% of time in A mode and I am changing my ISO manually to have maximum control over it ... Also I use an exposure correction instead of manual mode

 

[smoke665]

sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread

Possibly there was miscommunication in the intent of the statement. However it's important to not mislead others that raising the ISO is a bad thing, because given today's electronics it isn't. Here's the thing, if you leave your camera on auto, it will raise the ISO if it can't adjust shutter or aperture either because of your settings, or light, for the same reason that if you're shooting manual, and you can't adjust the shutter or aperture to get a correct exposure then you have no choice to raise the ISO. However raising the ISO doesn't cause degradation......it merely allows you to get a photo that the light wouldn't allow with shutter or aperture settings. The degradation comes from the lack of available light which as I pointed out earlier is a SNR issue with the scene. I previously stated my Avatar was shot at 25,600. It's noisy, but under the circumstances it's acceptable. Here's another example

Softly Comes Fall by William Raber, on Flickr

Would is surprise you that the above was ISO 1200? Or maybe this one at ISO 3200 below.

Mobile Bay by William Raber, on Flickr

ISO is an instrumental part of the exposure triangle, and should always be used as such. Realizing the limitation of ISO and how to properly use it, is no different then understanding that aperture affects DOF or shutter speed can cause motion blur.

 

[ntz]

sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread

Possibly there was miscommunication in the intent of the statement. However it's important to not mislead others that raising the ISO is a bad thing, because given today's electronics it isn't. Here's the thing, if you leave your camera on auto, it will raise the ISO if it can't adjust shutter or aperture either because of your settings, or light, for the same reason that if you're shooting manual, and you can't adjust the shutter or aperture to get a correct exposure then you have no choice to raise the ISO. However raising the ISO doesn't cause degradation......it merely allows you to get a photo that the light wouldn't allow with shutter or aperture settings. The degradation comes from the lack of available light which as I pointed out earlier is a SNR issue with the scene. I previously stated my Avatar was shot at 25,600. It's noisy, but under the circumstances it's acceptable. Here's another example

Softly Comes Fall by William Raber, on Flickr

Would is surprise you that the above was ISO 1200? Or maybe this one at ISO 3200 below.

Mobile Bay by William Raber, on Flickr

ISO is an instrumental part of the exposure triangle, and should always be used as such. Realizing the limitation of ISO and how to properly use it, is no different then understanding that aperture affects DOF or shutter speed can cause motion blur.

I would believe to everything ... I don't want to oppose you .. my carrier statement was/is that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis .. for example my Nikon D7200 uses a different ISO model than my other camera Fujifilm X100F .. so let me now please simplify things .. both cameras have same sensor size and same resolution (pixel density) but on my Nikon looks dark scene much more worse on high ISO than with same settings while using Fujifilm .. so I know that for a dark scene I don't want usually go over say ISO 1600 with Nikon whilst perceptually same result with Fujifilm camera could be done with ISO 3200 .. and that's what I am saying all the time .. `know-your-camera' is preferred principle over `forget about ISO, just take the shot' .. yeah, it also depends on what you're going to do with photo - large print or digital publishing, etc-, it depends on scene optimal EV - eg raising iso to 800 on overall bright scene because you're shooting wildlife and want quick shutter speed will be almost invisible Vs raising iso to same 800 in overall dark scene where shadows will be severely impacted, and so on ..

your photos are nice, I have also a photos taken with high ISO .. but this is not the point ... you're diluting the issue .. the issue is not that high ISO makes you unable to take the nice photos, the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ...) and should be used deliberately when needed and when it has its purpose ... so saying "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context is bad and misleading ... and that later academic debate was imho not including those fundamental points also, which rendered it to me "less useful" so that I called that "coelho nonsense" which was rude and I apologize for it ...

 

[smoke665]

that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis

I would agree wholeheartedly on this, but the same can also be said for all those settings tucked away in the sub menus, as I pointed out above. Things like NR, DR enhancements, etc. as well as the other two points of the exposure triangle (aperture & shutter).

the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ..

Now this I have to disagree with, because I've not found it to be the case either in my reading on the subject or in actual use. That's not to say I would arbitrarily raise the ISO or use a higher sensitivity then necessary, but neither would I approach aperture or shutter that way either. All of my settings are based on the requirement of the shot, that will provide a fully exposed data file. I think this is where some get in trouble in that raising your ISO doesn't mean you can get sloppy on your exposure.

I have no experience with Nikon digital or Fuji. I started in film in the 60's with Canon, Nikon and Pentax, eventually becoming Pentax only, been with them ever since. I do know that because of proprietary methods each manufacturer handles high ISO differently, and there could be variances or sweet spots on a particular brand. On my crop and full frame bodies I routinely shoot in studio ISO 100-200, outside I rarely worry about it up to 6400, over that requires careful consideration to get a full exposure, if I expect to get a useable image.

which was rude and I apologize for it ..

No harm no foul. TPF can be a valuable resource in the exchange of information that potentially makes us all better photographers, when we can put aside our differences and discuss opposing ideas.

 

[Ysarex]

lol, I love this academic debate

But yet you continued to contradict Joe and others, who actually have knowledge on the subject with - "this is just rubbish", "OMG, it's coelho nonsense", "technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense". No one insulted your opinion, or called it rubbish, nonsense or anything derogatory, instead he asked you to "Back up what you said and be specific". Instead you feign humility, ultimately coming off as arrogant with being to busy to back up your claims. Now here you are again, doing the same thing. No one wants to offend you, but as to the "academic or technical" debate comment, this is a specialized forum that deals with highly specialized information at times. Most of us are here to learn, spreading baseless claims or disinformation hampers that learning. If you have serious documented information, theories or comments, lets hear it, I and others will gladly listen to what you have to say, otherwise leave it to the world wide disinformation highway.

sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings

There is something worse than that. It's returning home with nothing.

.. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread

 

[Ysarex]

I would believe to everything ... I don't want to oppose you .. my carrier statement was/is that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis .. for example my Nikon D7200 uses a different ISO model than my other camera Fujifilm X100F .. so let me now please simplify things .. both cameras have same sensor size and same resolution (pixel density) but on my Nikon looks dark scene much more worse on high ISO than with same settings while using Fujifilm .. so I know that for a dark scene I don't want usually go over say ISO 1600 with Nikon whilst perceptually same result with Fujifilm camera could be done with ISO 3200 .. and that's what I am saying all the time .. `know-your-camera' is preferred principle over `forget about ISO, just take the shot' .. yeah, it also depends on what you're going to do with photo - large print or digital publishing, etc-, it depends on scene optimal EV - eg raising iso to 800 on overall bright scene because you're shooting wildlife and want quick shutter speed will be almost invisible Vs raising iso to same 800 in overall dark scene where shadows will be severely impacted, and so on ..

your photos are nice, I have also a photos taken with high ISO .. but this is not the point ... you're diluting the issue .. the issue is not that high ISO makes you unable to take the nice photos, the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ...) and should be used deliberately when needed and when it has its purpose ... so saying "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context is bad and misleading

Did someone actually say; "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context? Here's my post: ISO Is the only thing in my post "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO"? You think the explanation I provided that follows that statement would be called context?

... and that later academic debate was imho not including those fundamental points also, which rendered it to me "less useful" so that I called that "coelho nonsense" which was rude and I apologize for it ...

 

[jeffashman]

@jeffashman - using ISO should be based on know-your-camera basis .. I don't want to interfere with anybody else making input into this thread so everything I said is my personal opinion and my way of doing things ..

it depends on what you're shooting ... I recommend not using automatic ISO and if you do (while shooting sports or wildlife) I'd recommend to have set the upper limit to max acceptable ISO value based on current conditions and your knowledge of performance of your camera ..

for example with my APS-C Nikon (crop factor is 1.5, so the ISO performance is 1.5**2 lower than with crop factor 1.0 aka FX -- eg. now simplifying that but my performance with ISO 100 is eq~ to ISO 225 on full frame - 100 * 1.5**2) I have 99% of my photos < ISO 800 .. of course depends on what you're shooting .. for wildlife and sports in the daylight I use ISO 200-500 with my f/4 telephoto lens .. when I would be shooting in the really low light conditions like for example in club, I wouldn't want to have ISO higher than say 1600, it will will severely affect the photos ... as I said earlier, I tend to shoot 99% of time in A mode and I am changing my ISO manually to have maximum control over it ... Also I use an exposure correction instead of manual mode

Thank you! All of this is very helpful, and I am learning, so it is all good. So, which is better? Ceske Budejovice, or Pilsner Urquell? [emoji16] Zdravim! [emoji482] Or is there something better that I haven’t discovered yet? [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

I would believe to everything ... I don't want to oppose you .. my carrier statement was/is that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis .. for example my Nikon D7200 uses a different ISO model than my other camera Fujifilm X100F .. so let me now please simplify things .. both cameras have same sensor size and same resolution (pixel density) but on my Nikon looks dark scene much more worse on high ISO than with same settings while using Fujifilm .. so I know that for a dark scene I don't want usually go over say ISO 1600 with Nikon whilst perceptually same result with Fujifilm camera could be done with ISO 3200 .. and that's what I am saying all the time .. `know-your-camera' is preferred principle over `forget about ISO, just take the shot'

And of course no one in fact said that. The comment I made was in context and in that context I explained the source of the image degradation and talked about what's best.

.. yeah, it also depends on what you're going to do with photo - large print or digital publishing, etc-, it depends on scene optimal EV - eg raising iso to 800 on overall bright scene because you're shooting wildlife and want quick shutter speed will be almost invisible Vs raising iso to same 800 in overall dark scene where shadows will be severely impacted, and so on ..

your photos are nice, I have also a photos taken with high ISO .. but this is not the point ... you're diluting the issue .. the issue is not that high ISO makes you unable to take the nice photos, the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ...) and should be used deliberately when needed and when it has its purpose ... so saying "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context is bad and misleading ... and that later academic debate was imho not including those fundamental points also, which rendered it to me "less useful" so that I called that "coelho nonsense" which was rude and I apologize for it ...

You are actually wrong about all of this. The OP is approaching it correctly. He's making a choice where it matters. Pick the shutter speed you need. Pick the F/stop you need. Those affect your photo in very critical ways. They determine the rendition of motion in the photo and they determine DOF. They are also the variables that will set exposure and determine the amount of noise in your photo. Once you've made those choices ISO is predetermined and you might as well let the camera set it.

When you have the luxury of plenty of light and you're happy to use any of 1/2 dozen shutter speeds and you're happy to use any of 3 different f/stops then you can make sure you select an exposure combination that keeps the ISO at base or as low as possible. The OP's question implied what to do at the other extreme when you can't just lower the shutter speed any farther or open up the lens more.

There is no real option to select a different ISO unless you are willing to give up the shutter speed or f/stop choice you have made. The OP already has the camera on Manual. Setting the shutter and f/stop and then refusing the raise the ISO to where it should be doesn't get you less noise. In the OP's case it'll get you more noise. The two choices shutter speed and f/stop should trump ISO because the effect they have on your photo is substantial. What's ISO going to do that's a visible effect in your photo other than suppress some read noise? You listed a bunch of things that result from raising ISO. You were basically wrong about those in most cases by attaching them to ISO. Those bad things that happen when ISO is raised are caused more by the exposure you've selected which is only affected by the shutter speed and f/stop. You don't want those bad things you have to change the exposure which means you have to change the shutter speed and/or f/stop. If you've set the shutter speed to the lowest possible but need more exposure how do you lower the shutter speed below the lowest possible? If you've set the f/stop to where you'll get the DOF you need but need more exposure how do you set the f/stop to a larger aperture and still get the DOF you need? If you hit those limits on the exposure controls then yes you should just let the camera select the ISO and not worry about it because you can't do anything about it except not take the photo.