Like i said before Raising ISO Above the lowest Setting is Degrading

[donny1963]

Like i said before, and by the way i know alot of photographers on here disagreed with me and said it's not true but i don't care let them think what they want..

First off let me correct an incorrect statement, Some people will Say that ISO is part of the Exposure Triangle, That is simply not true, it's Applied Gain, When you raise the ISO Above your lowest ISO possible, this is what your doing i'll explain it in a term that might shed some light on this..

If you poor your self a drink, of Rum, and then add water to dilute the alcohol this is the same thing your doing with your image when you increase your ISO, your diluting your image and it's braking it down, that grain you see in high ISO, is not Grain, it's amplification distortion, YES that's what i said all that is doing when you turn up your ISO is your amplifying the signal to your sensor..
In doing that, the higher you go the more your degrade your image.

It's like you have a Stereo system that puts on 150 watts per channel and then crank the sound up to the point where the music breaks down and you hear distortion, that is just about the same thing when your cranking your ISO, That noise and dots and color bleeds is distortion and it simply looks like crap..

Back in the film day when you bought Film that was high iso like 1600 or higher that grain your seeing is a pattern of grain that is manufactured in the film that way, it's chemicals, and the film is created that way... The grain in Digital images from high ISO is garbage and noise, NOT GRAIN!!!!!


One thing people who don't understand about resolution is specifically Gain of the sensor from your lens, is that everything is electrical..

it's digital photography, the thing with Film photography, it's chemistry, chemicals not digital, completely different..

But in Digital photography everything is electrical, your sensor in your digital camera is nothing but a solar cell with filters and such, everything is max electrical Gain..

Even if you got the best camera and the best lenses and your shooting in low light with high ISO , your images are going to still look like crap..
You can have the best radio and the best antenna in the world but if your signal is crap, then your still going to end up with crap sound.

Alot of people still don't understand digital photography and a sensor and lens, everything is about max gain possible, and is why you should be using the lowest ISO possible..
Rising ISO is nothing but adding water to your liquor in your drink..

ISO is NOT connected to Exposure, it just lets you manipulate exposure, But ISO is not directly Relational to the image that is captured.....

I always say it and i'll say it again if your jacking up your ISO because your in low light and think this is a good way of giving you more light for your exposure then you don't know what your doing, Because your degrading your image and if your a hired photographer for a shoot, then your giving your customer a lower quality product.. Simple as that..

 

[donny1963]

Oh and hey if you think i'm wrong, don't take my word for it, Here is some one who knows about this topic very well..

 

[Braineack]

Lol. U mad bro?

 

[pixmedic]

its all a matter of what level of degredation is acceptable.
i got usable shots at ISO 3200 from a 10 year old sony a700 and 30 year old minolta lens when metered properly, and halfway decent processing techniques applied.
you want no degredation? never raise your ISO above base. simple as that.
of course, it might limit your photography depending on light conditions, but if you shoot things that you can bring supplemental light to then it shouldnt be a problem.

as to your your last few sentences....well, theres nothing stopping you from shooting however you want, but if you think you can cover all shooting conditions at base ISO and get usable images, your simply wrong. faborable lighting conditions are not always an option, nor is supplemental lighting. digital photography with the addition of the ability to automtically add "exposure" by raising ISO levels made shooting in conditions formerly impossible (or not desirable) with film a reality.

my larger point is this...
if your against ISO, just dont use it. just because its a feature on your digital camera does not mean you are mandated to use it. set your ISO to base level and leave it there. bam! problem solved.

 

[dennybeall]

Opening the iris by changing the f-stop is gaining more light.
Increasing the ISO is gaining more light.
Slowing the shutter is gaining more light.
Gaining is gaining.

 

[ronlane]

Lol. U mad bro?

Nope, he drank the cool-aid.

 

[limr]

I have no idea if I agree with him or not. I can't bring myself to care enough to wade through that mess of text to figure it out.

 

[tirediron]

Sounds to me like you read something on some penny-ante blog, combined it with a quasi-understanding of digital photography, and regurgitated into the above post in the hopes of inciting argument.

 

[480sparky]

If you don't care what the unwashed masses think, why bother posting about it?

 

[tecboy]

So you are saying I shoot a lot of indoor photos at iso 800-1600, and I use flashes. All my images are crapped?! I have met a president, directors, and organizers of nonprofits actually like my photos. Why can you tell them as well?

 

[tecboy]

What is the point of this thread? It is just like debating which one has better image quality, JPEG or raw.

 

[limr]

What is the point of this thread? It is just like debating which one has better image quality, JPEG or raw.

There is no point.

 

[Overread]

"Raising ISO above the lowest setting is degrading"

Er no one has argued against that. Everyone knows that higher ISO means that you get more noise in your shots, that's never ever been argued against in the history of ISO on digital cameras. However what IS stated is that raising the ISO in camera results in LESS degradation than if you raise the brightness settings in editing after the shot is taken. That's kind of why people raise the ISO whilst shooting; so that they get LESS degradation than otherwise.

If this were not the case people wouldn't do it, people are not universally stupid and you've not found the sudden holy grail of incorrect camera shooting that will suddenly free people from the evils of the ISO button.


Your statement isn't even correct if we consider the ISO invariance (is that the right term?) sensors which are now out there which CAN restore fantastic detail from underexposed areas in editing; which can actually almost be left on base ISO whilst shooting. Most photographers wouldn't though because they like to get a solid shot on the back of the camera; and to see it as a starting point in editing (starting with a whole memory card of black shots adds needless editing steps - hampers review in the field and likely just isn't attractive to people to produce).


As for the exposure triangle you have to understand that its a teaching aid used to allow the average person to pick up a camera; control its key settings and get good solid exposures and shots without having to first open a book on camera electronics and advanced light physics. Sure it breaks if you learn more about the science of things, but the average photographer doesn't need to know that much detail.

 

[donny1963]

Opening the iris by changing the f-stop is gaining more light.
Increasing the ISO is gaining more light.
Slowing the shutter is gaining more light.
Gaining is gaining.

NO, increasing your ISO is not gaining more light, i's increasing the signal to the sensor, your not applying more light when you raise your ISO..
your cranking up the signal, weather you use ISO 100 or ISO 6400, the same amount of light is hitting the sensor..
just by jacking up the ISO does not let in more light to the sensor..

 

[jaomul]

Do whatcha like, your camera, your photos. I'll do what I like too