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

[480sparky]

I'm in Derrel's camp.

Back in the 70s, shooting ASA 400 made me cringe simply because of the grain of the film. Back then, there wasn't much you could do about it.

Today, I think nothing of shooting 800, 1600 or even 3200 on a regular basis. "Native ISO" is still useful, if having a longer shutter speed is desired to use a blurred subject part of the artistic statement.

 

[tecboy]

The ISO 400-800 still looks clean as ISO 100 with light cropping and little editing. The print is hardly see noise.

 

[480sparky]

Just for S&G, I checked the ISO of the last image I've sold.... one I took at an auto show late in the evening as I was on my way out. A nicely-restored tractor was on display and I took a few shots of it.

I sold single-use rights to a decorator that was commissioned by M-M to provide artwork for their headquarters. Somewhere in that building, an entire wall is covered with this image.

ISO 2000, simply due to fading light (cloudy and just after sunset). Had I shot it at ISO 100, my shutter speed would have been 1/10 sec. Maybe I could've pulled it off handheld, but ISO 2000 (coupled with modern noise-reduction software) created a sellable image.

Sellable for................ $1,000.

 

[benhasajeep]

I shot 3200 all the time for sports for the paper. Occasionally pushed to 6400. Now it was just printed in newprint. But there were more than I can count published!

 

[weepete]

Dunno a lot of the sweets you guys are talking about lol. I like lyons midget gems and and a wham bar, maybe some jelly tots but popcorn is a must at the cinema

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

ISO 400 is degrading image quality from a purely technical aspect. It is amplifying the signal thus increasing the signal to noise ratio. To the naked eye you will not see a difference and it will give you all the advantages Darrel mentioned. Its like trying to listen to your radio at volume 1, probably the best quality but you can't hear a damn thing! That being said, your'e an idiot if you don't use the tools at you disposal. I say Jam out and crank it as high as you want my friends

 

[chuasam]

Still not learning anything about this thread even in this video.

Ehh what? Sorry still distracted.

 

[vintagesnaps]

It's gone to 11... (pages that is)

 

[Dragster3]

Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[limr]

Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I disagree.

 

[Dragster3]

Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I disagree.

What? That digital is better quality than film? Or that the sensor is the film? Or that my camera is crap?

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Tomasko]

Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I disagree.

What? That film is better quality than digital? Or that the sensor is the film? Or that my camera is crap?

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Or limr is just trying to keep the debate alive

 

[Ysarex]

Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I disagree.

What? That digital is better quality than film? Or that the sensor is the film? Or that my camera is crap?

Well, this: "Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film." is obviously incorrect and should be worth a couple more pages.

Joe

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Braineack]

ISO 400 is degrading image quality from a purely technical aspect. It is amplifying the signal thus increasing the signal to noise ratio. To the naked eye you will not see a difference and it will give you all the advantages Darrel mentioned. Its like trying to listen to your radio at volume 1, probably the best quality but you can't hear a damn thing! That being said, your'e an idiot if you don't use the tools at you disposal. I say Jam out and crank it as high as you want my friends

Volume 1 won't tickle you with a subwoofer... Give me amplification!

 

[Dragster3]

whatever...I'll be back later.