What does 'hi' means?

[EchoingWhisper]

From what I understand. Each sensor has a dynamic range it can response to. It cannot record any information outside that range.

So you are inside a dark cave and point the camera at the opening that facing the sky at noon (sunny day). And you meter the bright sky. Do you think you can see the details in the dark shadow after post?

This is about available light - not about amplification - please comprehend.

 

[Destin]

low ISO =/= low noise. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what causes noise, what clipped out means, etc. That seems to be where all your confusion is coming from. The statement "That's bogus because it came out of the camera clean because it was taken at ISO 100" doesn't make any sense at all. What do you even mean by "came out of the camera clean"? Your camera takes clean photos at ISO 100 WHEN PROPERLY EXPOSED. High ISO can amplify noise, but that doesn't mean that low ISO's don't also amplify noise, they're just less sensitive to it, so it would take longer exposure to the noise for it to be noticeable with a low ISO. ISO doesn't make noise, cameras and environment make noise. ISOs, in digital cameras at least, AMPLIFY noise. WHen you brighten a picture with software, you're essentially doing the same thing, you're amplifying the lowest light signals from the sensor to be brighter. So, if your camera produced a lot of noise, it doesn't matter what ISO you shot it at, the noise your camera created will be amplified (along with any environmental noise). Again, ISO doesn't create noise, so saying your camera takes clean shots at ISO 100 is completely meaningless. All that matters is how much that noise was amplified, and how good the programs that reduced it were.

This is the whole point that everybody has ben trying to make. If you have low enough noise, you can underexpose almost much as you want to. There is no such thing as 'clipping' on the left side of the histogram. Sure, with cameras that create lots of noise the left side can become pretty unusable pretty quickly. And some older sensors don't pick up low levels of light very well, especially in short exposures, meaning that they can run into noise problems really fast from environmental noise. But as long as the sensor registered photons, you don't lose that information, and it's certainly not like you lose information on the right side, where it just disappears, as the sensor cannot physically record above a certain level.

Clipping has to do with overloading the sensor on the right side of the histogram. The left side being unusable has to do with the signal to noise ratio.

Then why does just about EVERY professional photographer use the ETTR method rather than just shooting everything at iso 100 and fixing it later. THERE IS NO REAL WORLD APPLICATION FOR WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING, AS IT CAN BE DONE BETTER BE EXPOSING PROPERLY IN CAMERA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

ETTR is correct. Using a lower ISO is not exposing the right. It is best getting the most information you can have exposing to the right - but not by using a higher ISO.

So are you proposing that wedding/event/sports photographers with newer cameras with low read noise can shoot the entire event at iso 100, bring home black frames, and worry about it later. Or what exactly is the PRACTICAL application of this? because that's all that matters in the end. It's simply a better setup to choose iso in camera. There is NO REASON to do it differently with how good sensor technology has gotten.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Please read the latest threads.

I'll Google them for you. You guys just don't want to believe what we said.

The role of ISO in exposure and how it applies to photography.: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The role of ISO in exposure and how it applies to photography (part 2) [Page 1]: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The role of ISO in exposure and how it applies to photography (part 3) [Page 1]: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


The "ISOless" sensor - PentaxForums.com


http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1653201

If you guys do read them, you'll see that you're wrong. You really can't clip shadows - it only gets covered by noise, unless you decide to move the black point. Most displays only display 8 bit, so there is no way you could actually see any detail there, it only appears when you pull them out.

 

[MTVision]

But clipping highlights is extremely different from 'clipping' shadows. You don't lose information in the same way. That's why we have the saying "the left side of the histogram holds a heckuva lot more information than does the right side." The left side only gets blocked out when the amount of photons hitting the sensor falls to an EXTREMELY low number. You can bring back a shadowed out area most of the time, if you're willing to deal with the noise. And with today's digital noise removal improvements and sensor improvements, that's going away faster and faster. Whereas a highlight, when it's gone, it's gone.

The left side of the histogram doesn't hold a heckuva lot more information than does the right side.

ETTR - The only reason to overexpose (make it look gray) a black sock is because there is more data on the right side of the histogram then the left and of course less visible noise.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

But clipping highlights is extremely different from 'clipping' shadows. You don't lose information in the same way. That's why we have the saying "the left side of the histogram holds a heckuva lot more information than does the right side." The left side only gets blocked out when the amount of photons hitting the sensor falls to an EXTREMELY low number. You can bring back a shadowed out area most of the time, if you're willing to deal with the noise. And with today's digital noise removal improvements and sensor improvements, that's going away faster and faster. Whereas a highlight, when it's gone, it's gone.

The left side of the histogram doesn't hold a heckuva lot more information than does the right side.

ETTR - The only reason to overexpose (make it look gray) a black sock is because there is more data on the right side of the histogram then the left and of course less visible noise.

Yep - you need to maximise the amount of information (bit) you get, then you ETTR. The people who suggest using base ISO did not encourage you to ETTL, because ISO is not a part of exposure. Using amplification destroys information. Please read the links I've given you.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Then why does just about EVERY professional photographer use the ETTR method rather than just shooting everything at iso 100 and fixing it later. THERE IS NO REAL WORLD APPLICATION FOR WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING, AS IT CAN BE DONE BETTER BE EXPOSING PROPERLY IN CAMERA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

ETTR is correct. Using a lower ISO is not exposing the right. It is best getting the most information you can have exposing to the right - but not by using a higher ISO.

So are you proposing that wedding/event/sports photographers with newer cameras with low read noise can shoot the entire event at iso 100, bring home black frames, and worry about it later. Or what exactly is the PRACTICAL application of this? because that's all that matters in the end. It's simply a better setup to choose iso in camera. There is NO REASON to do it differently with how good sensor technology has gotten.

When did I say there is a practical application in this? Currently there barely is, because cameras with ISOless sensors don't have the UI to support ISOless photography. There still is some practical application to it, like correcting exposure later without worrying about loss of information. When you amplify the signal in camera, you lose the information at the right of the histogram, so you'll be using a low bit image anyway.

 

[o hey tyler]

ETTR is correct. Using a lower ISO is not exposing the right. It is best getting the most information you can have exposing to the right - but not by using a higher ISO.

So are you proposing that wedding/event/sports photographers with newer cameras with low read noise can shoot the entire event at iso 100, bring home black frames, and worry about it later. Or what exactly is the PRACTICAL application of this? because that's all that matters in the end. It's simply a better setup to choose iso in camera. There is NO REASON to do it differently with how good sensor technology has gotten.

When did I say there is a practical application in this? Currently there barely is, because cameras with ISOless sensors don't have the UI to support ISOless photography. There still is some practical application to it, like correcting exposure later without worrying about loss of information. When you amplify the signal in camera, you lose the information at the right of the histogram, so you'll be using a low bit image anyway.

Judging by all of the examples I've seen, cameras have a long way to go before people can bring home black images and expect to save 100% of the detail in the images. Until then, exposing properly using the lowest possible ISO is the best way to prevent data loss. No question.

 

[Destin]

Okay so let me pose a question? How the EFF do you ettr when using an iso lower than needed for a properly exposed photo? It isn't possible. ISO absolutely plays a part in exposure. Maybe not by technical definitions, but I dont give a damn about technical definitions to be honest. I care what works in a PRACTICAL enviroment. And in real world shooting, iso affects my exposure. Period. You need to use the proper iso in order to know that you're ETTR'ing. Not to mention that the biggest reason to ETTR is to reduce the amount of visible noise in images taken at high iso's....

 

[EchoingWhisper]

So are you proposing that wedding/event/sports photographers with newer cameras with low read noise can shoot the entire event at iso 100, bring home black frames, and worry about it later. Or what exactly is the PRACTICAL application of this? because that's all that matters in the end. It's simply a better setup to choose iso in camera. There is NO REASON to do it differently with how good sensor technology has gotten.

When did I say there is a practical application in this? Currently there barely is, because cameras with ISOless sensors don't have the UI to support ISOless photography. There still is some practical application to it, like correcting exposure later without worrying about loss of information. When you amplify the signal in camera, you lose the information at the right of the histogram, so you'll be using a low bit image anyway.

Judging by all of the examples I've seen, cameras have a long way to go before people can bring home black images and expect to save 100% of the detail in the images. Until then, exposing properly using the lowest possible ISO is the best way to prevent data loss. No question.

No. You are using a 5D. You shouldn't use your base ISO every time, you don't have similar read noise on all ISO, therefore you shouldn't use base ISO and amplify it digitally.

 

[Destin]

When did I say there is a practical application in this? Currently there barely is, because cameras with ISOless sensors don't have the UI to support ISOless photography. There still is some practical application to it, like correcting exposure later without worrying about loss of information. When you amplify the signal in camera, you lose the information at the right of the histogram, so you'll be using a low bit image anyway.

Great. Same thing happens when I amplify the signal in post, because it blows the highlights. Unless we're talking layer masking you're exposure adjustments. At which point you should just do a flippin HDR.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Okay so let me pose a question? How the EFF do you ettr when using an iso lower than needed for a properly exposed photo? It isn't possible. ISO absolutely plays a part in exposure. Maybe not by technical definitions, but I dont give a damn about technical definitions to be honest. I care what works in a PRACTICAL enviroment. And in real world shooting, iso affects my exposure. Period. You need to use the proper iso in order to know that you're ETTR'ing. Not to mention that the biggest reason to ETTR is to reduce the amount of visible noise in images taken at high iso's....

You are using a D80, which doesn't have low/similar read noise on all ISO setting, therefore your sensor is not ISOless. You can't go ISOless like the people using the Sony sensor in D7000/NEX 5N/D5100 etc.

 

[Destin]

Echoing Whisper is about 3 seconds from my ignore list because I'm sick of him arguing moot points to death. WHO GIVES A FLYING F$#& about this, when in real world shooting it isn't applicable?!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

When did I say there is a practical application in this? Currently there barely is, because cameras with ISOless sensors don't have the UI to support ISOless photography. There still is some practical application to it, like correcting exposure later without worrying about loss of information. When you amplify the signal in camera, you lose the information at the right of the histogram, so you'll be using a low bit image anyway.

Great. Same thing happens when I amplify the signal in post, because it blows the highlights. Unless we're talking layer masking you're exposure adjustments. At which point you should just do a flippin HDR.

When you amplify in camera, you'll lose all your highlight, and you can't save it. And look at previous examples, if you do use curves to increase overall brightness, you will not lose the highlights at the right of the histogram.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Echoing Whisper is about 3 seconds from my ignore list because I'm sick of him arguing moot points to death. WHO GIVES A FLYING F$#& about this, when in real world shooting it isn't applicable?!

You just can't argue with me. I don't want to argue with you. You are right in places, but please read the links, they are some discussion from some people and you'll understand what I said. I wasn't being rude at all.

 

[Destin]

Echoing Whisper is about 3 seconds from my ignore list because I'm sick of him arguing moot points to death. WHO GIVES A FLYING F$#& about this, when in real world shooting it isn't applicable?!

You just can't argue with me. I don't want to argue with you. You are right in places, but please read the links, they are some discussion from some people and you'll understand what I said. I wasn't being rude at all.

You're right you aren't being rude. There is just NO point in arguing this since it's not something that is going to affect day to day photography. The fact remains that with EVERY dslr currently on the market, the best technique is to expose properly by using the lowest possible ISO in camera. If that happens to be 6400 so be it, because the noise coming out of camera is less than what would be produced by upping the exposure.

New question: How do I choose an aperture/SS combo if I'm shooting ISO'less. Say I'm shooting basketball in a poorly lit gym. Do I just decide that hey, I want a deep DOF to make sure the player is in focus, I'll shoot at 5.6. And then hey, I wanna freeze action COMPLETELY, so let's just shoot everything at 1/8000th to make sure it's frozen. I can go back to my computer and fix this black frame later!

To me, iso is still a part of exposure, even technically, because without it, you cannot calculate what a proper SS/Aperture combo even is.