Why People use high ISO, like 1600 and higher........

[donny1963]

Why people use high ISO in daylight situations when there is plenty of light is beyond me.
I know some out there believe ISO works the same way in Digital as the old school film camera days, and it's really not the same.

All your doing when you crank up your ISO higher then 800 is amplifying the signal to the sensor.
Doing that creates NOT GRAIN like it did in the film days but create a bunch of noise, and your getting all kinds of distorted digital signals that looks horrible.
If you really look at it carefully, you see all kinds of color signal distortions and other broken down pixels.

I see it done all the time even in good lighting conditions, where you could achieve a good exposure even at iso 100, but nope it's cranked up to crazy iso ranges..
Other things i see is, some of them that do some landscape shots and use Aperture of 1.8 instead of using a sweet spot aperture like F8 or F16 or what ever that lens sweet spot is, i think they figure they got a 1.8 lens and think using 1.8 is the sharp apeture, which it is NOT!!!!!!!

Normally the lowest Aperture number are the worst ones on your lens, yes great for portrait when you want to blur the background, but not in a full frame landscape shot, where you want a high dept of field.. And the higher numbers is where your pictures start to get to it's sharpest..

Normally in a landscape shot depending your focal length, stopping down on your aperture will create a much sharper image rather then using your lowest aperture specially if it's a 1.4 or 1.8 lens..
I have a 70-200 lens and i can go as low as 2.8 but if i was doing a full frame landscape shot where i want the entire frame sharp, i'm not going to use F2.8..

yes the lenses at 1.8 and 2.8 are sharper lenses normally then the ones that start at 3.5,, that's because the lenses got alot of glass in them and take a good quality picture at it's lowest aperture but it's not it's sharpest F-stop in other words a lens that starts at f 3.5 is it's lowest aperture and there for it's worst as far as sharpness, and then you have a lens that starts at f 2.8 then that is it's worst F-stop for sharpness so if you take the 2.8 lens and shoot at f 3.5 your going to get a much sharper picture then if you took it with the lens that starts at f 3.5.

because on most lenses, the more you stop down the sharper the image will be, until you hit it's sweet spot of course there is a limit on most lenses where the image will not be so sharp, in other words , if you go all the way to it's highest number like F22 or F36, that will most likely not be it's sharpest aperture., Some lenses start to lose sharpness going beyond F11 and so on..

most of the time your at it's best at F8 or F9 then it goes down hill from there..
just as zoom lenses at it's widest angle create barrel distortion and it's starts to even out as you get half way, then when you past half way, it starts to pin cushion the other way..

The same goes with sharpness in aperture.. And the other thing is some do portrait shots like from waist up at focal length at 18 and 35 mm when they got a lens that goes all the way up to 100, and i have no idea why they use such a wide angle focal length, because at focal length's 35 and below portraits look very strange it don't look natural at all...

i wouldn't go below 50 mm for a portrait like that I tend to use focal length above 100 mm..
and real close up shots of the head at like 200 with the 70-200..
but that all depends on the camera you got Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG APO HSM sharpest focal length believe it or not is around the 200 mm range, where ones for Nikon are at it's worst sharpness, if you don't believe me check that out at DxOMark by DxO | DxOMark the stats are all there..

 

[JustBen]

Frustrated?

 

[donny1963]

nope, just wonder why people do things to work against them self..

 

[480sparky]

Not everyone pixel-peeps, or is interested in making 10- by 16-foot murals. Posting on FaceSpace and MyBook is the end result of their efforts. And maybe emailing Auntie Edna.

So if a 600 x 800 pixel image is the sole output of the image, who cares what ISO it was taken at?

 

[KmH]

All your doing when you crank up your ISO higher then 800 is amplifying the signal to the sensor.

The only signal going to the pixels is the light the lens gets to them during an exposure.
A pixel (photo diode) develops an analog voltage proportional to how much light hits it during the exposure.

Amplification can only be done downstream from the pixel.

There are 2 kinds of amplification:
1. Electronic.
Electronic amplification on CMOS sensors is done adjacent to the pixel and before the analog to digital converter (ADC).
Setting an ISO above the base native ISO causes more downstream amplification of the voltage the pixel developed.
With really good amplifiers little image noise is added by the amplification and native dynamic range is retained.

2. Software.
Once past the ADC the now digital number (as opposed to a analog voltage) assigned to the base native or amplified native voltage the pixel developed during an exposure can be changed to a higher or lower value. That is how ISO values below and and above the native ISO range are accomplished.
Software manipulation of the 'signal' usually results in a significant loss of dynamic range.

 

[donny1963]

Not everyone pixel-peeps, or is interested in making 10- by 16-foot murals. Posting on FaceSpace and MyBook is the end result of their efforts. And maybe emailing Auntie Edna.

So if a 600 x 800 pixel image is the sole output of the image, who cares what ISO it was taken at?

600X800 pixel image is a very low resolution image, at that rage your not even going to make a good 8X10 image never mind 10-16, even in a 5X7 print it will show.

 

[480sparky]

Not everyone pixel-peeps, or is interested in making 10- by 16-foot murals. Posting on FaceSpace and MyBook is the end result of their efforts. And maybe emailing Auntie Edna.

So if a 600 x 800 pixel image is the sole output of the image, who cares what ISO it was taken at?

600X800 pixel image is a very low resolution image, at that rage your not even going to make a good 8X10 image never mind 10-16, even in a 5X7 print it will show.

Um, read my post again. I highlighted the portion you apparently missed.

 

[jcdeboever]

A lot of situations the increase on ISO is required to increase the shutter speed so you can freeze lets say, a birds wing. So don't narrow ISO as a measurement but look at the type of photography one is shooting. I always try to at least limit the max ISO for the condition.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[donny1963]

All your doing when you crank up your ISO higher then 800 is amplifying the signal to the sensor.

The only signal going to the pixels is the light the lens gets to them during an exposure.
A pixel (photo diode) develops an analog voltage proportional to how much light hits it during the exposure.

Amplification can only be done downstream from the pixel.

There are 2 kinds of amplification:
1. Electronic.
Electronic amplification on CMOS sensors is done adjacent to the pixel and before the analog to digital converter (ADC).
Setting an ISO above the base native ISO causes more downstream amplification of the voltage the pixel developed.
With really good amplifiers little image noise is added by the amplification and native dynamic range is retained.

2. Software.
Once past the ADC the now digital number (as opposed to a analog voltage) assigned to the base native or amplified native voltage the pixel developed during an exposure can be changed to a higher or lower value. That is how ISO values below and and above the native ISO range are accomplished.
Software manipulation of the 'signal' usually results in a significant loss of dynamic range.

Right and as i said before cranking up the ISO

Not everyone pixel-peeps, or is interested in making 10- by 16-foot murals. Posting on FaceSpace and MyBook is the end result of their efforts. And maybe emailing Auntie Edna.

So if a 600 x 800 pixel image is the sole output of the image, who cares what ISO it was taken at?

I read it, and most Professional Photographers are taking these pictures for more then what you stated, i was not talking about people taking a picture of there cat to upload to facebook, a smart phone would be sufficient, why would you want to take a picture with a $1,000.00 + camera and $600.00 lens to create a 600X800 picture?





600X800 pixel image is a very low resolution image, at that rage your not even going to make a good 8X10 image never mind 10-16, even in a 5X7 print it will show.

Um, read my post again. I highlighted the portion you apparently missed.

 

[donny1963]

A lot of situations the increase on ISO is required to increase the shutter speed so you can freeze a birds wing. So don't narrow ISO image

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

NOT TRUE you don't need a higher iso to shoot at 3000 shutter speed, that is the old day when you was shooting film.. :/
I shoot at 3k shutter speed at iso 100 all the time..

 

[jcdeboever]

A lot of situations the increase on ISO is required to increase the shutter speed so you can freeze a birds wing. So don't narrow ISO image

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

NOT TRUE you don't need a higher iso to shoot at 3000 shutter speed, that is the old day when you was shooting film.. :/
I shoot at 3k shutter speed at iso 100 all the time..

OK, if you say so but my camera (D3300) tells me what I can and can't not do. I am not an expert but there are times in certain lighting conditions where I have to bump the ISO in order to achieve a correct exposure for faster shutter speeds. I really don't understand what the complaint is as the camera dictates the proper exposure, generally speaking. Just because you can shoot at 3000k at 100 ISO tells me nothing. What are the conditions, what are you shooting, what are you trying to achieve? My camera will not expose correctly at any setting, there are adjustments that need to be dialed in for proper exposure.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[donny1963]

A lot of situations the increase on ISO is required to increase the shutter speed so you can freeze a birds wing. So don't narrow ISO image

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

NOT TRUE you don't need a higher iso to shoot at 3000 shutter speed, that is the old day when you was shooting film.. :/
I shoot at 3k shutter speed at iso 100 all the time..

OK, if you say so but my camera (D3300) tells me what I can and can't not do. I am not an expert but there are times in certain lighting conditions where I have to bump the ISO in order to achieve a correct exposure for faster shutter speeds. I really don't understand what the complaint is as the camera dictates the proper exposure, generally speaking.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The D3300 can do high shutter speeds at 100 iso if you have good lighting situation, and that is what i stated in good lighting situations..

here is a shot done at 1000 Shutter speed at 100 ISO Froze the shot,

perfect exposure..
Nikon D7100,,

 

[jcdeboever]

A lot of situations the increase on ISO is required to increase the shutter speed so you can freeze a birds wing. So don't narrow ISO image

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

NOT TRUE you don't need a higher iso to shoot at 3000 shutter speed, that is the old day when you was shooting film.. :/
I shoot at 3k shutter speed at iso 100 all the time..

OK, if you say so but my camera (D3300) tells me what I can and can't not do. I am not an expert but there are times in certain lighting conditions where I have to bump the ISO in order to achieve a correct exposure for faster shutter speeds. I really don't understand what the complaint is as the camera dictates the proper exposure, generally speaking.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The D3300 can do high shutter speeds at 100 iso if you have good lighting situation, and that is what i stated in good lighting situations..

here is a shot done at 1000 Shutter speed at 100 ISO Froze the shot, View attachment 122450 perfect exposure..
Nikon D7100,,

That is not a perfect exposure. This is going no where I can see.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Trever1t]

There is NO GOOD reason, other to gain a grainy look to a shot, to crank ISO up any higher than is necessary to achieve the intended goal. People who do that just have no understanding of their equipment.

To answer the question.

 

[limr]

Why does anyone shoot they way they do?

1) Because they don't know better;
2) because they don't care;
3) because they have a purpose and are using specific methods to try to achieve that goal.

The third may be confusing if you assume their purpose to be the same as yours. But you should not assume this.

Also, I'm not entirely sure why you'd even care.