# What does 'hi' means?



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 18, 2011)

What does hi 0.3, 0.7, 1, 2 in my D5100 means? What do the camera do? Increasing ISO makes the sensor more sensitive to light. What does the camera do when I increase the ISO to 'hi'?


----------



## MTVision (Nov 18, 2011)

It's just higher ISO's. Hi 2 = ISO 25,600 or something like that


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 18, 2011)

ISO only goes up to 10000, so anything more sensitive than that technically isn't recognized by the ISO.  So the manufacturers use "Hi" as a substitute.  This way, they don't get in trouble for claiming 12,500 and 25,000 ISOs, which really don't exist.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 18, 2011)

That's your expanded ISO. I can't tell you WHY they call it Hi... I am sure that one of the guys will know the technicals on it.


----------



## Dao (Nov 18, 2011)

I think .......

ISO number increase when sensor sensitivity increase.  But when it reach to the max, the next ISO setting (Hi) is created digitally.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 18, 2011)

So, do they increasing the sensitivity in the camera or just increase the brightness in the camera?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 18, 2011)

Dao said:


> I think .......
> 
> ISO number increase when sensor sensitivity increase.  But when it reach to the max, the next ISO setting (Hi) is created digitally.



But it doesn't seem to work that way, in DxOMark, there indeed is ISO 25600.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 18, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > I think .......
> ...




ISO is not a 'speed', it is the International Organization for Standardization.  They set the accepted standards on how long a meter is, what the speed of light in a vacuum is, as well as film speed, et al.  Currently, their standards only go to 10,000.  So anyone claiming to have a speed above that will not be endorsed by the ISO.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 18, 2011)

Used to be ASA


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 18, 2011)

Sometimes, DIN was used.


----------



## rsbones (Nov 18, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Increasing ISO makes the sensor more sensitive to light. What does the camera do when I increase the ISO to 'hi'?



Not to get into a technical discussion, but increasing the ISO does not make the sensor more sensitive to light. It doesn't change anything about the sensor itself (aperture and shutter speed control how much light the sensor gets). The ISO setting tells the camera how much to amplify the signal when it processes it to a digital file. Depending on the camera you are using, it may be better to shoot with a higher iso, or on some new models (nikon d7000 for example) it may be better to shoot at iso 100 or 200 and then adjust the image on the computer instead (so that highlights aren't clipped like they would have been had the camera done the processing).


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2011)

When a Nikon camera's performance, as tested, does NOT MEET the official ISO performance criteria,  Nikon then specifies the extended ISO capability levels or settings using the "Hi" nomenclature. Nikon is not trying to bull-chit its users....so they use a different way of referencing how high the gain is, in an "approximate" ISO-equivalence in the areas on either side of the official, tested range. There is also Lo. on some camera models. In the Lo- mode, slightly compromised dynamic range is a typical "feature" that users can look forward to.


----------



## tevo (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe it is a popular slang term for 'hello'


----------



## wickedmouse383 (Nov 19, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> What does hi 0.3, 0.7, 1, 2 in my D5100 means? What do the camera do? Increasing ISO makes the sensor more sensitive to light. What does the camera do when I increase the ISO to 'hi'?



My nikon stops at 6400 before it goes into "HI" But I try not to ever go beyond the numeric ISO. I do know I did it one time on purpose and it was extremely bright, was no need to go that hi and it create a lot of "noise" in the pic


----------



## KmH (Nov 19, 2011)

Lo and Hi ISO is done with software. Both usually entail a significant loss of dynamic range because it is essentially faked ISO.

Normal, or base ISO is done with amplifiers on the image sensor.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 19, 2011)

KmH said:


> Lo and Hi ISO is done with software. Both usually entail a significant loss of dynamic range because it is essentially faked ISO.
> 
> Normal, or base ISO is done with amplifiers on the image sensor.



Thanks.


----------



## Patrice (Nov 19, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Depending on the camera you are using, it may be better to shoot with a higher iso, or on some new models (nikon d7000 for example) it may be better to shoot at iso 100 or 200 and then adjust the image on the computer instead (so that highlights aren't clipped like they would have been had the camera done the processing).




Where did you get this piece of information?


----------



## Helen B (Nov 20, 2011)

Derrel said:


> When a Nikon camera's performance, as tested, does NOT MEET the official ISO performance criteria,  Nikon then specifies the extended ISO capability levels or settings using the "Hi" nomenclature. Nikon is not trying to bull-chit its users....so they use a different way of referencing how high the gain is, in an "approximate" ISO-equivalence in the areas on either side of the official, tested range. There is also Lo. on some camera models. In the Lo- mode, slightly compromised dynamic range is a typical "feature" that users can look forward to.



Exactly. 

The way ISO speed is defined does not really set an upper limit. An ISO speed is the EI (exposure index) used for an exposure that meets the criteria set out in the relevant ISO standard.


----------



## rsbones (Nov 20, 2011)

Patrice said:


> rsbones said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on the camera you are using, it may be better to shoot with a higher iso, or on some new models (nikon d7000 for example) it may be better to shoot at iso 100 or 200 and then adjust the image on the computer instead (so that highlights aren't clipped like they would have been had the camera done the processing).
> ...



There has been lots of discussion about this issue on photography forums over the last year. Here's probably a good place to start: 

The role of ISO in exposure and how it applies to photography. [Page 1]: 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


and here is an example of how using low ISO on some cameras produces better results:

http://new.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37235114


----------



## MTVision (Nov 20, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Patrice said:
> 
> 
> > rsbones said:
> ...



Wouldn't low ISO usually produce better results - as long as the image is properly exposed?


----------



## rsbones (Nov 20, 2011)

Define "properly exposed". The example shown in my link above shows a scene photographed with two settings:

1/30, f2.0, ISO 100
1/30, f2.0, ISO 6400

Most people would traditionally say that only the second one was "properly exposed". In either case, the exact same amount of light hit the sensor of course. And with cameras like the D7000 that have very flat read noise curves, one can set the camera at ISO 100, capture approximately 14 stops worth of dynamic range, instead of setting it at 6400 where you'll only get about 7 stops (the camera will "clip" highlights). The jpg displayed on your on camera lcd will be terribly dark - perhaps totally black. But when you import your raw file into, say, Lightroom software and push the exposure 6 stops (while protecting highlights), the photo will reach the brightness you would have had at ISO6400, won't have blown highlights, and will have suffered no noise penalty.

In other words, with these types of sensors, in low light situations it's possible to forget about ISO when considering "exposure": leave it at iso100, pick the aperture you want for the DOF you want, and set the shutter speed you want to control motion, and then as long as you are within 6 or 8 stops, you can develop the image correctly on the computer instead of asking the camera to process it first (which is what changing the ISO on camera does, but in a less sophisticated manner than the computer can do).


----------



## Destin (Nov 20, 2011)

rsbones said:
			
		

> Define "properly exposed". The example shown in my link above shows a scene photographed with two settings:
> 
> 1/30, f2.0, ISO 100
> 1/30, f2.0, ISO 6400
> ...



If you push a black image six stops in Lightroom, you're going to introduce a TON of noise. Hate to burst your bubble.

You are ALWAYS better off properly exposing in camera, because upping the exposure on an underexposed image in post adds MORE noise than increasing the iso, especially with cameras as good in low light as the D7k.


----------



## rsbones (Nov 20, 2011)

Destin said:


> If you push a black image six stops in Lightroom, you're going to introduce a TON of noise. Hate to burst your bubble.
> 
> You are ALWAYS better off properly exposing in camera, because upping the exposure on an underexposed image in post adds MORE noise than increasing the iso, especially with cameras as good in low light as the D7k.



Please either try it yourself, or go to the threads linked and see the results others have gotten on their tests. Look at the images of the building at night: the iso6400 shot has blown highlights, as you'd expect - but the iso100 shot does not because you can protect them when adjusting the image on the computer, taking advantage of capturing a much expanded dynamic range, all without introducing more noise. This is the advantage these new sensors provide and it requires a new way of thinking about iso.

http://www.sensorgen.info  lists all the data for various cameras so you can see which current sensors have this flat read noise feature and which don't, what the dynamic range at each iso setting is, etc.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 20, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > If you push a black image six stops in Lightroom, you're going to introduce a TON of noise. Hate to burst your bubble.
> ...



Can you do some tests? I'm not really good at creating these tests. Your claims seems reasonable.


----------



## Destin (Nov 20, 2011)

Ill do some formal tests, but I'm telling you, I know from experience that it won't work. 

I tried the whole "underexpose and repair in post thing" while shooting high school football this year, in order to achieve a higher shutter speed. It didn't turn out well. However, as you wish I'm going to conduct some formal tests right now. Granted I'm shooting a d80, so 1600 is my highest native ISO and will have to do.


----------



## Destin (Nov 20, 2011)

OK, test complete, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'm correct. Here are my 2 shots, and 2 crops from each. All photos were taking in RAW, so in camera NR was not a factor. 

Let's start with the "properly exposed" shots, taken at iso 1600. ALL other settings remained the same. The only thing done differently in camera was changing the iso. 

Post Processing: For the shots taken at 1600, all I did in post was bring the exposure down -.14 in LR to correct a slightly off exposure in camera, and slide the luminance noise reduction slider up to 35. Also converted from raw to .jpg upon export for all photos. 








crop 1 @1600:





Crop 2 @1600





For the following iso 100 shots I bumped the exposure up 3.86 stops, to bring it to the exact same level as the shots taken at 1600. I then had to adjust the contrast, saturation, vibrance, and black levels in order to repair butchered colors from underexposing 4 stops in camera. I then upped the luminance NR slider to 55, which seemed to be as far as I could push it without it looking like a watercolor painting. 

Here are the shots taken at 1600 and then "repaired" in post:






crop 1 @iso 100:





crop 2 @iso 100:





My conclusions:
The only positive thing I can see about underexposing by 4 stops in camera, and then repairing it in post, is that you don't need to worry about blowing highlights. By looking at these images, you can clearly see that it introdces MORE shadow noise than the properly exposed image coming SOOC (and these were done with a camera that's 2 generations old. This would be MUCH more pronounced in newer generation cameras with better high iso performance). You can also clearly see that the image taken at 1600 was able to better preserve dynamic range than the one taken at 100 and then pushed in post. 

This test has simply reinforced what I already knew to be true. Post processing cannot replace getting it right in camera.


----------



## rsbones (Nov 20, 2011)

No one is claiming all cameras can be used in this fashion. The technology is still evolving in that direction.  I can't find the info for the D80 sensor - it may not work in the fashion the D7000 and other cameras using the latest (sony made) sensors do. I don't own a D7000 either, or I'd post my own tests. But here is another test and interesting discussion:

D7000: an ISO less camera [Page 1]: Nikon D90 - D40 / D7000 - D3000 Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Destin (Nov 20, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > If you push a black image six stops in Lightroom, you're going to introduce a TON of noise. Hate to burst your bubble.
> ...



Bull. Crap. Just because you are preserving the blown highlights, does NOT mean you have captured a greater dynamic range. You underexposed by 6 stops in the example, so CLEARLY your highlights won't be blown. Where the theory falls flat, is that by underexposing the image by 6 stops, you just lost the majority of your shadow detail, and it cannot be recovered in post, because it was NEVER recorded in the first place. This is a classic HDR scenario. You need a greater dynamic range than what current sensor technology can provide, and there is no way to cheat that using a single exposure.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 20, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Define "properly exposed". The example shown in my link above shows a scene photographed with two settings:
> 
> 1/30, f2.0, ISO 100
> 1/30, f2.0, ISO 6400
> ...



Bones, you've responded 2x on this thread and in both cases I'm almost completely certain that your information is totally off.

I'm not going to go research it because I'm busy with something else, but I'll go out on a limb and say that switching to different ISO has no noteworthy impact in dynamic range at all... and CERTAINLY not a 2x impact.  I'm pretty certain there isn't a camera on the market that isn't capable of capturing "14 stops of light" without software tricks such as "HDR".

Also, no one is going to say that any particular setting for ISO on a camera is properly exposed without knowing the scene in question.  I say this merely as an additional emphasis that you're probably not quite as informed as you may think.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 20, 2011)

Ok, I couldn't help but do a little research...

It looks like there ARE some effects...

Understanding Dynamic Range in Digital Photography

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but scanning around it looks like "some", but not 7->14.

I may be wrong... I'll have to read it in detail later.

If I'm wrong: I'm sorry.
If I'm partially wrong: I'm partially sorry.
If I'm not wrong: Please add additional snark to my previous post.

Thank you.


----------



## rsbones (Nov 20, 2011)

Destin said:


> Bull. Crap. Just because you are preserving the blown highlights, does NOT mean you have captured a greater dynamic range. You underexposed by 6 stops in the example, so CLEARLY your highlights won't be blown. Where the theory falls flat, is that by underexposing the image by 6 stops, you just lost the majority of your shadow detail



If the shots were taken at the same aperture and shutter speed, the sensor captures the same amount of "shadow detail" regardless of where you set the ISO. ISO is always post-processing, whether you let your camera do it (where gain worked better than photoshop on older sensors without flat read noise curves) or now do it with raw converter or photoshop (when shooting with these new sensors).


It's going to take some time to get used to this possibility. But I suspect in the near future, ISO will simply be a meta-data. It'll exist in the jpg so that the preview on your camera lcd will be viewable, but the actual raw data will not include any permanent iso adjustment. 






manaheim said:


> I'm not going to go research it because I'm busy with something else, but I'll go out on a limb and say that switching to different ISO has no noteworthy impact in dynamic range at all... and CERTAINLY not a 2x impact. I'm pretty certain there isn't a camera on the market that isn't capable of capturing "14 stops of light" without software tricks such as "HDR".
> 
> 
> Also, no one is going to say that any particular setting for ISO on a camera is properly exposed without knowing the scene in question. I say this merely as an additional emphasis that you're probably not quite as informed as you may think.




You don't have to go out on a limb. All the data about dynamic range available at each ISO setting is available for you at Sensorgen.info data for Nikon D7000 for the D7000.  You are correct about one thing: i'm not as informed as I think, and I'm simply passing on info to you guys from the links quoted where the discussion really is being informed by some really smart people, including those working in the sensor engineering industry.


*It was never my intention here to argue this case. I simply wanted to pass along some brand new information that leads to exciting possibilities in photography. If you want to disagree with them, you're going to need to take that discussion elsewhere I'm afraid because there is not much more I can do to present this side than show you all the data linked above and the discussions linked above. FWIW, it's pretty well accepted that the D7000 and Pentax that uses the same sensor are "ISOless". Google that term and have fun reading all about this paradigm shift.*


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 20, 2011)

Its clearly explained in the manual what it does and performance not good, not that i read mine either.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 20, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Its clearly explained in the manual what it does and performance not good, not that i read mine either.



Oh yeah, I meant to make a snarky remark to this effect as well, but was distracted by the ISO/DR thing. 

So many posts, so little time to snark.


----------



## MTVision (Nov 20, 2011)

rsbones said:
			
		

> If the shots were taken at the same aperture and shutter speed, the sensor captures the same amount of "shadow detail" regardless of where you set the ISO. ISO is always post-processing, whether you let your camera do it (where gain worked better than photoshop on older sensors without flat read noise curves) or now do it with raw converter or photoshop (when shooting with these new sensors).
> 
> It's going to take some time to get used to this possibility. But I suspect in the near future, ISO will simply be a meta-data. It'll exist in the jpg so that the preview on your camera lcd will be viewable, but the actual raw data will not include any permanent iso adjustment.
> 
> ...



I'll do a test and post the results. I don't have a d7000 but I have a d5100 and they have the basically the same/similar sensor!


----------



## bazooka (Nov 20, 2011)

Ok, I spent basically all morning reading that book of a thread in between some work done. I'm still not quite sure what the "ISO-less" crowd is claiming. It seems there are so many different variables being argued by different people at the same time. At one point, someone actually claimed shooting in RAW disabled the ISO setting altogether. There were also massive arguments over semantics... exposure, density, even ISO itself. 

And most of it theory, with very little actual evidence... ie photos with no differences other than ISO (including modifications to contrast, saturation, NR, etc....). The most telling was the above comparison shot posted by bones. However, I don't believe that post specified what processing was done. Destin, even in your shot you specify that you had to use many different settings to get the images to look roughly the same. How about we compare apples to apples?

Two shots, same "exposure", meaning shutter time and aperture. One ISO set high (1600?) to properly expose highlights (no clipping other than specular), and then reset to base. When in RAW processor, turn all settings *FROM DEFAULT* to 0. Only modifications to the exposure are allowed. And to make it even more fair (because many on the thread preached against ACR not having accurate or appropriate algorithms), I recommend using RT and RPP which were brought up several times.

Oh yeah, and this apparently doesn't apply to *ANY* Canon DSLR, and many Nikon DSLR's (or any other camera with a non-linear read-noise slope). So that counts me out... I suppose I could do my own test to, like Destin said, prove what I already know. Heck, I might learn something.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.



BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This isn't true in the same way that clipping highlights works.  The only way a shadow is completely 'clipped' in a RAW image is if not enough photons even hit the sensor from that area of the image.  However, that's an extremely low threshold.  There are very few images taken where you can't retrieve the detail from shadows to a pretty decent extent.  The problem is (normally, I guess) that you pay for it in noise, because you're amplifying small amounts of light to great extents, you pick up the extraneous photons/electrons that don't correspond to the image and are amplifying them too.  With clipping highlights, the sensor gets maxed out, and for that spot in the image, any further incoming photons don't get processed as part of the image, and it shows up in the picture as pure white.  

Now, in post, you can change your black point on an image, so any areas that fall below your defined threshold do become 'blocked out', but that's set by you, on purpose.  

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.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.



That doesn't even make sense.  Of course you can amplify a noisy image.  You might not want to do it, but you certainly can.  With today's DSLRs, that's exactly how you get visible noise in the first place, by amplifying an image where parts of the actual image are no brighter than the stray electrons created by the camera's operation, and thus when you amplify that enough, you get visible noise.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.
> ...



That's right! You can't amplify detail that is not there!


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't clip shadows. I'm not joking. The reason it gets clipped is because of the black levels.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



SO you're talking about where the 'source/image photons' are so low that they are completely indistinguishable from the 'stray/noise electrons'?  

Even that being said, you can still amplify it.  It just looks ugly.  The idea of 'amplifying detail' doesn't even make sense.  Amplification is amplification, it doesn't make a difference if the source it is amplifying is noisy or perfectly noise free.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

I may have used the wrong words - but using higher ISO doesn't mean you can get detail where it is not possible in low ISOs.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One more thing - if you read my previous post - *underexpose by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip shadows*. I didn't say that it was not possible to clip shadows - what I said may not be what you're thinking. What I meant is that underexposing by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip more shadows compared to using a higher ISO. A monitor capable of displaying high bits would show that it isn't really clipped.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



You mean like shooting a scene at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, when the proper exposure is f/4, 1/30th, and iso6400. I'm pretty sure you just proved the point that i've been trying to prove throughout this entire thread for me.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



no, you'd be able to pull most of the shadows up under those settings with a raw image.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

here's an example on my D3100




DSC_0002 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

THis is just what the camera decided on in aperture priority mode.  f/1.8, ISO 3200 1/15th of a sec




DSC_0003 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

same picture, same settings, but in manual mode, with ISO 100




DSC_0004 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

finally, same picture, same settings, but ISO 100 and only 1/40 shutter speed.  While, yes, the noise here is pretty out of control, notice that none of the shadows were actually 'clipped' everything is fully there, albeit with a lot of noise.  This image was completely dark originally, except the LEDs on my guitar amp.  

You've got to go a long way before shadows get to the point to where the source image is completely indistinguishable from the noise.  And shadows never actually clip, which actually doesn't even make sense, since clipping literally means that the sensor is overloaded at that point.  That's why shadows are actually referred to as being 'blocked out', if anything, and it only happens when the image falls below the noise floor.  Which is EXTREMELY LOW.


----------



## sm4him (Dec 7, 2011)

"What does 'hi' mean?," she read. And she thought, Oh, I know something about that, and look at all the replies; I didn't know there was that much to be said about "hi" ISO(is) settings.  

And so I had a look...and then I fell down the Rabbit Hole. 
I have NO idea what some of you are even talking about, but it all sounds very intelligent and informative...until you read the next post, which sounds MORE intelligent and informative, and makes you think clearly the first poster was just wrong.  

All I know is, I suddenly feel the need to go watch an episode of the Simpsons, to equalize all the high-intelligence techno-babble that is now rattling around in my head. :lmao:


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



I TOTALLY disagree. Again, if I take a photo at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, but the proper exposure (per the histogram) for said image would be f/4, 1/30th, and iso 6400, THE EXPOSURE TAKEN AT ISO 100 WILL LOSE DETAIL IN THE SHADOW AREAS. There is no way you can possibly argue against this. You just can't.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



no, you wouldn't. I've tried it several times and you can't.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



it depends on how much noise there is.  If you have low atmospheric noise, and the camera creates very little noise of its own, then you can go really low without losing left side detail.  

Clipping isn't the same as losing detail, either.  Clipping means that the sensor is overloaded, and can't register anything but a pure color.  That never happens on the left side of the histogram.  On the left side of the histogram, your only worry is how much noise there is.  And noise isn't a constant, it depends on environment and camera.  A really good camera and a really low noise environment would allow you to take a seemingly black picture and in post processing have it look relatively normal.  

I think your biggest problem is calling having lots of noise in the shadows clipping, they're entirely different concepts.  Clipping cannot, in any, way, shape, or form be fixed.  Once the sensor clips, there's nothing you can do about it, that information is just completely gone.  Noise can be fixed to varying degrees with powerful enough software.  Black points can be adjusted.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



yes, yes you can, I've done it.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Okay, we're arguing slightly different concepts here. Let's take it to the REAL world, and not technical BS. 

Are the details there? Maybe. Let's for the sake of argument say they are. Because I for one don't care if they're there or not. It doesn't matter. 

Why? Because there is NO way that you'll ever restore them without introducing enough noise to render the image completely useless. I don't care how good your software is. Example:

First image: Take at iso 3200 on my Nikon D80. Admittedly crappy noise performance but that should only help your argument because the next image is taken at iso 100, where my camera produces clean photos. For the sake of my argument, this first shot is straight out of camera, just converted to JPG. Both are 100% crops btw. 








Image 2, taken at iso 100 on my D80. Upped the exposure and fill light to balance the histogram with image one, AND applied the strongest noise reduction settings in lightroom to try and restore it to a useable image. You're still left with Chicken **** for an image. There is no recovering more detail out of it. There is no way to fix the noise to make it useable. The first shot however, I could apply some noise reduction and make it a somewhat useable image. 






Now don't go and say the results in the second image would be better with a different camera. That's bogus because the image came out of the camera clean because it was taken at iso 100.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



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.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Just FYI, you're wrong. Underexposing by lets say 3 stops at ISO 100, is not going to look as good when the exposure is digitally manipulated in post to be properly exposed. If you shot it on ISO 800, the shot would come out much cleaner, as the image has gone through less digital exposure correction (hopefully, none). Granted cameras are getting better at retrieving detail in the shadows, but you want to get it AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN to properly exposed in camera rather than fixing it in post. 

You've been at photography for ~2 months. Stop arguing.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Just FYI, you're wrong. Underexposing by lets say 3 stops at ISO 100, is not going to look as good when the exposure is digitally manipulated in post to be properly exposed. If you shot it on ISO 800, the shot would come out much cleaner, as the image has gone through less digital exposure correction (hopefully, none). Granted cameras are getting better at retrieving detail in the shadows, but you want to get it AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN to properly exposed in camera rather than fixing it in post.
> 
> You've been at photography for ~2 months. Stop arguing.



did you even read what I read?  I certainly didn't say it would look as good.  THe whole thing I've been saying is that having a noisy, degraded image is not the same as clipping.  Read what you're responding to.  Point out one single thing I said that was wrong.  I said that you don't lose the information, it just starts getting noisy, whereas clipping, the information is completely gone.  I never said everything should be shot at ISO 100, at any point.  I will make the argument that if you're clipping, it's better to shoot underexposed and fix than it is to have clipped out highlights, which cannot be fixed at all, because the information was never there in teh first place.  I will make the argument (as other people have backed up with links) that you get a decent amount more dynamic range when underexposed, though, especially with noisy cameras, it comes at a price.  

Of course properly exposing is better, given current technology.  I never said otherwise.  What I did say is that you can recover information on the left side of the histogram more easily than on the right side.  The only stop you run into is you start amplifying noise to unacceptable levels.  Often times that's a big issue, but noise correction software continues to get better and better daily, and cameras get better and better at not creating their own noise every day.  So, I don't htink it's unreasonable to say that at some point ISO will mostly just become meta data, in all but extreme cases.  

The point I was responding to was Destin saying that you can clip out shadows, which just doesn't make sense.  Shadows don't clip out.  THey run into signal noise ratio problems.

Again, what did I say that was wrong?


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> 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.



THere are two points to be made here: 1) The original was mostly talking about "as technology and noise reduction gets better." and 2) Plenty of photographers shoot underexposed when they see highlights clipping and then fix it in post.  It's an extremely common technique (the only reason it's not more common is the emergence of HDR), which is the 'real world' application of what is being talked about here.  That it's easier to deal with noise than it is clipped out highlights.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...


 


fjrabon said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Just FYI, you're wrong. Underexposing by lets say 3 stops at ISO 100, is not going to look as good when the exposure is digitally manipulated in post to be properly exposed. If you shot it on ISO 800, the shot would come out much cleaner, as the image has gone through less digital exposure correction (hopefully, none). Granted cameras are getting better at retrieving detail in the shadows, but you want to get it AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN to properly exposed in camera rather than fixing it in post.
> ...



I used an example of 3 stops underexposed. The example Destin gave was a whopping 6 stops underexposed. You would not be able to restore enough detail from an image 6 stops underexposed. You are mistaken.

What would the shadows be in an image that's 6 stops underexposed? Clipped? Plugged? Unusable? All of the previous.


----------



## Dao (Dec 7, 2011)

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?


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> I used an example of 3 stops underexposed. The example Destin gave was a whopping 6 stops underexposed. You would not be able to restore enough detail from an image 6 stops underexposed. You are mistaken.
> 
> What would the shadows be in an image that's 6 stops underexposed? Clipped? Plugged? Unusable? All of the previous.



look at the actual example I gave above.  Same picture, same settings, one shot at ISO 100, one shot at ISO 3200, that's 5 stops of ISO.  The details were completely there, and the image wasn't even awfully noisy.  Then I also reduced the shutter time by almost 300% and still, all the details were there, though noisy.  That was shooting a black guitar amp.  That's because Destin's camera creates a lot of noise, which makes the images unusable faster.  Since the OP was about a D7000, the difference would even be more extreme in how many stops you can recover.  

Again, in those images, no detail was lost, noise just started to be introduced.  That's the difference between the left side and the right side.  Highlights are 100% GONE when they clip.  They can't even sort of come back.  On the left side things just start to get noisy, how noisy depends on 4 factors 1) how much noise your camera creates through its physical operation.  2) How much noise is in the environment (an area with lots of electronics will produce a lot more extraneous environmental noise, as stray electrons hit the sensor) 3) how good your noise reduction algorithms are. and 4) how much you had to amplify the signal.  

You don't clip on the left side.  That doesn't even make sense.  Look up what clipping means.  The only way to clip on the shadows is to have your black point set to create purposeful clipping, or if your sensor just doesn't pick up photons below a certain intensity (which, for modern DSLRs, is an EXTREMELY LOW threshold, for all intents and purposes, it's nonexistent on a modern DSLR sensor).  What Destin has been talking about is getting to the point where his noise levels are so high that the signal begins to get lost, which is an entirely different concept.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I used an example of 3 stops underexposed. The example Destin gave was a whopping 6 stops underexposed. You would not be able to restore enough detail from an image 6 stops underexposed. You are mistaken.
> ...



Are we looking at the same images? There is absolutely no-way-I-would-ever touch the underexposed shot at ISO100. Maybe to you, the "details" are there. To me, it's a right click-delete.

It's interesting that Adobe calls it highlight and shadow clipping. Regardless of what anyone else defines "clipped" as, I see it as having an area of the image too dark, or too bright to warrant an exposure adjustment in an effort to fix it. Like the one you posted, where all of the shadows were clipped at ISO 100 and then "brought back" in post.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Are we looking at the same images? There is absolutely no-way-I-would-ever touch the underexposed shot at ISO100. Maybe to you, the "details" are there. To me, it's a right click-delete.
> 
> It's interesting that Adobe calls it highlight and shadow clipping. Regardless of what anyone else defines "clipped" as, I see it as having an area of the image too dark, or too bright to warrant an exposure adjustment in an effort to fix it. Like the one you posted, where all of the shadows were clipped at ISO 100 and then "brought back" in post.



I never once said they were pictures you'd want to use.  What I said is that the details weren't lost in the same way you lose highlights, they're not GONE.  You can clip shadows, but that involves setting your black point to clip them at that point ON PURPOSE.  What Adobe is referring to is values below the defined black point, which is the point that the software turns any close to black value into pure black.  If you totally remove the black point, to where any non black value point, no matter how dark, is still non black, you can 'bring it back (along with a boatload of noise, yes).  If you define the black point all the way over, like magic, your entire image is shadow clipped.  Thus, in camera, you don't really have shadow clipping, except in a really extreme case.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Are we looking at the same images? There is absolutely no-way-I-would-ever touch the underexposed shot at ISO100. Maybe to you, the "details" are there. To me, it's a right click-delete.
> ...



If it can't be applied to real world photography then why does it matter. If the shadows are too dark to be saved and TURNED INTO A USABLE IMAGE, then in my book they are clipped, because they are dark enough to force to to delete the image. 


What you're saying is like saying that I baked a birthday cake for my mom, and burned it to a crisp. It's still a cake sure, but it's COMPLETELY useless and the fact that it is a cake doesn't matter anymore. 

Or I get in a car accident and total my car. Hey, all the parts are still there. Can't drive it but it's all still there. USELESS.


----------



## Dao (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon, maybe take a look at this Optimizing Exposure  (Which is a revised article of "Exposure to the right")


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> If it can't be applied to real world photography then why does it matter. If the shadows are too dark to be saved and TURNED INTO A USABLE IMAGE, then in my book they are clipped, because they are dark enough to force to to delete the image.
> 
> 
> What you're saying is like saying that I baked a birthday cake for my mom, and burned it to a crisp. It's still a cake sure, but it's COMPLETELY useless and the fact that it is a cake doesn't matter anymore.
> ...



no, what I'm saying is that there's a difference between raw cake, which is still there, though possibly not practically usable, and completely evaporated cake, that isn't even there any longer.  On the left side, while the information may be noisy to the point of being unpleasant, the information is still there.  On the right side, when it clips, it's purely gone.  You can make a black sky blue and noisy, but a white sky is only ever going to be white, it's gone.  

And yes, there is a practical "real world application" of this concept, it's just less extreme.  It's the idea of shooting purposefully underexposed.  Pros do it all the time in certain situations.  Sure, you don't always do it, there's no reason to put yourself through exposure correction when you don't have to, but in certain situations, they like the enhanced dynamic range you get when underexposed.  Sure, they would never underexpose by 5 stops (or even 2 stops), they'd use HDR in those situations, because it would provide the same effect, but with less noise.

Also, as technology gets better, the amount we can restore from the left side keeps growing and growing.  10 years ago, one full stop underexposed was COMPLETELY unusable.  Whereas, today professional photographers will often shoot a full stop underexposed on purpose, to avoid clipping highlights.  THey usually won't think about needing HDR unless they get past a full stop of exposure.  The difference in number of stops you can recover on a D7000 and your camera is pretty substantial.  

My whole point, this entire time was at the right side you run into clipping, on the left side you run into noise.  They're simply different concepts.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Dao said:


> fjrabon, maybe take a look at this Optimizing Exposure  (Which is a revised article of "Exposure to the right")



yeah, I've read that before.  If you're not blowing out highlights, you'd want to overexpose and fix in post, for an ideal exposure.  The technical best way to expose is to expose so that the brightest spot is just short of blowing out, and then fix it later.  THough in most cases, going to that extreme is not really necessary, and just causes you to waste time in post when you wouldn't really need to.  

Essentially, that article is making the same point I've been making.  the left side of the histogram means you run into noise.  The signal to noise ratio on the right side of the histogram is higher, because the signal is higher, while the noise (denominator) is basically the same.  The problem with the right side though is you hit a hard stop when you max out the brightness, or clip (blow out) the highlights in the camera.  If you have a small dynamic range, you could technically get a better picture by overexposing it so that the highlights fall just short of clipping and then adjusting in post so that it looks correct in post, you'll have some unmeasurably lower amount of noise in your picture that way.  Practically that's probably more of a pain than it's worth, in most cases.  

The problem comes when you have a high dynamic range.  In that case you're better off underexposing (unless you're fine with clipping the highlights) and then dealing with the noise.  You can gain some additional dynamic range, with a trade off of additional noise, by underexposing.  Which is what I've been saying all along.  Obviously, at this point in technology, you're probably best off dealing with the issue by using HDR if the amount you have to underexpose is a full stop or more.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > If it can't be applied to real world photography then why does it matter. If the shadows are too dark to be saved and TURNED INTO A USABLE IMAGE, then in my book they are clipped, because they are dark enough to force to to delete the image.
> ...



And It's still bad advice you're dishing out. Underexposing in camera causes issues with white balance, color cast, etc. Underexposing by a half stop to avoid highlight clipping is NOT the same thing as you've been arguing. Also, exposing the the left is NOT all that common of a thing to do. ETTR is MUCH more common, because it reduces the amount of visible noise in a photo. 

I'm done with this thread because we're arguing something that is completely pointless. There is simply no reason to underexpose by 6 stops (that was the initial arguement in this thread, since you apparently didn't bother reading the first two pages) in camera by using a lower iso. It's better to get your exposure where you want it in camera. Always. Every time. No question.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> And It's still bad advice you're dishing out. Underexposing in camera causes issues with white balance, color cast, etc. Underexposing by a half stop to avoid highlight clipping is NOT the same thing as you've been arguing. Also, exposing the the left is NOT all that common of a thing to do. ETTR is MUCH more common, because it reduces the amount of visible noise in a photo.
> 
> I'm done with this thread because we're arguing something that is completely pointless. There is simply no reason to underexpose by 6 stops (that was the initial arguement in this thread, since you apparently didn't bother reading the first two pages) in camera by using a lower iso. It's better to get your exposure where you want it in camera. Always. Every time. No question.



well, you're actually making two different arguments there, because ETTR is about getting a 'wrong looking' exposure in camera and then normalizing it in post.  If you're using ETTR and taking a picture of a black sock, you'd expose it to be really light greay (just short of pure white), and then normalize it back to black in post.  You're calling making a black sock really light grey "getting the exposure you want in the camera"?

I never debated, or argued for the original argument.  My point has always been that if you have to _choose between clipping highlights and noise_, noise is easier to fix, because clipped highlights are impossible to fix.  I never once stated that you'd WANT to underexpose by 6 stops, I just said that you can recover the image (and every single time I said, WITH A LOT OF NOISE) by several stops.  

There are in fact times when ETTR would even underexpose compared to what would be considered a 'correct' exposure.  If you've got one really bright highlight, and an otherwise dark picture, ETTR would actually underexpose compared to what 'normal' exposing would do, because it would set the brightest point just short of clipping.  Whereas normal exposure would probably just clip the highlight so everything else was neutral grey.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 7, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Not to get into a technical discussion, but increasing the ISO does not make the sensor more sensitive to light. It doesn't change anything about the sensor itself (aperture and shutter speed control how much light the sensor gets). The ISO setting tells the camera how much to amplify the signal when it processes it to a digital file. Depending on the camera you are using, it may be better to shoot with a higher iso, or on some new models (nikon d7000 for example) it may be better to shoot at iso 100 or 200 and then adjust the image on the computer instead (so that highlights aren't clipped like they would have been had the camera done the processing).



also, I think you've been attacking a straw man, Destin.  As far as I can tell, from the very beginning, shooting underexposed was only ever about _avoiding clipped highlights_.  The above is a quote from the first post about this.  I didn't see anybody ever advocating shooting 5 stops under exposed _just for the heck of it_.  It was always about avoiding clipped highlights.  I was never arguing that you should always shoot underexposed for no reason, because the left side is better.  I use ETTR in a lot of situations, basically every time the dynamic range is at all an issue.  Essentially, part of what I've been arguing is pro-ETTR, because ETTR is about not having clipped highlights as well as bumping up things when they aren't coming close to clipping on the right.  If you use ETTR, sometimes you'll actually get an image that is considered classically underexposed using the traditional matrix middle grey method, if the highlights are really bright.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



Please re-read what rsbones wrote - you capture the same amount of shadow detail no matter what ISO you set your camera on as long as the exposure (aperture and shuttere speed) and available light is the same.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



You could.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Basically yes, the same amount of light hits the sensor. However at iso 100, 6 stops underexposed, you will NOT be able to recover them without getting an INSANELY noisy, un-recognizable photo. I've read through this thread several times. Done tests. Viewed others' tests. Read other threads on other forums. I, along with most other photographers in the world, agree that this whole argument is pointless right now. Sure, the same detail may be there in theory. But by the time you adjust the exposure in post, you've introduced so much noise and screwed up the colors so much that the image is unrecognizable and ultimately unusable. Maybe in 10 years technology will have advanced to a point where iso is simply something you can change in post, but we aren't even close to that point yet.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



You're wrong again. Please read the links rsbones gave or just Google ISOless sensor and read their entire thread and please confirm what you know - proof. Your example has the same amount of available light. You can't possibly lose detail in the shadow area by using a lower ISO if your camera is using high bit eg. 14 bit or your camera has low read noise. The reason you couldn't recover details from the shadow areas is because either your software isn't capable of doing it or your camera has high read noise. The D80 has definitely high read noise. No one would ever imagine not raising the ISO when the picture is dark just a generation ago - because the read noise was so high it was best amplifying the signal in camera.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



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.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Dao said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



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 (Dec 7, 2011)

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 (Dec 7, 2011)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 7, 2011)

MTVision said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



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 (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



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 (Dec 7, 2011)

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 (Dec 7, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



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 (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2011)

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 (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > 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.*
> ...



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 (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > 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'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.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



How do you choose a Aperture/Shutter speed combo? Good question. It's the same as normal exposure - only you don't need to worry about your image being a black hole. Just set the aperture so that you get reasonable depth of field, and set the shutter speed so that there is little motion blur. Determine the brightness later. And in ISOless sensors, ETTR still apply, you want to get as much light as possible to get as many information as possible before blowing the highlights so that you get the least noise and the least banding. And to prevent you detail being covered by noise, you should also check your read noise and see how much light your sensor should be getting before details get hidden by noise.

Noise coming out of the camera with an ISOless sensor is the same as upping the exposure later - if there is sufficient bit and/or dithering.


----------



## Destin (Dec 7, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



Okay that's a decent concept. Now riddle me this. How are you suddenly a self proclaimed expert on this, when this thread was opened by you, asking what the "hi settings did?" How do you go from asking a relatively newbish question, to sounding like a self proclaimed expert on how the sensor works? Oh wait, you read a bunch of stuff online, in forums. How about you get out in the real world and shoot some freaking photos rather than worrying about something that won't even be a possiblity for at least 5 years.


----------



## nickzou (Dec 7, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Define "properly exposed". The example shown in my link above shows a scene photographed with two settings:
> 
> 1/30, f2.0, ISO 100
> 1/30, f2.0, ISO 6400
> ...



WHATT?? Okay, I'm definitely trying this right now!


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 7, 2011)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



I'm definitely not a expert. I am a novice, a beginner, trying to learn. I do read articles and forums. And that made me learn a lot, and I am now trying to explain to you what I learnt. I know what I heard is correct, and am fine for others to correct me. Reading makes you learn a lot. If you do bother read those links, then I'll need not explain all these to you.

When I started this thread, I just wanted to know how sensors work, and I am glad that I started this thread. Thanks to rsbones' links, I've found out lots of think I would never thought about.

"How about you get out in the real world and shoot some freaking photos rather than worrying about something that won't even be a possiblity for at least 5 years." This is already epossible, but it just isn't as convinient/beneficial until the UI change. For landscape or studio photographers, it will definitely benefit them.


----------



## Dao (Dec 7, 2011)

nickzou said:


> rsbones said:
> 
> 
> > Define "properly exposed". The example shown in my link above shows a scene photographed with two settings:
> ...




Please try, I'd like to see the result too.


----------



## rsbones (Dec 7, 2011)

I think a lot of you are not understanding my original post in this thread because you do not have ISO-less cameras! You can't just go try this technique with every camera. Certainly not with the D80! You need a camera with a sensor with a flat read noise curve, like the Nikon D7000 and the other cameras that have that same sensor.

The point of my post was not to instruct anyone on how to use their camera. It was to point out that the way sensors are evolving, the best way to use the camera WILL change away from the traditional ways of thinking. These days are already here with the D7000. You really can get better results by shooting at lower ISO. If you own that camera, try it yourself. If you don't own that camera, go look at the dozens of examples now linked. But what you really should stop doing is stop claiming that because your camera can't do it, then this technique is incorrect! You just don't have the right camera for this technique! But someday soon, we all will because all cameras will have low read noise sensors.


----------



## photography.next (Dec 7, 2011)

Well..Camera technicians and manufacturers guide you more better in this regard but to my knowledge it's a substitute I think. This is the term being used for ISO. As short abbreviation, we can say that its being presented in short format for High ISO. You can successfully Record *H*_igh_ quality audio with an external microphone that's why its called as HI.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 8, 2011)

I can't believe I missed the first 97 posts of this thread.  It makes me sad.  I love this debate.

Also, for the ISO-less crowd, and the ETTR crowd, and the expose for a black frame crowd, there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned in the previous 97 posts.  Not sure how it was missed, but ISO, in the digital world, refers to amplification before the analog to digital converter.  Hi ISO is amplification after the analog to digial converter.  It makes a huge difference.

Generally, the amplification before the analog to digital converter results in less noise, better dynamic range, and better colors.  At this point, using ISO adjustments in camera will always result in a better finished product, until you reach the digital amplification stage(the Hi settings).  There are no truly ISO-less cameras on the market today.

Also, FWIW, ISO is still not part of exposure.


----------



## rsbones (Dec 8, 2011)

Destin said:


> 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.



No one is claiming that you can "underexpose" the photo and be able to fix it! In your example, you will not capture enough light at 5.6, 1/8000 no matter what ISO setting you use because not enough light will hit the sensor with that shutter speed and aperture. But let's say you decided that 1/500 is going to be the shutter speed you need. And you want f5.6 to keep multiple players in focus. You meter with an older dslr and it'll recommend ISO3200. With the D7000, you could go ahead and shoot with that. The camera will boost the gain as it processes the image to your card and it will clip out any light that falls off the right, so to speak. If this is a problem for you, what you can choose to do instead with the cameras like the D7000 is leave your aperture and shutter speed the same, and simply dial your ISO back down a few stops, heck probably even as far back as 100.

The camera will still capture _just as much light _as it did at iso3200. It will appear dark as hell in the jpg on your lcd screen. But when you import the raw file, you can adjust the brightness of the image so that you are only boosting the dark areas (leaving the highlights alone) and the photo _will not get overly noisy_! It will look the same as your iso3200 shot, except that it will still contain the highlights that the iso3200 shot had to clip out! This is the best of both worlds.

If you can't prove this to yourself with your camera, that is only because your camera does not have the proper type of sensor to shoot in this manner. But the next camera you buy might. Eventually, they all will.


----------



## Destin (Dec 8, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



No matter what you say, I will ALWAYS argue that with the technology available to us at this point in time, you will achieve the best possible results by exposing the image properly in camera.


----------



## Destin (Dec 8, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> I can't believe I missed the first 97 posts of this thread.  It makes me sad.  I love this debate.
> 
> Also, for the ISO-less crowd, and the ETTR crowd, and the expose for a black frame crowd, there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned in the previous 97 posts.  Not sure how it was missed, but ISO, in the digital world, refers to amplification before the analog to digital converter.  Hi ISO is amplification after the analog to digial converter.  It makes a huge difference.
> 
> ...



WE FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! zOMG NO FREAKING WAY!!

As far as the whole iso isn't a part of exposure thing, the definition of exposure you're using to claim that is not the same definition of exposure used by 99.99% of americans. Soooo...... lol


----------



## MTVision (Dec 8, 2011)

rsbones said:
			
		

> No one is claiming that you can "underexpose" the photo and be able to fix it! In your example, you will not capture enough light at 5.6, 1/8000 no matter what ISO setting you use because not enough light will hit the sensor with that shutter speed and aperture. But let's say you decided that 1/500 is going to be the shutter speed you need. And you want f5.6 to keep multiple players in focus. You meter with an older dslr and it'll recommend ISO3200. With the D7000, you could go ahead and shoot with that. The camera will boost the gain as it processes the image to your card and it will clip out any light that falls off the right, so to speak. If this is a problem for you, what you can choose to do instead with the cameras like the D7000 is leave your aperture and shutter speed the same, and simply dial your ISO back down a few stops, heck probably even as far back as 100.
> 
> The camera will still capture just as much light as it did at iso3200. It will appear dark as hell in the jpg on your lcd screen. But when you import the raw file, you can adjust the brightness of the image so that you are only boosting the dark areas (leaving the highlights alone) and the photo will not get overly noisy! It will look the same as your iso3200 shot, except that it will still contain the highlights that the iso3200 shot had to clip out! This is the best of both worlds.
> 
> If you can't prove this to yourself with your camera, that is only because your camera does not have the proper type of sensor to shoot in this manner. But the next camera you buy might. Eventually, they all will.



I was really skeptical but I have to agree. I took 2 shots - 1@ 1/13 f/1.4 ISO 3200 and the 2nd one @ 1/13 f/1.4  ISO 100. 

The shot taken at ISO 100 (after raising exposure in post) looks pretty much identical to the shot taken at ISO 3200. I don't have a d7000 but the d5100 does have the same sensor performance.


----------



## rsbones (Dec 8, 2011)

Destin said:


> No matter what you say, I will ALWAYS argue that with the technology available to us at this point in time, you will achieve the best possible results by exposing the image properly in camera.



Why would you purposefully  limit your dynamic range and throw away data (the highlights that will get clipped) when you can capture it all? I believe that if you buy that D7000 you are considering, that you will change your opinion on what you will ALWAYS do pretty darn quickly!

Megan, thanks for posting the results of your tests with the D5100: it's nice to hear it also works well for this type of technique.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > No matter what you say, I will ALWAYS argue that with the technology available to us at this point in time, you will achieve the best possible results by exposing the image properly in camera.
> ...



rsbones, I have one question... What can I do to raise exposure by 5 stops? LR only limit me to 4 stops.


----------



## Destin (Dec 8, 2011)

rsbones said:
			
		

> Why would you purposefully  limit your dynamic range and throw away data (the highlights that will get clipped) when you can capture it all? I believe that if you buy that D7000 you are considering, that you will change your opinion on what you will ALWAYS do pretty darn quickly!
> 
> Megan, thanks for posting the results of your tests with the D5100: it's nice to hear it also works well for this type of technique.



One sentence response: learn to expose properly and you won't blow highlights. Imagine that.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

Destin said:


> rsbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No matter how you expose properly, when using higher ISO, you wouldn't have the dynamic range of lower ISOs, so a scene exceeding the dynamic range of your selected ISO will clip the highlight or make shadow details become hidden under noise.


----------



## nickzou (Dec 8, 2011)

Dao said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > rsbones said:
> ...



Okay, so this is at ISO3200







And this is at ISO100 recovered. There's a fair bit of noise, probably more comparable with the ISO6400. Did I do something wrong?





And yeah before you jump all on my sh%*, this was shot on a D7000.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

nickzou said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > nickzou said:
> ...



Lightroom really isn't the right software for this.

The "ISOless" sensor - Page 8 - PentaxForums.com

_One has to be careful in pushing ISO in PP. One trap in LR is black level. If it isn't set to zero prior to pushing then the result is ugly. Moreover, Pentax clips the black at higher ISO levels which results in darker (but less noisy) shadows. Eventually, when pushing a lot, one would need a per-color option to clip the blacks which LR does not offer. W/o this option, dark tones tend to become tinted.

If done properly, there shouldn't be a *visible* difference between a pushed and high ISO image with the K-5.

So, the perfect PP software for "ISOless" sensors has yet to appear._


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

nickzou said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > nickzou said:
> ...



Seeing it again. I don't see any visible difference though. :/ How did you boost 5 stops in post?


----------



## nickzou (Dec 8, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



Upped the exposure to +4, and then a combination of fill light and brightness until I got approximately the same historgram.

EDIT: SH*% SH*$ SH*%!  I screwed this up. Hold on.

THIS is ISO3200:





THIS is ISO100 recovered:


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

nickzou said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > nickzou said:
> ...



You really shouldn't use fill light, brightness etc - they are different compared to exposure.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 8, 2011)

MTVision said:


> I was really skeptical but I have to agree. I took 2 shots - 1@ 1/13 f/1.4 ISO 3200 and the 2nd one @ 1/13 f/1.4  ISO 100.
> 
> The shot taken at ISO 100 (after raising exposure in post) looks pretty much identical to the shot taken at ISO 3200. I don't have a d7000 but the d5100 does have the same sensor performance.



even though I'm using a different camera, with a much different sensor, that this technique has never been claimed to work on, I'm going to tell you that YOU ARE WRONG!


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 8, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



I guess I should have worded it more carefully.  I meant the EXTREME ends of the histogram.  You can always pull some information out of the extreme left.  You can't pull any information out of the extreme right, because it's pure white.


----------



## Destin (Dec 8, 2011)

Someone still needs to explain how you ETTR when shooting that produces a near black frame. How you you even calculate and exposure value when you don't have an iso number to use in the calculation. You can't do it. There is a reason EVERY light meter on the market requires you to tell it what iso your camera is set to...


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

If you increase exposure - remember to turn down all fill light, curves, contrast, brightness, recovery, blacks etc - they will mess your exposure.


----------



## KmH (Dec 8, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.


Did you copy that from somewhere?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

KmH said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.
> ...



No I didn't. Google it.


----------



## rsbones (Dec 8, 2011)

Destin said:


> Someone still needs to explain how you ETTR when shooting that produces a near black frame. How you you even calculate and exposure value when you don't have an iso number to use in the calculation. You can't do it. There is a reason EVERY light meter on the market requires you to tell it what iso your camera is set to...



The thing is...you don't have to "properly" expose the image in the traditional sense because you will be deciding later (on the computer) how bright you want your image to be. Since we are talking about low light photography here, our goal is to capture as much light as possible. So...set the aperture at the absolute smallest you can to maintain the depth of field you would like. Then set the slowest shutter speed you can handle. This is what you would do normally, right? All we are skipping with this new way of shooting is the step where the iso is boosted. But as we remember, changing the iso setting is not going to change the amount of light we ultimately capture or are able to display in the finished photo. 

If you want some idea of whether the aperture and shutter speed you've chosen will capture enough light to produce a decent picture, then go ahead and set your camera to iso 3200 or so and see what the camera tells you. Or use an external meter. Or take a sample shot and look on the jpg or histogram or whatever. If you're satisfied, then keep the aperture and shutter speed but just dial the iso back to 100 or 200 (some sensor engineers recommend iso200 on the D7000 for reasons that are a bit over my head to understand).


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 8, 2011)

rsbones said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Someone still needs to explain how you ETTR when shooting that produces a near black frame. How you you even calculate and exposure value when you don't have an iso number to use in the calculation. You can't do it. There is a reason EVERY light meter on the market requires you to tell it what iso your camera is set to...
> ...



Except it results in less noise to amplify analog data instead of digital data.  ISO amplifies analog data.  Photoshop amplifies digital data.  This may change in the future, but we aren't there, yet.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> rsbones said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



The reason ISO have less noise is because they amplify the data before read noise is added. Photoshop amplifies read data - aka analog data + read noise - so there is more noise. But if you have a sensor with low read noise, there is no need to amplify the data (analog) before reading because there is barely any extra noise.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 8, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > rsbones said:
> ...



I agree.  Heck, it would be hard not to after you just rephrased what I wrote.

In any case, there is one more piece of the puzzle that you are overlooking, and that is that Photoshop has to reverse engineer the algorithims to process RAW files.  Nikon gets to design them right into their A/D converters, sensors, and chips.  And they get to do it for each individual camera based on years of testing.  Yes, my D700 RAW files have some noise reduction applied.  I know that.  I also trust Nikon to make the right decisions when it comes to engineering things like that.  By using Base ISO, you aren't, IMO, giving the camera the information that it needs to make those decisions.

I trust Nikon to have made the best decisions possible about filtering out read noise, deciding what is noise and what is an actual signal, and providing me the best RAW data available.  At least I trust them more than the alternative.

So basically, my opinion is that it is more efficient to amply analog data than digital data.  I also trust Nikon to make very specific decisions about how their algorithims, sensors and electronics work together to provide me the best possible image.


----------



## rsbones (Dec 8, 2011)

You could always choose to use Nikon's own raw converter software on the computer. That way you would preserve the entire dynamic range possible without cliping the highlights (something the incamera processing necessarily has to do).


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Dec 8, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



Indeed, it is really not efficient yet. There is really no good software/in camera user interface that thoroughly support this type of photography (ISOless). I don't plan to shoot ISOless until Lightroom give me more flexibility on increasing the exposure and I also am not ready to give up the histogram, LCD etc in camera. The metering also need to be completely different.


----------



## photography.next (Dec 9, 2011)

Mm By the way why is there a dire need of such sort of limitations in your expenditure or similar stuff? Just give this D7000 a single chance and you would forget everything!

Charleston Bridal Photographers


----------

