# ISO is not real In Digital Camra's



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..
Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

 here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is,  to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...












go to 3:50 time line on this video for the ISO TOPIC

Donny


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Mar 24, 2019)

Seriously, stop watching YouTube and get out there and take some photos. Then instead of re-posting someone else's *controversial click bait* you may actually learn something, or even come up with your own opinion.

I'm fed up with these videos.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 24, 2019)

I'm curious as to your reason for assuming that the originator of the video knows more than I do, or any other person?  What if I post a video that says the exact opposite of this video?


----------



## Overread (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
> and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is,  to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.



You already know this can't be true otherwise external light meters wouldn't work. Clearly if an external light meter can be used to meter a scene for a photo and work with any camera with manual settings control and achieve a similarly exposed result; then clearly the ISO isn't just something totally made up. Granted there is variation and there is variation in the performance of the hardware and software when the signal is amplified which results in the variation in quality. But this is purely talking about clarity, noise and dynamic range rather than talking about the over/under exposure of the photo.


Also I have to agree with the others, get away from the clickbait youtube videos. If you want to learn more leave youtube and get some proper technical manuals on the subject. You also have to accept that there's a difference between a working knowledge of something and a specific scientific and technical understanding. The two might not line up correctly nor even perfectly; but the former is a practical level of understanding that allows one to achieve results within a set of conditions. The latter might be deeper understanding, but it might not result in any actual improvement of performance when used in the same conditions. 

However there's a wealth of confusion you can spring by mixing the two ends together; or by exposing people with a working understanding to "bits" of the technical understanding in isolation from a deeper understanding of the overall technical elements going on inside the camera and the physics behind it all. Such major gaps wil often cause more confusion than not.




And we've not even touched on variation in sensor technology between standard sensors and the newer ISO Invariant sensors that sony and Nikon are using; nor things like the Fovorian (not sure on spelling) sensors that Sigma have experimented with.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.
> 
> here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
> it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.
> ...






 

Almost entirely wrong.

You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

tirediron said:


> I'm curious as to your reason for assuming that the originator of the video knows more than I do, or any other person?  What if I post a video that says the exact opposite of this video?



knows more then you, well if you say what i said was incorrect then they do , and i do..

i don't say this just because it's in a video, was claiming i'm not the only one who knows this, 
And this is a fact,  ISO is applied after the picture is taken, and i have proof just as tony does he shows 2 pictures to prove it..
i went out and shot some images and saw the same exact results.

You people who think ISO is part of the exposure triangle like in film days are totally wrong and have no idea how digital photography works..
it's NOT the same as film, it's digital hardware and software working together to create a picture, a digital camera is nothing but a photo processing unit.
I have taken pictures with ISO 1600 got a good exposure, then same situation at ISO 100 the picture was way under exposed,

 then just put it in light room cranked up the exposure setting until the image was the same as the picture taken at 1600, same noise same exact look.
That is because Turning up your ISO is just as you would turn up your exposure in light room to brighten up the picture no different other then when you turn up your ISO your camera does it for you before it writes the image to the card, that is it..


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Seriously, stop watching YouTube and get out there and take some photos. Then instead of re-posting someone else's *controversial click bait* you may actually learn something, or even come up with your own opinion.
> 
> I'm fed up with these videos.


i don't care if your tired of it, in fact it pisses you off because you can't admit your wrong.
Oh well..
If you think ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography then you don't know how digital photography works.. SIMPLE AS THAT!!!

 this is a fact, ISO is applied after the picture is taken, and i have proof just as tony does he shows 2 pictures to prove it..
i went out and shot some images and saw the same exact results.

You people who think ISO is part of the exposure triangle like in film days are totally wrong and have no idea how digital photography works..
it's NOT the same as film, it's digital hardware and software working together to create a picture, a digital camera is nothing but a photo processing unit.
I have taken pictures with ISO 1600 got a good exposure, then same situation at ISO 100 the picture was way under exposed,

then just put it in light room cranked up the exposure setting until the image was the same as the picture taken at 1600, same noise same exact look.
That is because Turning up your ISO is just as you would turn up your exposure in light room to brighten up the picture no different other then when you turn up your ISO your camera does it for you before it writes the image to the card, that is it..


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Almost entirely wrong.

You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.

Joe[/QUOTE]


i'm not wrong i said this before the videos was made and now got 2 others who back up what i said, 
if you think ISO is part of the Exposure triangle then you don't know much about digital photography and are confused with FILM photography.
this is a fact and for you to just say i'm wrong doesn't change them facts, 
Want to prove me wrong show me some hard facts (Evidence) Prove me wrong, i would love to see the proof..


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Overread said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
> ...


First off don't talk to me tell me telling me to learn something i didn't watch the video for education, i knew this BEFORE any of them 2 videos was produced, i posted the same thing last year way before them videos was out..

and only post them to prove i'm not the only one who has the correct information.
ISO is nothing more then applied gain to a picture AFTER the shot was taken, so it can't very well be part of the exposure triangle can it??
there is proof right there,
exposure triangle is Aperture, Shutter and signal to noise ratio, that is it, NOT ISO. ISO setting is APPLIED AFTER the shot was taken..
unlike Aperture and Shutter is applied at the time not after..

ISO is totally not the same thing as in FILM Camera, nothing to do with exposure  at all other then just cranking up a  under exposed shot. that is it..
that is why if you turn it up too much your picture looks like garbage from being over amplified.. kinda like when you try to turn your stereo too loud when it's distorting because it can't produce a clear signal at that gain.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> ... and now got 2 others who back up what i said,..


Welllllllll... a three point data set; an excellent basis on which to postulate a hypothesis intended to shake the world of digital photography to it's very core!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> ........ISO is totally not the same thing as in FILM Camera, nothing to do with exposure  at all other then just cranking up a  under exposed shot. that is it..........



Explain 'pushing' and 'pulling' (N-1, N-2, N+1, N+2 etc) film then.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

By the way here is more info explained on this i'm not going to type it all. 
This video explains what this is all about because you and the other 3 people replying to this don't know..


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> ..........you and the other 3 people replying to this don't know......



That's a pretty bold statement there, sonny.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

480sparky said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > ..........you and the other 3 people replying to this don't know......
> ...


Pretty bold, but have no problem with it because it's 100% true!
no one , BUT NO ONE can dispute this statement..
and i must give myself a BOLD touche on posting this because one of them videos also proves my other statement i made that larger sensors don't gather more light because of it's size.. 
in the start of that video that is explained and prove as well. So i give myself a 2 for 1  YA YA YA

this video is the one i'm talking about





Donny


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Sorry, but if you're just going to make BLANKET STATEMENTS about what you think I know, you have zero credibiltiy.

Fact is, _I haven't even disagreed with you_.

But apparently you simply want to argue.  Towards that end, I'll let you win.


----------



## Overread (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> exposure triangle is Aperture, Shutter and signal to noise ratio, that is it, NOT ISO. ISO setting is APPLIED AFTER the shot was taken..



So if signal to noise ratio is basically the same as the ISO you're actually saying that it is part of the exposure Triangle; just that ISO in digital cameras isn't functionally the same as ISO in film cameras - which no one has ever argued against. Of course they are different as one is digital and one is chemical based. ISO is simply a much easier terminology to use than "signal to noise ratio" and is easier to adapt too for the masses who came from a film background into digital photography.

Furthermore ISO is more than just cranking up the light because in most side by side tests you get noticeably better performance raising the in camera ISO than you do raising the brightness in editing after the shot is taken. If it were 100% purely a software thing then you can bet that even if Adobe didn't manage to crack it; Canon and Nikon would have bundled the ability to universally raise ISO in their own RAW processing software after the effect. 



The only time its closer to what you're arguing is with the newer ISO Invariant sensors where after photo capture it is possible to raise the brightness/exposure value and not have the same image quality loss that you'd get from previous generation sensors. Though I've not seen/recall reading a comparison between in camera ISO raising and out of camera Exposure/brightness increase for ISO Invariant sensors to see if there's any real world difference there too.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

But you did  disagree with me, I think you forgot what you typed? 
or did some one else type it for you?

You said   "You already know this can't be true otherwise external light meters wouldn't work."
and also said "ISO isn't just something totally made up."

Not looking to argue because i don't have to look for it it comes to me when i post something like this, when people on here think they
know more about this topic then most. LOL

it's so easy to get these people making replies trying to say others are wrong, it's so easy to get them to do that, even when they are
totally wrong..
I guess when one thinks something for  years, and when some one comes up with the real truth they can't handle it,  seems to be the case.

Donny










Sorry, but if you're just going to make BLANKET STATEMENTS about what you think I know, you have zero credibiltiy.

Fact is, _I haven't even disagreed with you_.

But apparently you simply want to argue.  Towards that end, I'll let you win.







[/QUOTE]


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Overread said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > exposure triangle is Aperture, Shutter and signal to noise ratio, that is it, NOT ISO. ISO setting is APPLIED AFTER the shot was taken..
> ...


i didn't say signal to noise ratio AT THE TIME the shot is taken is the same as ISO, NO i did not say that..
Signal to noise ratio is at the time of the shot, signal to the sensor , get it? Analog Light signal to the sensor, to Noise Ratio meaning not enough light to the sensor or enought light or too much, That is what i'm talking about SNR... The signal to the sensor not to the Digital Gain..

Donny


----------



## tirediron (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> i didn't say signal to noise ratio AT THE TIME the shot is taken is the same as ISO, NO i did not say that..
> Signal to noise ratio is at the time of the shot, signal to the sensor , get it? Analog Light signal to the sensor, to Noise Ratio meaning not enough light to the sensor or enought light or too much, That is what i'm talking about SNR... The signal to the sensor not to the Digital Gain..
> 
> Donny


I for one am the first to admit that I don't know the intricacies of the digital camera, and I'm always interested in learning, so when someone makes a statement which contradicts my understanding of a given topic or process, my ears perk up.  That said, I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the statement above and the only conclusion I can arrive at, viewing it as objectively as I can, is that you don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal. 

Can you pls provide your definition?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> Almost entirely wrong.
> 
> You did get this right: "Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong,..." And you're still wrong.
> 
> Joe





donny1963 said:


> i'm not wrong



You are.



donny1963 said:


> i said this before the videos was made and now got 2 others who back up what i said,
> if you think ISO is part of the Exposure triangle then you don't know much about digital photography and are confused with FILM photography.
> this is a fact and for you to just say i'm wrong doesn't change them facts,
> Want to prove me wrong show me some hard facts (Evidence) Prove me wrong, i would love to see the proof..





donny1963 said:


> Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.







There's a digital camera and there it is: ISO. It's real.



donny1963 said:


> here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
> it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN,



Partially correct. What ISO does in processing your image does occur a few nanoseconds after the shutter closes. What ISO does to the meter in your camera however occurs before the picture is taken.



donny1963 said:


> all it is, is applied GAIN



That is wrong. the ISO standard does not specify how the image data is processed. Gain and/or amplification of the analog sensor signal is one method used but not the only method used. It is incorrect to just make the blanket statement that ISO is applied GAIN. In a Nikon D7000 for example all ISO values above 1000 are implemented without analog amplification. Here's proof: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting



donny1963 said:


> to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.



In cameras where there is analog gain applied the process tends to reduce noise not create more noise. You're confused about the process.



donny1963 said:


> Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..



You just said ISO "is applied GAIN." Now you just said it's not. Lightroom certainly can't apply gain to the data inside your camera now can it. You're going to have to make up your mind which incorrect statement is the one you want to be wrong about.



donny1963 said:


> The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..



I think it's fair to say that "well after" and a few nanoseconds aren't the same thing.



donny1963 said:


> Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,
> 
> here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
> and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.



Absolutely you are wrong about that. And here's proof of that: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-004_EN.pdf The camera manufacturers do a very good job of following the standards and they note in the EXIF data with the images what standard they are applying.



donny1963 said:


> Are you feeling manipulated yet??
> 
> yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!



The Exposure Triangle - A Beginner's Guide
The Exposure Triangle in Nature Photography
Exposure Triangle - How ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture Affect Exposure
The Exposure Triangle Reloaded
The Exposure Triangle Explained - Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO | Click and Learn Photography
Exposure: The Exposure Triangle

You're confused. You're probably trying to parrot something you heard about ISO not being part of exposure which would be technically correct. But The Exposure Triangle exists and is used by many and ISO is certainly part of it.



donny1963 said:


> ISO is really applied gain..
> don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...



You've got to stop watching Ken Wheeler. He blathers on about nonsense just to create worthless clickbait to make a buck.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Almost entirely wrong.
> ...






LMAO i'm not wrong,  yeah camera's have a setting called ISO but it's not what the real ISO is like in Film Camera..
And it's not what people think it is in digital camera, and IT"S NOT part of the exposure triangle at all.
If the ISO (applied gain) is applied after the shot is taken, then it's not part of the exposure triangle.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

tirediron said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > i didn't say signal to noise ratio AT THE TIME the shot is taken is the same as ISO, NO i did not say that..
> ...



Wait your saying ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography, and then telling me  
"don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal. "

LMAO

i know exactly  the differene between analogue and digital 100%.
what ever think what you want.
Sad to say you will go on thinking what you think ISO is, and probably try and teach people that incorrect information, SO SAD!!

Donny


----------



## Strodav (Mar 24, 2019)

It's amazing that facts about how digital cameras work optically and electronically are denied.  The Op is right.  The sensitivity of the sensors in digital cameras do not change with ISO.  What does change is the amplifier gain between the sensor and analog to digital converter.  When the gain is increased (bigger ISO number) the noise increases with it.  Increasing or decreasing exposure during PP either adds or subtracts a number from the pixels in the image file you have. Adding brightens pixels.  Decreasing it darkens pixels.

Knowing or not knowing how a camera or PP actually work does not change how they do work.  The ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed triangle does not change.  Low light situations requiring images taken at higher ISO numbers will show more noise than images taken at lower ISO numbers.  Don't worry about what's inside the case, just shoot and learn what adjustments give you the results you want.  Yes, ISO and ASA are very different.  ASA film number was "fixed" so you adjusted exposure for a whole roll of film.   Note: you can adjust chemical processing times to make film act more or less sensitive than it was designed for.  On dslrs, ISO is part of adjusting exposure at the time you take each individual shot.  Don't let the technology get in the way of taking and making great images.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> By the way here is more info explained on this i'm not going to type it all.
> This video explains what this is all about because you and the other 3 people replying to this don't know..
> 
> 
> ...



I started watching the video above, but quickly clicked on this one;


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



And now go back to your original post and show us where you said that. You didn't say that. In fact the word film doesn't occur in your original post at all. And now show us who says ISO in film is "the real ISO."



donny1963 said:


> And it's not what people think it is in digital camera, and IT"S NOT part of the exposure triangle at all.
> If the ISO (applied gain) is applied after the shot is taken, then it's not part of the exposure triangle.



According to Donny1963 ISO is *NOT* applied gain. And I quote: "Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is.."

Joe


----------



## tirediron (Mar 24, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> Wait your saying ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography, and then telling me "don't have a clear understanding of the difference between an analogue signal and a digital signal. "


Sorry, where did I say that? 




donny1963 said:


> i know exactly  the differene between analogue and digital 100%.
> what ever think what you want.



Soooooooooo... why not support that statement by defining it for us?  It's easy to say, "I know how something works" when you don't have to back up your statement....



donny1963 said:


> Sad to say you will go on thinking what you think ISO is, and probably try and teach people that incorrect information, SO SAD!!


Well, to be fair, to me (and pretty much everyone who actually uses a digital camera) it matters not a whit HOW a camera actually deals with light from a technical perspective as long as we know how to utilize it from a practical one.  When I do teach (something i do regularly) I will continue to explain it as being analogous to a film's ASA rating, in other words, the control which manages the cameras sensitivity to light.  Big ISO numbers mean high sensitivity, low ISO numbers mean reduced sensitivity.  Whether that is in fact the way it works from an engineer's point of view is immaterial.  That IS how it works from the photographer's.

So... right, wrong, or in-between, your assertion has exactly zero relevance to 99.999999999999999999999% of photographers.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 24, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...




first of all ISO stands for,  International Organization for Standardization, and it's not just for Camera's either.
it's just a standardization..
Before International Organization for Standardization existed, it was ASA, but then that changed.

i never said i didn't say the word digital Film,  not sure why you are bringing that up..


----------



## limr (Mar 24, 2019)




----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

Strodav said:


> It's amazing that facts about how digital cameras work optically and electronically are denied.  The Op is right.



The OP said a whole lot of stuff in his post and most of it is very wrong.



Strodav said:


> The sensitivity of the sensors in digital cameras do not change with ISO.  What does change is the amplifier gain between the sensor and analog to digital converter.



Unless of course it doesn't change or if there is no amplifier at all between the sensor and the ADC. There's no amplifier in a Sigma DSLR. Amplifier gain is not a sufficiently accurate description of what's going on and it confuses the facts about how digital cameras work. Nothing in the ISO specification references implementation at the sensor/hardware level.



Strodav said:


> When the gain is increased (bigger ISO number) the noise increases with it.



What happens with bigger ISO numbers when no gain is increased? Doesn't increasing gain also decrease noise? It does.

Joe



Strodav said:


> Increasing or decreasing exposure during PP either adds or subtracts a number from the pixels in the image file you have. Adding brightens pixels.  Decreasing it darkens pixels.
> 
> Knowing or not knowing how a camera or PP actually work does not change how they do work.  The ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed triangle does not change.  Low light situations requiring images taken at higher ISO numbers will show more noise than images taken at lower ISO numbers.  Don't worry about what's inside the case, just shoot and learn what adjustments give you the results you want.  Yes, ISO and ASA are very different.  ASA film number was "fixed" so you adjusted exposure for a whole roll of film.   Note: you can adjust chemical processing times to make film act more or less sensitive than it was designed for.  On dslrs, ISO is part of adjusting exposure at the time you take each individual shot.  Don't let the technology get in the way of taking and making great images.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 24, 2019)

limr said:


>



OK, Sorry, it's late and I've been drinking.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 25, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Wow! Really, you mean these guys: ISO - International Organization for Standardization

They maintain all kinds of standards for the whole world -- awesome! Now you should probably sit down for this one because you'll never guess what they did. When digital cameras were invented -- you're not going to believe this really -- but when digital cameras were invented -- wait for it -- they revised the standard for digital cameras. OMG!!!!!! and they did it back in 1998!!!!

They made ISO real for digital cameras. Amazing! ISO standards undergo regular evaluation and revision and so until very recently we've referred to the 2006 revision: ISO 12232:2006

But guess what? Better sit back down cause it's time for the new standard revision to be released and here's ISO for digital cameras 2019: ISO 12232:2019

And you know what -- it's very real.

Joe

P.S. Have you contacted them yet with the news that you've declared them not real? How'd they take it?



donny1963 said:


> and it's not just for Camera's either.
> it's just a standardization..
> Before International Organization for Standardization existed, it was ASA, but then that changed.
> 
> i never said i didn't say the word digital Film,  not sure why you are bringing that up..


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 25, 2019)

What's real ISO and what's fake ISO?


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Mar 25, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> i don't care if your tired of it, in fact it pisses you off because you can't admit your wrong.
> Oh well..
> If you think ISO is part of the exposure triangle in digital photography then you don't know how digital photography works.. SIMPLE AS THAT!!!
> 
> ...



So to paraphrase: You've mis-understood ISO for so long now because you watch these videos, that when you finally realise that ISO does not conform to how you think it should work and how it should be *defined/labelled* the explanation *MUST* be that it's all a big conspiracy against you and that everybody has been lying...

The insurmountable and overwhelming evidence clearly points to you being correct, that the rest of the world has misled you into a false belief. What other possible answer can their be?

Your argument is as pointless as it is unreal. It looks like a mix of the *straw man* and psychological projection. You project your own thoughts onto others by accusing them of what you got wrong then destroy that *straw man* with other theories gleaned from the internet. Videos, by the way, that require you don't think for yourself, TAP especially. All he does is give you a list of words/labels and allows you to construct a logic based on how you link the definitions of those words. His intent is to satisfy your desire to prove yourself correct and therefore be an expert with no effort other than applying your/his definition of words. But of course for you to be the expert everybody else must be wrong, and so to prove yourself correct you must first construct a belief where everybody else is wrong...

Pointless garbage.

P.s. ISO on a camera is simply a calibration of the middle grey tone to an RGB co-ordinate.


----------



## greybeard (Mar 25, 2019)

It is true that ISO has to do with the amount of gain added by the camera to an image.  And, you might then assume that by shooting everything at the lowest possible ISO and adding gain in PP will give you the same results as boosting ISO on the camera.  In my experience, my camera does a better job of boosting gain than I can do with Lightroom etc.  That is because the my camera is smarter than I am at this task.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 25, 2019)

Why is this even a discussion? 


Seriously.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 25, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> , all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting



I've tried to resist commenting but as others have already pointed out your understanding is not fully correct. Your statement above implies that all ISO adjustments are gain  obtained by increasing voltage to the sensor to increase signal sensitivity (that's the definition of gain). The fact is that's only partially correct dependent on camera manufacturer.

There's  actually three  methods of adjusting  ISO: native, amplified, and simulated. "Native" ISO is the ISO setting that does not require the camera to increase the voltage to the sensor to increase ISO. My K1MII has "native"  ISO 100-819200. In years past "native" referred to the base ISO that the camera processor was able to handle without increasing voltage to the sensor or gain as you call it, but as processors and sensors have advanced the need to apply gain has decreased. Amplified ISO is an ISO that requires an increase in voltage to the sensor to achieve an increase in ISO. This is where you are correct in your OP statement, but this is also old technology. There might still be some manufacturers out there that do this but I'm not aware of them. Finally, Simulated ISO is when the camera uses a software algorithm to simulate even higher (or lower) ISOs. My understanding is it's applied after the shutter clicks, so if my understanding is correct then that would be another thing you were partially correct on.("it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN"). The Nikon D850 for example has "native" ISO 64-25600, and software enhanced from 32-102400.

So what appears to be happening are mixed assumption partially correct and partially false. I suspect the videos you've been basing your assumptions on were either old, or the individual making them was basing their claims on older technology, and as shown above, blanket statements on ISO are not correct in today's world.


----------



## limr (Mar 25, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Why is this even a discussion?
> 
> 
> Seriously.



This.


----------



## JonFZ300 (Mar 25, 2019)

It's a decent troll. 4 pages is not bad. All you have to do is read the thread title to see that this is not about a discussion of ISO. "Camra's"?????????? LOL


----------



## Designer (Mar 25, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Why is this even a discussion?


The OP thought it was important.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2019)

I think there is at least SOME truth in the first video Donny1963 offered in his OP, which would be the Tony Northrup video on Northrup's "take" on the wholeASA/ISO/manufacturers mis-representing sensor performance for selfish purposes/inaccurate labeling of sensor performance as it relates to "true" ISO level,etc.. I have noted for quite some time the DxO Mark sensor tests have, for years now, shown use both "nominal" and "actual" ISO sensitivity levels...

Anyway..the idea of "how ISO is defined" is relatively unimportant to me these days..we have come a LONG way in the digital realm since I entered around 1998-1999... ISO performance, noise, color, dynamic range, software options, and ISO invariance have ALL , to one extent or another,made older ideas that were once considered "truths" or Best Operating Practices, much less of either.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 25, 2019)

JonFZ300 said:


> It's a decent troll. 4 pages is not bad. All you have to do is read the thread title to see that this is not about a discussion of ISO. "Camra's"?????????? LOL



it started out as a discussion of ISO that is how i posted it, not my fault people Deviated it..


----------



## BillM (Mar 25, 2019)

It reads more like a manifesto than a discussion


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 25, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I think there is at least SOME truth in the first video Donny1963 offered in his OP, which would be the Tony Northrup video on Northrup's "take" on the wholeASA/ISO/manufacturers mis-representing sensor performance for selfish purposes/inaccurate labeling of sensor performance as it relates to "true" ISO level,etc.. I have noted for quite some time the DxO Mark sensor tests have, for years now, shown use both "nominal" and "actual" ISO sensitivity levels...
> 
> Anyway..the idea of "how ISO is defined" is relatively unimportant to me these days..we have come a LONG way in the digital realm since I entered around 1998-1999... ISO performance, noise, color, dynamic range, software options, and ISO invariance have ALL , to one extent or another,made older ideas that were once considered "truths" or Best Operating Practices, much less of either.




that was one of the things i stated if you have a full frame camera lets say Sony,  and i got a Nikon Full frame,  your ISO 100 is most likely not going to produce the same exposure as the my Nikon in fact your 1600 ISO Is probably going to produce the same exposure as the Nikon would at ISO 800.
because your ISO 1600 is probably really ISO 800, In fact i'm sure my Nikon D850 set at ISO 64 is really ISO 36 or something close to that, reason i say this is because i compared my D850 to my D810 and the D810 with same lens and same settings produces a more exposed picture then the D850 like 2 stops or even more..

so i do believe what Tony Says about Camera manufactures lying about what their ISO 100 or ISO 3200 really is to make their camera look like they take better pictures at higher ISO settings, hey it would not be the first time Camera Manufactures lie about their products they do it all the time..

there is really no need to shoot at way high ISO settings really because even if the picture is under exposed some you can boost it up in post, which will grant you the same results as if you cranked up your ISO setting..

Some Post software does it better then others so you have to choose which one works  best for you.

LightRoom works ok, but i found that capture ONE is way better in that , does a better job and does it more cleaner and it's way faster then lightroom,"
In fact i have notice that Capture One does the color rendering way better then lightroom, even before you start messing with adjusting anything you can see when you load it up the quality is better right off the bad, and it does a  much better job if you Shoot jpeg and use Color profiles, it actually can read them correctly as your camera does when checking them out in the preview screen, unlike light room many times it's off and not what The nikon Profile intended, but Capture one nails it pretty well..

Plus Capture One is faster in processing your images then Lightroom because it doesn't use Camera raw software to process your images it uses it's own Engine which is so much faster at doing it..


Also another point i stated once before, is that Most Camera lenses go by F-stops like 24-70 F2.8 but it's really at F3.5 if you measure it,
which is a lie about the Aperture in my opinion, i do cinematography (music Videos) with a RED dragon 6k video, and all the lenses is measured by T-stops which is 100% accurate to light metering unlike most DSLR camera's lenses do, reason for this is cinematographers need to know the true metering and so they label all their lenses at T-stops so if you use multiple camera's you know that if you set your Aperture to 4.5 you know all of them camera's are going to be at true 4.5 not one lens producing F 4.0 and the other F 4.8 or something crazy.
This is a true statement.. most people say that is a lie but it's not..
Donny


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Mar 25, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I think there is at least SOME truth in the first video Donny1963 offered in his OP, which would be the Tony Northrup video on Northrup's "take" on the wholeASA/ISO/manufacturers mis-representing sensor performance for selfish purposes/inaccurate labeling of sensor performance as it relates to "true" ISO level,etc.. I have noted for quite some time the DxO Mark sensor tests have, for years now, shown use both "nominal" and "actual" ISO sensitivity levels...



I think the truth is closer to some photographers love of reducing photography to mathematical formula that they wanted ISO to be an *absolute* by which they could draw an absolute logic and invent *exposure triangles* and equivalence arguments... ASA on the box was never an accurate representation of film speed, the ISO dial on the camera does not represent the actual ISO rating of the sensor. As far as I can tell it is just a jpeg calibration exercise based around a mid-grey tone so you could use different exposures, or exposure meters, and still predict the value of say *skin tones* in the finished image.

Sensor performance is what I see by comparing images, not theoretical numbers, or the ISO setting on the dial. I've never agreed with that logic and I'm slightly amused to see it's such a disappointment to many that some of the base assumptions they made in their theory have turned out to be not quite as absolute as they wished them to be. An attempt to reduce image IQ to a maths problem rather than a simple visual comparison...

In fact, so correct is the theory that describes ISO and how cameras work that when it turns out that it doesn't quite describe how cameras work then it's the manufacturers that have made the mistake by building the cameras wrong... 

As you say, actual number stamped on the dial is un-important, the visual performance in the finished image is the main thing.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2019)

I am pretty happy with the image quality/shooting envelop of my current Nikon pair, a D610 and a D800. Both perform well at all ISO values that I care to select.

Ever since Sony-made sensors in Pentax,Nikon,and Sony cameras  (and in othe branded cameras) became common,and ISO invariance entered the lexicon, some of the ways we used to use ISO as an image quality control were changed profoundly.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 25, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > , all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting
> ...


NO IT's not increasing  voltage to the sensor, has nothing to do with ISO,
ISO is applied after the Image is taken.. NOT at the time the shot is taken, so voltage to the sensor has noting to do with ISO settings..
ISO is Applied Gain AFTER, I repeat AFTER the image is Taken..
the shot is taken from the sensor, to the Analog Gain, then to the AD converter, then ISO is applied as you see in the diagram..

So your wrong, and looks like  YOUR  your understanding is not fully correct at all..


----------



## tirediron (Mar 25, 2019)

Well, I can understand how, based on that very simplified block-diagram how such a hypothesis could be formed, but the problem is that diagram is missing about 80% of the components that make up a digital camera, principally the power circuits; the inclusion of which would clarify the signal amplification issues causing most of your consternation.  Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the [non-existent] ISO is created only in the digital amplifier and not the analogue amplifier?


----------



## Overread (Mar 26, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Ever since Sony-made sensors in Pentax,Nikon,and Sony cameras  (and in othe branded cameras) became common,and ISO invariance entered the lexicon, some of the ways we used to use ISO as an image quality control were changed profoundly.



Aye these sensors start to kick things like "expose to the right" somewhat to the edge. However I also wonder if such theories might remain long term even if just to provide a means to use the histogram and have a "target" to aim for in ideal conditions. Or has a new theory replaced it? I'd still wager the average photographer prefers to capture it as close to "right" in camera (based on given conditions and intentions for the photo). If not just to cut down on editing, but also for a more pleasing instant result. 

Also I don't think either Canon or Sony sensor technology is the same as those fovorian things (spelling) that Sigma was playing around with (though which have never really gotten off the ground in a big way - or if they have only within a niche market).


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 26, 2019)

tirediron said:


> Well, I can understand how, based on that very simplified block-diagram how such a hypothesis could be formed, but the problem is that diagram is missing about 80% of the components that make up a digital camera, principally the power circuits; the inclusion of which would clarify the signal amplification issues causing most of your consternation.  Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the [non-existent] ISO is created only in the digital amplifier and not the analogue amplifier?




It's not intended to be a full diagram of the entire works of the camera..
I didn't build the diagram, it's a pdf from the camera manufacture..  
The Blue and red lines was placed by Ken, for illustration, 
The diagram was created by the camera manufacture..
So if you have problems with the diagram, then take it up with Sony..

it's a diagram of the Sony Xmor-RS sensor workings..
If you don't believe me here is the link to the sony website with the diagram..

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor1/img/products/ProductBrief_IMX351_20171109.pdf


----------



## Designer (Mar 26, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> that was one of the things i stated if you have a full frame camera lets say Sony,  and i got a Nikon Full frame, ..
> 
> there is really no need to shoot at way high ISO settings really because even if the picture is under exposed some you can boost it up in post, ..


1. Sensor size, per se, has nothing to do with sensitivity.  Pixel size and density, yes, but not the overall size of the sensor.

2. The optimum amount of data is obtained at sensor saturation (without clipping).  An underexposed data set will not produce the same image as one in which the sensor was saturated.


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2019)

And exactly how does all of this bickering help people take better pictures?


----------



## PaulR70 (Mar 26, 2019)

It is very common sense that all three work together, shutter speed, aperture and ISO for setting the exposure. For instance you shoot a scene and set exposure your ISO is 200, to increase the exposure by one full stop you can increase the ISO to 400 or open the aperture one full stop or decrease the shutter one full stop and you will see that each on has the effect on the metered exposure.
I agree with some of the others get out and take pics and experiment on your own to see how these settings effect exposure.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> If you don't believe me here is the link to the sony website with the diagram..
> 
> https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor1/img/products/ProductBrief_IMX351_20171109.pdf


Oh, I believe the diagram is real, but you're postulating a theory and using it as supporting evidence.  The problem is, your evidence is incomplete.  I'm sure if you contact Sony, they will tell you that diagram is not intended to explain signal amplification.  Using it to support your argument is like holding up a block diagram of an automobile which doesn't show the fuel system and stating, "This car doesn't need gasoline; see... there's no fuel tank in the diagram!"  In simple terms, the evidence you're presenting has no relevance to the argument. 

That said, I notice that you failed to respond to my query about why you believe that ISO is "controlled" only by the digital amplifier in that diagram and not the analogue?  They seem to me (according to that diagram) to be part of the same circuit...


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2019)

limr said:


> And exactly how does all of this bickering help people take better pictures?


It doesn't...  but it's fun!


----------



## Fujidave (Mar 26, 2019)

Just had a read through all of this thread, and it was really great fun too.  I`m now going to listen to the song Daydream Believer, a great song too


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2019)

PaulR70 said:


> It is very common sense that all three work together, shutter speed, aperture and ISO for setting the exposure. For instance you shoot a scene and set exposure your ISO is 200, to increase the exposure by one full stop you can increase the ISO to 400 or open the aperture one full stop or decrease the shutter one full stop and you will see that each on has the effect on the metered exposure.
> I agree with some of the others get out and take pics and experiment on your own to see how these settings effect exposure.



No, this is completely wrong. Increasing ISO from 200 to 400 will not increase exposure by one full stop under any condition.

Joe


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2019)

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > And exactly how does all of this bickering help people take better pictures?
> ...



It's actually quite tiresome.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 26, 2019)

OK.. 
So I am going to throw in two cents worth on this. 
But understand that I think the argument is a non-sequitur because digital and film are two different things doing similar functions. 
But moreover, the whole ISO thing is in my opinion a fallacy argument. 

like any map it is REPRESENTATIVE ONLY and not actual. 
(look up map projection and distortion-distance). 

The intent of the ASA, DIN, ISO or whatever acronym you want to use, is to place the sensitivity of FILM into a category of light-absorbing qualities that remain relatively consistent. 

let me remind everyone who is an old film hag, that how many times were we lectured on the various different developers and their uses? 
How many times were we warned not to develop certain types of B&W in certain developers because it would kill grain and contrast? 
Do I need to remind said film hags that temperature of the developer and the film also plays a huge role in said development? 

The ISO/ASA/DIN numbers were designed to bring consistency to the manufacturing process so it could be qualified, quantified, classified and controlled for various uses... 

Ergo Soft portrait v. scientific micro photography.... Anyone remember that argument? 

The ISO today has a similar role (sensitivity to light numbers) but are typically rated at levels and based on a completely different mechanical aspect that film. So the ISO numbers are designed to bring the photographer into a position of having similar results with digital using a similar numbering system to that of film, but the two are two totally different mechanical processes that are not comparable. 
They just do the same thing differently. 
Think V type engine to a wankle.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 26, 2019)

There's a mix of some "right" and some "wrong" info in the thread.

*ISO & Gain*

ISO is basically the label used because photographers are familiar with it.  Digital sensors don't have a concept of ISO ... the camera has a concept of "gain" and "offset" (we'll ignore offset ... that'll just create more confusion).  The camera controls which allow adjustment of "ISO" setting are really just a photographer-friendly user-interface to control the more technical aspects of the camera (which doesn't really use ISO -- but it will ultimately correlate your ISO selection to some application of gain.  I'm not being specific about *how* gain is applied because it will vary based on camera make & model... but one way or another, it will _ultimately_ apply gain.)

Digital sensors do not have adjustable sensitivity.  At a low level, photons are collected and converted to electron voltage.  These accumulated volts are capped based on the full-well-depth of the sensor (greater "full well depth" results in better "dynamic range" because you have a greater range of possible electron volts.) 

When the exposure is complete, various types of gain may be applied.  There may be analog gain (prior to analog-to-digital-conversion or ADC).  The ADC will convert electron volts to ADUs (Analog Digital Units) (sometimes also called a DN or "digital number").  This is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping (and usually is not).  After ADU conversion, a digital gain can be applied (essentially multiplying the digital values by a scaling factor).  The result of the combination of any analog gain (if any) combined with digital gain (if any) are combined and this total "gain" (which ultimately results in digital values) can be stored as a file that has had "ISO" applied to it (so ISO is really just a label used to express the application of gain and is never applied until after the exposure has completed).

I'll hint at another area ... which is that often some application of gain is required.  I mentioned that the ADC from electron volts is usually not a one-to-one mapping.  ADUs are integer values -- not fractions.  So heres' a problem...

Suppose we have four pixels and they have electron volt levels of .2 e-, .4 e-, .7 e-, and 1.4 e-.  In a "one to one" mapping of electron volts to ADUs, these would correspond to the ADU values of 0, 0, 1, and 1.   In reality we know that .4 is double .2 and 1.4 is double .7.   Yet both .2 and .4 map to 0 ADU and both .7 and 1.4 map to 1 ADU.  So we lose tonality.  If we apply some gain (suppose we multiply everything by 10) then we can distinguish between each one.  Sometimes a little gain is a good thing -- it's not all evil.  (but having ADU's map to 0 is evil ... and that's where "offset" comes in.  I'm leaving offset out of the conversation except to allude that the thing does exist and is a requirement in digital cameras.)

There's more than one kind of "gain".  As an example... my old Canon 60Da will apply only analog gain at very low ISO values (e.g. 200 & 400).  It applies incrementally more gain as you increase the ISO... until somewhere around ISO 800.  At this point it reduces the amount of incremental analog gain and starts shifting to digital gain.  At higher ISO's the incremental gain is mostly just digital.  So depending on the "ISO" setting, you may get no gain, some analog gain, or some analog gain AND some digital gain.    Some cameras mostly do digital gain with very little analog gain.   Specifically what the camera does will depend on the make & model.

So it is accurate to say camera sensors do not have ISO.  (ISO is a feature of the user-interface).  But that ISO does map to some amount of gain (however the camera decides to apply it).  A key difference is that with film, a change of film type can result in a change in sensitivity.  One film type really may be more or less sensitive than another film type.  With a digital camera, your sensor is whatever it is ... and remains that way (adjusting ISO doesn't change anything in the sensor.)


*Noise*

Increasing gain (regardless of analog or digital) DOES result in noise being more noticeable (if when shooting RAW you do not see a relationship in noticeable noise corresponding to an increase in "ISO" then your camera is "cooking" its RAW files.  This is not unusual. Most cameras seem to "cook" the RAW data.  Some are pretty aggressive about it... some are a bit more subtle.) 

How would you know?

You can generate BIAS frames by leaving the lens cap on the camera (or body cap) and shoot a series of very fast exposures (the shortest possible exposure your camera will allow.   Many CCD & CMOS sensors used for astro-imaging actually have a setting to generate BIAS files.  A BIAS file is basically a zero-duration image -- meaning it "powers up" the sensor and then immediately performs a "read-out" without actually doing an exposure.   On a DSLR, you can't dial in a zero-duration exposure.  But you can set the shutter speed to something very short (e.g. 1/4000th sec) and take 50 shots at base ISO with the lens cap on.  Those are basically "BIAS" frames.  An analysis of these frames would reveal about how much electron voltage is ever-present on the chip just by virtue of the fact that it was "powered up" and then "read out" without ever actually taking a photo.

You can also generate "dark frames".  Dark frames have a duration.  They are basically normal exposures.... except with the lens-cap still on. 

Even though you know that no actual "light" (photons) were collected, the pixel values in these exposures wont actually be zeros... they'l be some non-zero value.  Also... they all collected the same amount of light (none) and on the sensor with the same amount of power applied to power-up the sensor.  You would think they would all have the SAME non-zero value.  But they wont.  Each pixel might be about the same... but subtle variations from pixel to pixel. 

Any amount of real photons collected represent "signal".  The goal of these tests are to not receive any signal.  

You would collect all this data and then calculate the statistical mean & standard deviation.  It's the "deviation" from pixel to pixel that represents your camera's "noise" (and it is ever-present in every exposure ... even exposures where you don't see it.  There is no such thing as an exposure that doesn't have noise.)  There are several reasons why it's impossible to eliminate all noise (though it it is possible to reduce it).  Keep in mind that one source of noise comes from quantum effects and there's absolutely no getting rid of that --  it is the nature of how the universe works.  But things like read-noise and dark current tend to be high on the list of things that contribute to noise (dark current is basically heat ... in the electromagnetic spectrum everything is a "photon" and your sensor is basically a photon counter.  If the sensor gets warm, that heat is basically infrared light.. and those are photons.  They're not photons from the scene you were trying to photograph, but they're still photons.  This is why many dedicated astrophotography imaging sensors have cooling units to keep the chip cold.  Two of my imaging cameras have cooling systems that can drop the chip temperature to about 40°C below whatever the ambient temperature is.  (If it's 80°F / 26°C, I can drop the chip to 8°F / 13°C to try to fight back the noise from heat.)

When you "amplify" the data (regardless of how you do it) you amplify everything... the stuff you do want (signal) and the stuff you don't want (noise).  In other words if we multiply every value by 10x... then the "noise" gets 10x stronger and the "signal" gets 10x stronger (the ratio is maintained).  But the differences between the darkest pixels and lightest pixels is increased and now the noise starts to become noticeable.  This will always happen and again... if you don't see this happening then either you've done something wrong OR your camera is cooking the RAWs.

The cameras only real controls are aperture size and exposure duration.  ISO (or any other label you want to use to describe applied gain) is always applied only after the shot is completed (hence it isn't a "real" part of exposure ... it's more of a post-processing step.)

I did see in the video the example that you could just apply the exposure increase in post-processing software.  There are a lot of variations in how to do this.  While you could apply the gain linearly ... you could also use a non-linear process in an effort to protect highlights from being blown. 

In other words, we can use simple math idea to express the idea of increasing the exposure ... but the actual implementation might not necessarily be a linear process.  Or another way to think about it is what the CAMERA does to increase gain might not be the same algorithm that your COMPUTER uses to to increase gain.

The bottom line is that the camera exposes a user-interface to the photographer and the user-interface includes terms like "ISO".  But at a technical level, the chip itself doesn't have a concept of "ISO" ... ISO is some process (and I say "some" process because the exact process can vary from camera to camera) of applying gain to the data after the shot is completed.



So all of this is whatever it is.... all the being right or wrong won't actually change how the camera _really_ works.  Knowing the causes of noise and what ultimately elevates the noise to the point of being noticeable (and knowing how to post-process it with common tools) can help control it to the point where it's really no big deal.  I don't actually spend too much time worrying about noise in my images since there are some good techniques to handle it.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> OK..
> So I am going to throw in two cents worth on this.
> But understand that I think the argument is a non-sequitur because digital and film are two different things doing similar functions.
> But moreover, the whole ISO thing is in my opinion a fallacy argument.
> ...



Right, they are not comparable.

Film: ISO 5800:1987 https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5800:ed-2:v1:en
Digital: ISO 12232:2019 https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:12232:ed-3:v1:en

It is possible to read them. Problem is ISO needs (appropriately) to be funded and so the standards are for sale at about $120.00 a pop. Lot of money to spend to settle an troll argument.

In this case however there's a backdoor of sorts. ISO did the right thing in establishing the standards and worked closely with the industry. In the case of digital they relied on CIPA which in effect wrote the standard for them. CIPA fortunately publishes all of their technical documents on the web for free and here's the document the ISO standard is based on: http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-004_EN.pdf

I already posted that earlier as proof for donny that he's clueless but hey, it's a technical paper.

Confounding the likes of Tony Northrup and Ken Wheeler the digital ISO standard was unable to bring the industry into unified agreement and so it in fact elaborates variations in methodology to determine ISO. Derrel earlier mentioned DX0. This is informative: ISO sensitivity | DxOMark In that document DX0 explains how they treat ISO. What they do is noted in the standard but not embraced by any camera manufacturer. In other words all of the camera manufacturers use a different method to determine ISO values than does DX0.

Recently brought up again by Tony Clickbait this is a commonly reoccurring topic that's spreading misinformation all over Youtube (there isn't enough yet). The camera manufactures tell us what they're doing. Look in the EXIF data of your image and you'll see either SOS or REI noted as the method used to determine ISO. Nikon and Canon both use REI while Fuji leads the group using SOS (you can find both in that CIPA doc).

*Nobody is lying or trying to deceive us. All of the camera manufactures are in close compliance doing what they tell us they're doing.*

And ISO is not applied gain. The standard leaves implementation entirely up to the camera manufacturer. Gain is a problematic word to us in describing ISO implementation because it carries connotations from audio engineering that are not entirely appropriate. While I'm writing this TimC posted a long response and provided some explanation of gain/ISO. He did a good job. "_Gain is a measure of the ability of a two-port circuit (often an amplifier) to increase the power or amplitude of a signal from the input to the output port by adding energy converted from some power supply to the signal._"  And TimC noted that what ISO does to the sensor signal is accomplished in multiple ways. Electronic gain is one method, digital scaling which is also used really is something else. My hesitation in just accepting the term gain is because it implies for a lot of people (audio connotation) an increase in sensitivity. And as TimC very correctly pointed out, "Digital sensors do not have adjustable sensitivity."

Back a few pages here TimT got it right and I'll quote: *"ISO on a camera is simply a calibration of the middle grey tone to an RGB co-ordinate."*

Joe



Soocom1 said:


> They just do the same thing differently.
> Think V type engine to a wankle.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 26, 2019)

*Right, they are not comparable.*


Actually I meant to say compatible, but the spell check hit me. 

but I digress


----------



## petrochemist (Mar 26, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> LMAO i'm not wrong,  yeah camera's have a setting called ISO but it's not what the real ISO is like in Film Camera..
> And it's not what people think it is in digital camera, and IT"S NOT part of the exposure triangle at all.
> If the ISO (applied gain) is applied after the shot is taken, then it's not part of the exposure triangle.


Let me see there's
ISO 12232    Speed rating for digital cameras (I believe it has 5 alternative procedures in it)
ISO 6             Speed rating for B&W negative film
ISO 2240      Speed rating for colour slide film
ISO 5800      Speed rating for colour print film
ISO 7187       Speed rating for direct positive colour print film
ISO 9378      Speed rating for vesicular microfilm

Yet somehow the digital version is 'not real' & all the others are?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2019)

This thread!! So much winning!


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Mar 26, 2019)

Actually, we covered most of the this topic just a while back:

"Digital Photography ISO"
"Digital Photography ISO"


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2019)

VidThreeNorth said:


> Actually, we covered most of the this topic just a while back:
> 
> "Digital Photography ISO"
> "Digital Photography ISO"



A link from a 2009 article found in one of the above articles:

Behind the scenes: extended highlights!


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 26, 2019)

Wow six pages of serious discussion over what is basically opinion. Next we can start on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin". That has only been debated since the middle-ages.

That fact is with film, if I increase the ISO (ASA to us old folks), the exposure increases. With digital, if I increase the ISO,  the exposure increases. How it was done chemically with film and how it is done electronically with digital does not make any difference.

The end result, with film and digital, is the higher ISO more exposure. The methodology is a moot point.


----------



## dunfly (Mar 26, 2019)

I had a philosophy professor in college that said that most controversies are a matter of semantics.  In this case, it is the word "exposure".  Technically "exposure" is the amount of light that hits a surface, whether it is film or a sensor.  Based on that definition ASA or ISO is irrelevant to exposure.  But when we talk about the exposure triangle, we are also including what the camera does with the light, either chemically with film or digitally with digital.  In this case, we are talking about the finished product, either the image that is recorded by the film or the image that is saved to the SD (or whatever) card.  So it looks like we have 6 pages of discussion because someone is trying to apply the technical definition of exposure to the general term exposure triangle, which almost everyone understands includes what the camera does with the light, i.e. ASA or ISO.


----------



## markjwyatt (Mar 26, 2019)

dunfly said:


> ...Technically "exposure" is the amount of light that hits a surface, whether it is film or a sensor.  Based on that definition ASA or ISO is irrelevant to exposure.  But when we talk about the exposure triangle, we are also including what the camera does with the light, either chemically with film or digitally with digital...



I don't want to make drag this on too much longer, but I think exposure has to be the amount of light absorbed by the photosensitive medium AND its effect on the medium. In film you would say the average number of latent image sites (of average size) transformed per area due to the flux (controlled by the lens and aperture) and integration time (controlled by the shutter) as well as the sensitivity of the sites (characterized by the ISO). If you take a film camera that is empty and click the shutter you have light hitting a surface, but no exposure, so exposure needs to involve the entire "exposure" triangle to have any meaning, philosophically speaking (  ).


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 26, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> NO IT's not increasing voltage to the sensor, has nothing to do with ISO,
> ISO is applied after the Image is taken.. NOT at the time the shot is taken, so voltage to the sensor has noting to do with ISO settings..
> ISO is Applied Gain AFTER, I repeat AFTER the image is Taken..
> the shot is taken from the sensor, to the Analog Gain, then to the AD converter, then ISO is applied as you see in the diagram..
> ...



First of all you've limited yourself to a very narrow view, completely ignoring the difference between analog and digital gain. Then you post a schematic that shows an analog amplifier receiving the signal from the sensor, but some how ignored it's contribution. Third you've pushed that ISO is nothing but applied gain, yet in your comment above you say "then ISO is applied", so if it's nothing but gain why do you claim it's applied? Finally you appear unwilling to accept that in 6 pages of comments no one has supported your position. I tried to support how you were arriving at some of you claims, only to be told I was wrong for agreeing that some or your points were true.  This is one of those self feeding beasts that will dye down, come back and continue to clog the forum for years to come. I for one wish the powers above would create and UNFOLLOW button for threads so you can stop them from continuing to show up on the Active T0pics list.


----------



## Designer (Mar 26, 2019)

markjwyatt said:


> .. as well as the sensitivity of the sites (characterized by the ISO).


Are you saying that a change to the ISO setting affects the sensitivity of the sensor?


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Wow six pages of *"serious"* discussion over what is basically opinion.



Fixed that for ya.



> The methodology is a moot point.


----------



## markjwyatt (Mar 26, 2019)

Designer said:


> markjwyatt said:
> 
> 
> > .. as well as the sensitivity of the sites (characterized by the ISO).
> ...



Effectively, I suspect. Perhaps I should have said "the sensitivity of the sites (characterized by the ISO)" and the system that process the sites... But then again, if we take the sensor as really a single sensitivity (ISO), the original statement may still be correct. Any effective change in ISO would then be due to processing.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2019)

It's fair to draw a line and say how some tool is implemented isn't important to you -- moot point. But if you're going to be using whatever that tool is that you don't care how it works (a camera in this case) do you understand enough so that you make appropriate usage choices? Or do you also not care about the outcomes you produce with that tool? Given this thread's topic, digital camera ISO, do you know what happens *photographically* when you adjust that setting?

I have a neighbor kid who's always looking for a couple extra bucks and comes around wanting to help in the garden for some cash. The other day he was here pestering me and I had some dead viburnum that had be be cut out so I gave him a hand saw and told him to cut as low to the ground as possible. Then I said I was going to do something else in the garage and would be back to check on him in a few minutes. When I got back he was bending over the viburnum trunks and using the saw to chop at them like it was a hatchet (bent some saw teeth, grrrrrr).



 

Reminded me of how some people I meet use their cameras.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2019)

markjwyatt said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > markjwyatt said:
> ...



Back a page or so there's a lengthly post by TimC that contains considerable detail. One point he makes:


TCampbell said:


> Digital sensors do not have adjustable sensitivity.


And he is completely correct.

Joe


----------



## Designer (Mar 27, 2019)

markjwyatt said:


> ..if we take the sensor as really a single sensitivity (ISO),


Thinking about how to make a sensor "variable" might include some kind of moveable/changeable shade of some sort positioned on/in front of the sensor such that when the ISO setting was changed, the shade would change accordingly.  

Seems rather complicated.  

Not only do I think it will never happen, but I see no need for it, either.


----------



## Designer (Mar 27, 2019)

markjwyatt said:


> Effectively, I suspect. Perhaps I should have said "the sensitivity of the sites (characterized by the ISO)" and the system that process the sites... But then again, if we take the sensor as really a single sensitivity (ISO), the original statement may still be correct. *Any effective change in ISO would then be due to processing.*


(emphasis added)

I think that was his point.


----------



## Designer (Mar 27, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> ..do you understand enough so that you make appropriate usage choices?


That is why I'm trying to learn more about my camera, specifically its digital operations.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 27, 2019)

Comparing film to digital can only be done in the most general of terms and concepts.

Photographic terminology is derived from the 100 years plus of film photography,  just as lens terminology is based on centuries lens development. The objective is to capture an image, (usually in the visible light region) and display it.

The how and why different chemicals produced different results on photographic films and papers amused, mystified and occupied serious amounts of time amongst photographers. Some delving deeply into the understanding of the chemical processes and other simply happy with the results.

So to, today's digital format.  There is nothing wrong with wanting an understanding of the detection amplification, modification and storage of the digital latent image; however, most folks are simply happy with the results and learning how to achieve them.

The OP's point that ISO technique are different between film and digital is inherently understood. Just as when you step on the accelerator pedal, the vehicle goes faster, be it gas or electric. The fact that we call it a gas pedal or use the expression "step on the gas" does not depend on the type of motor.

There, now I have managed to add even more opinion to a rather mundane topic.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Why is this even a discussion?
> 
> 
> Seriously.


Because the OP wants to feel superior.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> there is really no need to shoot at way high ISO settings really because even if the picture is under exposed some you can boost it up in post, which will grant you the same results as if you cranked up your ISO setting..


Actually, there is great need in shooting at high ISO settings, as it saves us from spending time doing unnecessary editing in front of a computer.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Wow six pages of serious discussion over what is basically opinion. Next we can start on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin". That has only been debated since the middle-ages.
> 
> That fact is with film, if I increase the ISO (ASA to us old folks), the exposure increases. With digital, if I increase the ISO,  the exposure increases. How it was done chemically with film and how it is done electronically with digital does not make any difference.
> 
> The end result, with film and digital, is the higher ISO more exposure. The methodology is a moot point.


This, 100% correct.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 27, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > NO IT's not increasing voltage to the sensor, has nothing to do with ISO,
> ...




applied gain, applied after the image was taken,..

2nd of all i didn't write the schematic, Sony did,  all i did was post it for others to see where the ISO is applied, which is after the image is taken SO that proves that ISO is not part of the exposure triangle, can't be, Exposure is taken in before and after the picture is taken using what light is available, then processed, then ISO applied..

the other point is, Also because Camera Manufactures lie about what ISO 100 or ISO 1600 is, using a light meter won't really help you much because some camera's produce a brighter picture at the same ISO then others, that video by Tony Northrup shows proof of that.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 27, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > there is really no need to shoot at way high ISO settings really because even if the picture is under exposed some you can boost it up in post, which will grant you the same results as if you cranked up your ISO setting..
> ...



Yes easier on the photographer, how ever not so good for a customer, Such as a wedding shoot.
let see, what do you think any wedding couple who hires a photographer would say if the photographer said this

"Ok now for the final part of this,  Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.

How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice  color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,

You won't notice it very much if you just use your pictures for Posting JPEG on facebook, How ever if you want to make enlargements bigger then 8X10 you will notice it, Unless i use ISO 100 the lowest ISO, Which would you like me to use?"

Now you think the customer is going to say, oh use the higher ISO we don't care if our pictures are lower quality then they could be? Or you think GO with the higher quality LOW ISO shots?

After all some couples are paying very good money for them pictures, Some wedding packages are running anywhere from $2500.00 to $10,000.00
Now you think it's fair to use a higher ISO to make your job easier and give them a crappy wedding package??

that's like going to a bakery and the baker saying now would you like a good quality wedding cake? or a lesser quality cake for the same price, Keep in mind if you choose the lower quality cake, it will take me less time to bake it and make my job easier..
This is really stupid statement In terms of commercial photography.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 27, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> ...2nd of all i didn't write the schematic, Sony did,  all i did was post it for others to see where the ISO is applied...


Where _*you*_ say the gain is applied.  Reposting a partial block-diagram (it's not actually a schematic, BTW) and then making some random circles to support your case, doesn't actually support your case.  Again, please explain how the analogue amplifier is not relevant to the equation.



donny1963 said:


> ...Camera Manufactures lie about what ISO 100 or ISO 1600 is...


But... you said ISO in digital camra's [_sic_] is not real; if it's not real, than the camera manufacturer can't lie about it...



donny1963 said:


> "Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
> I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.
> 
> How ever the pictures will not be as high quality as if i used the lowest ISO, if Using a higher ISO will degrade the picture some depending on how high i go, if i go to 3200 you will notice color tone degraded and also a some noise in it,
> ...


And, ladies and gentlemen, I think we now have definitive proof that the OP not only doesn't understand ISO or exposure, but knows nothing about photography in general.  Of course there is NEVER a circumstance where you might be using the best quality, "fastest" glass available and still have to shoot at [a not real] ISO of 3200 or higher....  Those of us who have used those [not real] ISOs are only doing it to make our job easier.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...


This is absolute horse ****. It makes zero difference to any customer what ISO you shoot at, unless you're shooting for a client who cares more about the technical things that don't matter rather than caring about the artistry of a photograph, at which point I would fire said client. Furthermore, more noise absolutely does not equal out to a poor quality photograph. Bad lighting, poor composition, lack of color harmony, a poor understanding of your subject and bad editing is what creates poor quality in a photograph.

BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k+ for a wedding, and guess what? Clients love their photos. Real world experience outmatches your strawman speculations any day, and real artistry and talent will always prevail over meaningless technical bull crap.

Next.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2019)

tirediron said:


> And, ladies and gentlemen, I think we now have definitive proof that the OP not only doesn't understand ISO or exposure, but knows nothing about photography in general.


AGREEEEEED.


----------



## limr (Mar 27, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



Dan, for the win!


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 27, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


Of course it makes a difference, using higher ISO gives degrades your images period, thus, your giving them less quality product..

you said "BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k"
then your ripping them off, I feel sad for them.


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 27, 2019)

But... you said ISO in digital camra's [_sic_] is not real; if it's not real, than the camera manufacturer can't lie about it...


Really, not real meaning the ISO setting is not what it says in some camera's meaning they like about what ISO you have set,  for example if you set it at 3200 in some camera's it's really 1600 compared to some other camera's they do this to make it look like the camera produces better quality images at 3200 ISO then the other camera's at that setting.
I'm not going to argue with you the facts was placed there if you can't understand the diagram i posted then not my problem it's very simple.
Believe what you want..


----------



## Derrel (Mar 27, 2019)

Is it drawing close to the time to lock this thread...or is that just my opinion?


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 28, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> you said "BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k"
> then your ripping them off, I feel sad for them.



Why is that?  Is ISO  the primary determination of great photography?


----------



## JonFZ300 (Mar 28, 2019)

So, if what you're saying is true, (it's not) all the camera companies are involved in a conspiracy to make photographers believe that ISO settings change the sensitivity of the sensor and that it's part of the exposure triangle when it's really some kind of brightening effect that's added after the image is captured? Sorry, but even if that was true, (it's not) I just can't get worked up about it. 

*in before the lock


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 28, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...


The truth of the matter is that you're not lining my wallet or paying my bills, and I can confidently assert that your work comes nowhere close to mine in terms of quality or artistry (which is made clear by your obsession with trivial technicalities and a pointless obsession with being right). If it didn't inconvenience them I would gladly give you the contacts of any of my past clients and invite you to attempt in convincing them as to how and why I'm ripping them off, but I'm certain they'd all simply rip you a new asshole instead and call you a fool.

 You don't know what you're talking about Donny, and you've only proven such by insinuating that I rip my customers off by using a high ISO setting as your counter argument, and additionally by saying that it's "sad" when someone presents both a logical and opposing argument to yours, like you also said to Tirediron in response to his legitimate questions.

Maybe go outside and try taking a photograph rather than trying to lord your self imposed "superiority" over others on the internet like a narcissist. I would use your own words and say it's "sad" that you can't seem to see beyond your own narrow minded views about what attributes value and quality to photography, but it's not sad, it's just kind of pathetic.



donny1963 said:


> what do you think any wedding couple who hires a photographer would say if the photographer said this
> 
> "Ok now for the final part of this, Even tho you don't know what ISO is, If i use a higher ISO like 800 or even 3200, It will Make my job easier on me,
> I won't have to use real good lenses that are fast and save me time on post production.
> ...



Also just wanted to point out that there isn't a single photographer in the world who would say this to their clients. You arguments are absurdly weak and beyond ridiculous. By all means though, keep it up. This has been immensely funny.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Mar 28, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> I'm not going to argue with you the facts was placed there if you can't understand the diagram i posted then not my problem it's very simple.



Which is where the problem lies, you spend your time looking at diagrams and arguing over the numbers and your definition of what you think they mean.

Guess what? When people look at images they see faces and places they recognise, not the ISO setting. Like many you try to create a narrative based only on how a *camera* works, by a comparison of numbers that are not directly visible, and completely fail to realise that the value of an *image* is contained in how we as humans work, how it resonates with the viewer's experience and memory.



donny1963 said:


> Believe what you want..



Which is almost what you are doing.



Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Seriously, stop watching YouTube and get out there and take some photos. Then instead of re-posting someone else's *controversial click bait* you may actually learn something, or even come up with your own opinion.



Which is where we came in... And where I leave...


----------



## petrochemist (Mar 28, 2019)

[QUOTE="donny1963, post: 3942173, member: 211275
applied gain, applied after the image was taken,..[/QUOTE]

Applied within a few milliseconds of the shutter closing.
Until the data is de-mosaiced there is no photographic image. It's part of the process, similar to developing film which never happens while the image is taken, even instant cameras take longer to do this than digital.


----------



## Designer (Mar 28, 2019)

Such opinions we have!  This poor, tired thread has seen enough, IMO.  Here we are, trying to dispute a hypothesis postulated (second hand) by someone who cannot articulate his position clearly, and has confounded his main point by pairing it with a secondary hypothesis totally unrelated to the first. 

The OP is vilified for mis-stating (and mis-spelling) key parts of his statement.  Instead of trying to understand what he has apparently failed to communicate, we simply brush him aside as someone who does not know what he is talking about. 

Time to lock it up.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 28, 2019)

xkcd: Duty Calls


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 28, 2019)

Hasn't been articulated clearly and not sure there is anything to understand, at least I gave up trying to make any sense of it. 

I wondered if it would make it to 10 pages, I'm surprised it's almost there.


----------



## Designer (Mar 28, 2019)

It's only one of many on the same topic.


----------



## Original katomi (Mar 28, 2019)

Interesting. Like so many others who came from the olden days when ASA was used I have always thought digital iso was the same as film. As in higher the number the more sensitive to light..  Oh well even now I know different it does not really affect how I take pics... for lack of something better I will use the triangle and experience photography is a hobby for me and therefore to be fun. But thank you it will save me from making even more of a fool of myself


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2019)

Search on "ETTR" (from around 2005-2007,mostly, as I recollect) and then on "ISO invariant sensor" or "ISO invariance"...compare older dogma/accepted facts with the advent of Sony's fist generation EXMOR sensor technology...


----------



## Overread (Mar 28, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Search on "ETTR" (from around 2005-2007,mostly, as I recollect) and then on "ISO invariant sensor" or "ISO invariance"...compare older dogma/accepted facts with the advent of Sony's fist generation EXMOR sensor technology...



Hey! It's not old Dogma for those of us still using non-ISO Invarient sensors


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 28, 2019)

Vtec44 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > you said "BTW, I shoot weddings with a Canon 5D from 2006, often set to ISO 800 or higher, charge $2k"
> ...


Unfortunately many amateurs believe this to be the case. I wouldn't read too much into this guy's statements though. A quick look at his past threads makes it very clear that he just likes to post click-baity and inflammatory threads with statements meant to start arguments, and then argue with everyone.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 28, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Yeah I'm wondering if he's the guy in the video he's sharing.  It's the same channel.  Times are tough for Youtube revenue sharing so he needs the traffic   I don't take anything from him seriously.   Anyone can parrot specs and charts.  Show me some great photos then we'll talk


----------



## tirediron (Mar 28, 2019)

Vtec44 said:


> ...Show me some great photos then we'll talk


Yep!  A cousin of mine is a very accomplished [fine art] painter.  I doubt if he could weave a canvas, but he makes a VERY good living applying oil to them...  clients pay for results.  They generally don't care how you get them.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 29, 2019)

ISO is real and it's spectacular.


----------



## Dao (Mar 29, 2019)

I have nothing to add to this thread and just want to be part of it.  Of course, I cannot miss the opportunity to say something because someone is wrong on the internet.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 29, 2019)

Trying to push this thread to 10 pages, are we?


----------



## limr (Mar 29, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Trying to push this thread to 10 pages, are we?



I am sure we could. I mean, have we learned nothing from Leaderboard??


----------



## limr (Mar 29, 2019)

Hey, I did it!


----------



## donny1963 (Mar 29, 2019)

Vtec44 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...




Some real


TCampbell said:


> xkcd: Duty Calls





More like

Wife: Are you coming to bed?
Me:Of course i am.
Wife: what about them people who think you are wrong?
Me: Eh, Who gives a ****, I don't really care what they believe,
I put out the proof and information up, it's up to them if they want to continue to believe
BS!!
You know the old saying, you can drag a horse to water but you can't make them drink it..


----------



## JonFZ300 (Mar 29, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> I don't really care what they believe



That is pretty rich.


----------



## Jeff15 (Mar 29, 2019)

I always use auto ISO, the sensor can cope, most of the time.........


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 29, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> More like
> 
> Wife: Are you coming to bed?
> Me:Of course i am.
> ...



*I proved you wrong many pages ago in this thread*. I put up references from these guys: ISO - International Organization for Standardization
and these guys: CIPA - Camera & Imaging Products Association: Digital Cameras who wrote the standards on digital ISO. I even posted the 31 page CIPA technical standards paper for you to read (not that you can, but that doesn't change that it proves you wrong).

*My sources trump your sources*. The proof and information you posted comes from *previously discredited*, *recently discredited*, ROFLMAO *blathering fool*, Youtube clickbaiters. Until you can offer reasonable and reputable rebuttal sources *you stay proven wrong*. Above noted Youtube clickbaiters are not reasonable and reputable -- your proof and info rates this:





So regardless of what you believe or of how loud you shout: *You stay proven wrong* until you're ready to offer some proof to rebut what I posted: CIPA DC-004 because it proves what you posted is wrong. And one more time: *My sources trump your sources.
*
And now you can go to bed wrong as usual.

Joe

P.S. Leonore, sorry -- started drinking again -- Friday night 



donny1963 said:


> You know the old saying, you can drag a horse to water but you can't make them drink it..


----------



## limr (Mar 29, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> P.S. Leonore, sorry -- started drinking again -- Friday night
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Meh, I am drinking too, it's all good


----------



## DigiFilm (Mar 30, 2019)

After having watched this thread inexplicably grow to over 100 posts, all I can say is:


----------



## ClickAddict (Mar 30, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> .
> 
> ...
> Me: Eh, Who gives a ****, I don't really care what they believe,
> ...



2 Points.
1. If you dont care why are you still posting?  You do care.
2. There's no noticeable difference between someone totally oblivious to being wrong in the face of proof (see -- too many to list--- posts regarding why you are wrong) and a troll.  Haven't figured out which one you are.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2019)

ClickAddict said:


> Haven't figured out which one you are.



You forgot the third option? LOL

Paralyze resistance with persistence. -- Woody Hayes


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 30, 2019)

Bread makes you fat? 

(Just had to get on this but that was all I could think of to type.)


----------



## JonFZ300 (Mar 31, 2019)

No you shut up!!!


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Mar 31, 2019)

I was talking to a camera insider the other day and asked. Her response was "LOL, it doesn't do anything." Apparently it stands for *I*n *S*earch *O*f (an answer) until some boffin re-named it *I*nternet *S*tandard *O*pinion which kinda stuck. She said that it wan't actually connected to anything and was just a load of numbers on a twiddly dial. It was really there for the placebo effect because they found out that people really did think their photographs were better if there were more knobs on the camera to twiddle. Most of the research these days, she said, went on inventing credible numbers that impressed without being un-believable. Apparently they have a sweepstake about when somebody can invent the *Mega* ISO and have it taken seriously. The trigger, or proof, is a supporting post by Ysarex on TPF. She dismissed DPreview as she said that most of the stuff they post is beyond the realms of reason anyway and that they had started discussing it as fact some years ago. In fact so heated was the debate that it was rumoured the Russians had hacked it and interfered with the outcome, (Russian cameras had broken the MegaISO barrier back in the Soviet era). The Russians of course are denying any knowledge of ISO and asked for proof which kicked off the whole argument again.
There is even a cell of conspiracy theorists who believe that it's all a smoke screen to deflect attention from the way a camera really works (and the fake moon landings). They say that all these arguments about dials are preventing us from seeing the real output of cameras which are actually about spying on us by taking pictures out of the rear screens, and explains the increase in selfies on the internet.
So there you have it, from the horses mouth...
Pg 11 anyone??


----------



## DigiFilm (Apr 1, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> I was talking to a camera insider the other day and asked. Her response was "LOL, it doesn't do anything." Apparently it stands for *I*n *S*earch *O*f (an answer) until some boffin re-named it *I*nternet *S*tandard *O*pinion which kinda stuck. She said that it wan't actually connected to anything and was just a load of numbers on a twiddly dial. It was really there for the placebo effect because they found out that people really did think their photographs were better if there were more knobs on the camera to twiddle. Most of the research these days, she said, went on inventing credible numbers that impressed without being un-believable. Apparently they have a sweepstake about when somebody can invent the *Mega* ISO and have it taken seriously. The trigger, or proof, is a supporting post by Ysarex on TPF. She dismissed DPreview as she said that most of the stuff they post is beyond the realms of reason anyway and that they had started discussing it as fact some years ago. In fact so heated was the debate that it was rumoured the Russians had hacked it and interfered with the outcome, (Russian cameras had broken the MegaISO barrier back in the Soviet era). The Russians of course are denying any knowledge of ISO and asked for proof which kicked off the whole argument again.
> There is even a cell of conspiracy theorists who believe that it's all a smoke screen to deflect attention from the way a camera really works (and the fake moon landings). They say that all these arguments about dials are preventing us from seeing the real output of cameras which are actually about spying on us by taking pictures out of the rear screens, and explains the increase in selfies on the internet.
> So there you have it, from the horses mouth...
> Pg 11 anyone??



See, this is how rumors get started.  I had heard that a small, unnamed camera manufacturer had decided to discredit the ISO claims of a large, unnamed camera manufacturer by creating a fake dossier which describes exactly what you set forth about the Russians, but it turned out to be faked. It was purchased and assembled through a retired agent. This is all corroborated by several unnamed sources. In addition, other unnamed sources are trying to hide the fact that camera lenses are designed to show an artificially curved horizon on what is in reality a flat earth.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 1, 2019)

This thread goes to 11. I had to wait 11 seconds to post.






This is more than 11 seconds' worth of possibly NSFW.


----------



## limr (Apr 1, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> This thread goes to 11. I had to wait 11 seconds to post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## riddell (Apr 2, 2019)

There is a very simple way to disprove (or prove if you want to argue) your theory.

Go out in the dark, meter and set the ISO correctly. Use whatever aperture you need to get high ISO, pretty much as high as your camera will go. ISO3200+ You should get a nice looking shot, grainy of course, but the camera doing the best of its abilities.

Then adjust the ISO right down. ISO100 or 50. You've probably got a virtually black, if not pure black image.

Now go into your chosen software and adjust the exposure so its the same level as your correctly metered image.

Does it really look the same? Same quality? As much details in the darker areas? I wouldn't be surprised if you can't even raise it much above the pure black, because there is no info there to pull details out.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 2, 2019)

riddell said:


> Does it really look the same? Same quality? As much details in the darker areas? I wouldn't be surprised if you can't even raise it much above the pure black, because there is no info there to pull details out.



if the sensor is iso invariant, then yes -- they _WILL_ look identical...  same quality, same detail; ISO doesn't change the information captured during the exposure.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 2, 2019)

OMG 11 pages, I`m a Believer


----------



## phlash46 (Apr 2, 2019)

Geez


donny1963 said:


> Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.
> 
> here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
> it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.
> ...


Geez...get a life.


----------



## bchalifour (Apr 2, 2019)

Yes Donny you are right. All sensors have a basic (fixed) sensitivity to light, usually these days 100 or 200 ISO equivalent which is where they are the most effective (dynamic range and data to noise ratio). The more one increases (even decreases but not much leeway there) the ISO setting, and in doing so processes the information further through the processor and firmware, the more the dynamic range decreases and the noise increases. Now, in time, it is not "way after", not in human time at least.... ;o) but almost for us in real time as we can see the results in our real time on the LCD back screen or in the EVF of our cameras. The amplification process (of the light signal) is not as simple as shooting everything at the nominal 100 or 200 ISO and then manipulating the data in our image processors (Photoshop, Lightroom, Affinity, DxO, etc.) on our computers, tablets or cell-phones. You are not going to get the same results by doing so as by letting the allied processor/firmware of your camera do it (first because even in case of using a (less-processed) raw-format image, it is not as pristine in terms of data as the one that comes straight from the sensor and is processed into RAW and JPG (far more processed than RAW of course) by your image-capturing tool [camera, cell-phone, etc. ....]).


----------



## timchuma (Apr 2, 2019)

Why is this stupid thread part of the "highlighted posts".

I quit this stupid site.


----------



## willard3 (Apr 2, 2019)

Why does anybody pay attention to this poop? 
The OP is only encouraged to post further poop by anyone's response.


----------



## jimbotexas (Apr 2, 2019)

Sorry, you're flat wrong for several very simple and very logical reasons:

Since it was standardized in 1974, ISO defines the speed of film and, effectively, it's sensitivity to light. Reference Wikipedia.

With digital sensors, the same thing applies. Reference Canon and Digital Photography School.

Digital sensor technology is far more complex than you apparently realize. Reference Canon White Paper: Advances in CMOS Image Sensors and Associated Processing.

Even without references, simple observation and logic dictates that *advances in technology have greatly increased sensor sensitivity over the last 20 years.*

Twenty years ago, I shot with an early Minolta camera that had an ISO range of  100-800. Shots at 800 were so grainy as to be virtually unusable.
Ten years ago, I shot with a Canon 40D that ranged 100-1600. Shots at 1600 were terrible as well but 800 was usable.
Eight years ago, I shot with a Canon 5D Mark II that ranged 100-6400 and was a massive improvement in affordable sensor technology. I regularly used 1600 for low-light that produced great results. I even used 3200 on occasion and produced usable results.
These days, a Canon 5D Mark IV produces fantastic results at 12,800 ISO that would be completely unimaginable 20 years ago.

To say ISO is "gain" is not simply untrue but an outright lie.

No one is being "manipulated" except you.





donny1963 said:


> Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.
> 
> here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
> it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.
> ...


----------



## Overread (Apr 2, 2019)

And I think that might be a good time to draw it to a close ladies and gentlemen. 


Remember remain respectful to each other; don't believe into all the click-bait youtube channels out there today.
Go out and have some fun taking some photos.


----------

