# Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible



## MichaelRyanSD (Feb 9, 2014)

I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?


----------



## D-B-J (Feb 9, 2014)

Depends.  Do you need to freeze action?  Shutter speed is the last thing to change.  Do you need to have as much as possible in focus? Aperture is the last thing to change.  Do you not care?  Change ISO last.  But yes, in a perfect world, I'd prefer to up the ISO only if I have to.

Best,
Jake


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 9, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?



I guess you might get a lot of different answers here based on everyone's preferred method.  As for me I like aperture priority mode, so generally I'll adjust the aperture to get the desired depth of field or as close to it as I think I can get based on the lighting conditions, then I adjust the ISO until I get what I consider to be an acceptable shutter speed for the shot.  Works fairly well for me, but I'm assuming of course that other folks probably have a variety of methods.  I guess my thought is as long as you get the shot, that's all that really matters.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 9, 2014)

I try to keep the ISO as low as possible... while still getting the image I need.  ISO is the last compromise I'm willing to make because of the issues it creates with noise and color accuracy.

And I'm saying that as a person who runs a Nikon D800, which is arguably one of the high ISO kings.


----------



## runnah (Feb 9, 2014)

It's all about knowing your camera and your intended shot. Once you know that you can make sacrifices from the 3 factors of exposure.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 9, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?


Here's a mind boggling thought...  ISO has no direct effect on exposure.

 Exposure is changed only by two things: one is how much light comes through the lens and the other is how long that light is allowed to hit  the sensor.  Basically aperture and shutter speed.

That results in a set amount of analog signal being generated by the electronic sensor.  Nothing else changes that.

But *after* that analog signal is generated the camera does two things which may change the brightness of the recorded data.  That doesn't really change the "exposure", but many people don't realize it actually is different.  First, the signal might be amplified by an analog device, and second it is digitized with an Analog-Digital-Converter.   In the process of being digitized, or afterwards, the digital data can be amplified too, just as the analog signal was.  The significance to your original question is that the analog, the ADC amplification, and the post-ADC amplification  each have different characteristics and all of them result in changes to brightness but otherwise lower quality for the image compared to what would have happened if the exposure had been increased.  When done in the camera those are all called an increase in ISO (sensitivity to light, or how bright the recorded data is).

In that respect, yes we always want to use a lower ISO (as long as it is above the native ISO of the sensor and does not need amplification).  However...   there is always a catch!  Sometimes we like to set aperture and/or shutter time for artistic effects other than simply image quality.  Hence we may want to use both an f/stop and a shutter speed that does not allow ISO 200. Then the queston becomes one of exactly what is the tradeoff for use of ISO 400, or even ISO 8000 perhaps.  And is that trade worth taking.

Genarally the difference with higher ISO is lower dynamic range, which necessarily means higher noise in the shadows.  Sometimes that is acceptable, sometimes it's not.  Depends on how the picture is used.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 9, 2014)

apaflo said:


> MichaelRyanSD said:
> 
> 
> > I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?
> ...



Whether that's right or wrong, it's mostly just semantics. It doesn't really alter the advice that is being provided. From a purely practical level, ISO has a negative effect on image quality. How that negative effect gets there mechanically is interesting, but not relevant to the question.


----------



## runnah (Feb 9, 2014)

apaflo said:


> Here's a mind boggling thought...  ISO has no direct effect on exposure.  Exposure is changed only by two things: one is how much light comes through the lens and the other is how long that light is allowed to hit  the sensor.  Basically aperture and shutter speed.  That results in a set amount of analog signal being generated by the electronic sensor.  Nothing else changes that.  But after that analog signal is generated the camera does two things which may change the brightness of the recorded data.  That doesn't really change the "exposure", but many people don't realize it actually is different.  First, the signal might be amplified by an analog device, and second it is digitized with an Analog-Digital-Converter.   In the process of being digitized, or afterwards, the digital data can be amplified too, just as the analog signal was.  The significance to your original question is that the analog, the ADC amplification, and the post-ADC amplification  each have different characteristics and all of them result in changes to brightness but otherwise lower quality for the image compared to what would have happened if the exposure had been increased.  When done in the camera those are all called an increase in ISO (sensitivity to light, or how bright the recorded data is).  In that respect, yes we always want to use a lower ISO (as long as it is above the native ISO of the sensor and does not need amplification).  However...   there is always a catch!  Sometimes we like to set aperture and/or shutter time for artistic effects other than simply image quality.  Hence we may want to use both an f/stop and a shutter speed that does not allow ISO 200. Then the queston becomes one of exactly what is the tradeoff for use of ISO 400, or even ISO 8000 perhaps.  And is that trade worth taking.  Genarally the difference with higher ISO is lower dynamic range, which necessarily means higher noise in the shadows.  Sometimes that is acceptable, sometimes it's not.  Depends on how the picture is used.




You are over thinking it. I turn the ISO dial and my picture gets lighter, therefore ISO affects exposure.

Don't confuse the op.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 9, 2014)

manaheim said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelRyanSD said:
> ...



In fact none of it is semantics.  All of it is technically correct.  *All of it directly affects the image quality of capture data.*   And until a photographer does understand the significance of it (though not necessarily the technical details) their photography will be limited by that lack of understanding.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 9, 2014)

runnah said:


> You are over thinking it. I turn the ISO dial and my picture gets lighter, therefore ISO affects exposure.
> 
> Don't confuse the op.



When you shoot with a film camera, do you say that changing to higher speed film is a change in exposure?  Or do you change film and then change the exposure to match the different ISO...

Lets not confuse people with incorrect definitiions, such as saying anything that makes an image brigher is a  change in exposure. Keep in mind that exposure with film was exactly the same as is exposure with digital.


----------



## runnah (Feb 9, 2014)

apaflo said:


> When you shoot with a film camera, do you say that changing to higher speed film is a change in exposure?  Or do you change film and then change the exposure to match the different ISO...  Lets not confuse people with incorrect definitiions, such as saying anything that makes an image brigher is a  change in exposure. Keep in mind that exposure with film was exactly the same as is exposure with digital.



What are you going on about? Yes of course it changes the exposure. Because I am EXPOSING the film/sensor for a different amount of time based on the desired EXPOSURE. 

That is what exposure means.


----------



## MichaelRyanSD (Feb 9, 2014)

I appreciate the technical explanation of ISO, and I realize as most beginners should, the difference between the analog and digital inputs in regards to exposure. I just didn't make a mention of it in the original post for the sake of the question, sort of a "keep it simple stupid" question. 

Thank you though, and everyone else. You all sort of confirmed what I was thinking, like I mentioned, there are too many variables to account for when adjusting the settings, but given all things being equal, we should adjust the ISO last, since it essence, it degrades the picture.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 9, 2014)

runnah said:


> What are you going on about? Yes of course it changes the exposure. Because I am EXPOSING the film/sensor for a different amount of time based on the desired EXPOSURE.
> 
> That is what exposure means.



Yes, a *"different amount of time"*.  Changing the film didn't change the time.  When you changed the shutter speed it change the time, and thus the exposure.


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 9, 2014)

How soon do real ISO problems kick in? Obviously at the upper range there's significant noise: but on a modern body (sat a T2i), is there really much quality difference between ISO100, ISO200, and ISO400?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 9, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?



The goal is to get the best photos. All other things are never equal, and to boot, you're asking for a practical answer about a hypothetical question? Uh...where to start.

Accept that not everything is equal. Ever. Photography, and the world, vary. A lot. Sometimes, ISO selection is a critical factor in success or failure. Late in the afternoon, as twilight comes, if you want to do stop-action photography, OR if you have a slow lens (say an f/5.6 max. aperture zoom), you will want to BEGIN WITH an elevated ISO level, and work from that starting point.

In low-light sports shooting scenarios, I will often START with the premise that ISO 1600 is **the best** place to begin, and will work on exposure with that as a given starting point. With new cameras, ISO 3,200, 6,400, and 12,800 are ALL actually pretty usable with the better, newer cameras, especially for smaller images and web use.

In bright-light situations where you are going to shoot fill-flash, I would begin with the LOWEST ISO your camera offers, since f/16 at the ISO in use is the "sunny 16" exposure, so with a camera having a 1/200 top flash synch speed, and a base ISO of 100, at the base ISO, the exposure for the sunlight will be 1/100 second at f/16, up to 1/200 second at f/11. If the camera offers a LOW setting, such as an equivalent to ISO 50, you might want to start with that ISO. (suffering only a slight loss in dynamic range, but no big deal).

********

If you come right down to a "general idea", I would say under many situations, ISO 400 offers the best mix of ISO speed, shutter speed, depth of field, and FLEXIBILITY over exposures that are possible. It might have some loss of DR and color richness, but the newest sensors are still excellent, and again, the goal is to be able to make *the best pictures.*..not concerning yourself with a bunch of technical B.S. and arcane, esoteric crap that some people fixate on. A slight bit of noise or a slight loss of total DR or a slight loss of richness in color is better than a low-noise, low-ISO but a bunch of smeary, blurred images.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 9, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> but given all things being equal, we should adjust the ISO last, since it essence, it degrades the picture.



  Well... all things aren't always equal though.  Sometimes we set the ISO first, knowing very well we need to start with a limit on how much degradation we will accept as a result of too low an exposure.  Then we set exposure even though it might not give us precisely the artistic effects desired.

 For example, event photographers commonly shoot in low light.  At one event there might be little motion, so a shutter speed of 1/100 could be sufficient, and that may also allow stoppig down for more depth of field.  The first parameter set would have been the highest acceptable ISO.  And if something then gets going where it is more important to freeze action, the ISO value is retained, but the shutter speed must be set faster.  Rather than increase ISO (a disaster), the aperture is set wider even though it is detrimental.  In these cases ISO is set first, it is the make or break paramenter, and it doesn't get changed when the environment changes.

Compare that to shooting outdoor events with a camera such as the Nikon D800, where the dynamic range is high enough that changing from ISO 200 to 400 or even to 800 simply will not affect the image that is saved in a JPEG image format which can only encode about 9 f/stops of dynamic range.  In this case ISO would be the first thing to change, rather than exposure.  An ISO change has no effect, an exposure change is detrimental.

 You are right that there are "too many variables", but as you gain experience and knowledge some of what seems overwhelming now will become "the basics" that you don't blink an eye at.  Everyone at any given time has a limit.  And you'll notice that those with a lower limit often claim anything above theirs is useless trivia.  My suggestion is to make an effort, for the rest of your life, at raising your limit!  That's what makes photograph fun.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 9, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> How soon do real ISO problems kick in? Obviously at the upper range there's significant noise: but on a modern body (sat a T2i), is there really much quality difference between ISO100, ISO200, and ISO400?



 That is a very significant point.  I can answer only for a few cameras, but it isn't too hard for someone to extrapolate from one to another or to actually go find the right data for a specific camera in order to know exactly.

 Lets consider that the JPEG format can only encode about 9 stops of dynamic range, at most.  And either a montior or a print can display about 8, at most.  In almost all cases the actual useful dynamic range is a bit less than 8 stops.  (If the image has more than that, it is almost always displayed with the excess range blocked off in the shadows.)

 Because of that a camera with more than 8 stops of dynamic range has ISO to spare.  One way to use the extra ISO is to allow exposure to be less critical.  A camera with 12 stops has 4 to spare, and exposure can be really sloppy!  A camera with 8 requires very precise exposure.

 Therefore it is interesting to know just exactly at which ISO a camera drops to 8 stops of dynamic range.  The Nikon D4 and the Nikon D800 and the Canon 1DX are within 1/4 of a stop of having 8 stops of dynamic range at ISO 1600.  Virtually all other full frame cameras hit that mark at ISO 1000 (The exception is the Nikon D700 which is a hair lower than the others.).

Hence that is the ISO at which, with very precise exposure makes little difference.  Going to 1 stop less ISO removes the extreme critical aspect of ISO (looking at the histogram on almost any shot be more accurate than that).  And at 2 stops less almost any bit of slop is close enough


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 9, 2014)

> In fact none of it is semantics. All of it is technically correct. All of it directly affects the image quality of capture data. And until a photographer does understand the significance of it (though not necessarily the technical details) their photography will be limited by that lack of understanding.


*Yes*, it is technically correct.

But *No*, nobody's photography will be limited no matter which way they see it. Thinking about ISO as "exposure at the cost of more noise" will lead to precisely the same decisions in the field as thinking of it as "a noise producing gain applied to a given exposure."


(By the way, here's an idea: if we simply put "exposure" in quotation marks, then everybody is happy, because as I learned the other day, doing so apparently instantly makes it mean whatever we want and renders it automatically unconfusing to any newbies!)


----------



## fokker (Feb 10, 2014)

In a sense, yes, the goal is to use the lowest possible ISO - that's how I've always thought of it anyway. I will always try to use ISO100 whenever the lighting and subject determines that it is feasible. If my shutter speed is too low for my desired aperture then up goes the ISO until it is fast enough.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 10, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> But *No*, nobody's photography will be limited no matter which way they see it. Thinking about ISO as "exposure at the cost of more noise" will lead to precisely the same decisions in the field as thinking of it as "a noise producing gain applied to a given exposure."



Look into it a little more.  Consider photon noise too.  Things start making a lot of sense if and only if we keep exposure separate from ISO.



> (By the way, here's an idea: if we simply put "exposure" in quotation marks, then everybody is happy, because as I learned the other day, doing so apparently instantly makes it mean whatever we want and renders it automatically unconfusing to any newbies!)



Very close! It renders it non-arbitrary to those who are astute.  And in fact any time "exposure" is related to ISO it should be in quotes.


----------



## bratkinson (Feb 10, 2014)

As someone mentioned on this forum several months ago, photography is an 'acceptable compromise'. ISO speed is merely one aspect of the photography triangle - aperture, shutter speed, and ISO speed. 

Depending on the shooting conditions, say, a bright sunny day, there's perhaps 200 or more possible combinations of shutter speed, aperture and ISO speed that will produce an acceptably exposed photograph. I could, for example, decide to use 1/2000 shutter speed, f 32 aperture, and an appropriate ISO speed to yield the desired image brightness. Slowing the shutter speed by one stop and opening the aperture 1 stop will still yield the same results. 

However, as mentioned by previous posts in this thread, there may be other considerations that will affect ones choices of settings. Getting a thin DOF, for example, starts with a wide aperture. Everything else has to be set with that aperture priority. Shooting in low light as I often do, my biggest concern is to freeze motion, so I start with a shutter speed of 125 or so. I'm willing to sacrifice ISO speed going high up to a limit, which varies by camera model. When I've reached that ISO limit, I can compensate by opening up the aperture. But I may not want a 2" DOF at f2.8 when zoomed out to 200mm, for example. Now what? I can slow down the shutter speed, risking motion blur. I can crank up the ISO speed getting more noise. Pick one. Pick both. That's the 'acceptable compromise'.

So, to state that using the lowest ISO speed is a goal would be like shooting with ASA 25 film in a modern world. Yes, ASA 25 gives fantastic color rendition. But by shooting with that slow an ASA, or even at ISO 100 in digital cameras, is strongly limits the kinds of shots that can be taken, or, requires lots and lots of light to be used successfully.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 10, 2014)

If shooting a scene on a tripod such as a low light landscape, the native iso of 100 or 200 depending on model is normally better for dynamic range than low expanded 50 or whatever values are in low expanded. So lowest iso settings possible are not always the best choice


----------



## JoeW (Feb 10, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?



No--not as a hard and fast rule.  If you're a photojournalist or sports shooter, you go with certain assumptions and you set to try allow you to shoot fast and adjust fast.  But for the everyone else, you look at the setting and start to adjust accordingly.  You want to emphasize motion?  Than shutter speed will be the last thing you set....and you initially set other settings to allow you to control shutter speed (so you might open up the aperture and raise the ISO before setting shutter speed).  You love the natural ambient light and it's a static setting?  Than aperture might be the last thing you set after you've adjusted ISO and shutter speed and WB.  You are shooting a picture with high contrast and you intend to blow it up (or crop extensively)?  Then ISO will be the key for you (b/c you'll want to control for noise and pixelation/grain to allow for a blowup).

Also, I'm not so sure I'd say you set the most important thing last.  If I know that a particular aspect is the key part of the shot for me (such as Dof) then I'll set aperture first and then monkey with everything else so I can keep the aperture setting I intend to use.  So sometimes the key element (be it ISO, WB, DoF/aperture, shutter speed, filter, light source) will be what I set first...and then adjust around it to keep the first (and most critical factor) stable.


----------



## DSRay (Feb 10, 2014)

No.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2014)

In an ideal situation the lower the better, in a realistic world it doesn't always happen. If all you shoot is outdoors under great light, using a tripod and static objects yep. But what it really all comes down to, putting the cameras elements together to end up with a suitable situation to capture what you are shooting. Sometimes sacrificing the iso to get the speed and f stop is necessary.  For example I know that 9 times out of 10 when I walk into an indoor sports venue the iso is going to be over 1000, just to get enough speed to stop the action.

It was like shooting film, using an asa film of 100-200 was great for bright sunlight, a mid range was asa 400-800 and then grain the size of golf ball dimples was 1600-3200.  What ever was necessary.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 10, 2014)

apaflo said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > apaflo said:
> ...



You're making it overly complicated. We don't need to know the physics behind why the knife cuts, to know that it does.


----------



## runnah (Feb 10, 2014)

manaheim said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## runnah (Feb 10, 2014)

apaflo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > What are you going on about? Yes of course it changes the exposure. Because I am EXPOSING the film/sensor for a different amount of time based on the desired EXPOSURE.
> ...



"Well I think that this chart blah blah shows that the blah blah." 

Of course it makes a difference you knob! Do you honestly think that you discovered a big secret?


----------



## apaflo (Feb 10, 2014)

manaheim said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > In fact none of it is semantics.  All of it is technically correct.  *All of it directly affects the image quality of capture data.*   And until a photographer does understand the significance of it (though not necessarily the technical details) their photography will be limited by that lack of understanding.
> ...



Ask any professional chef about knives.  Ask any professional butcher about knives..  They won't agree with you about knives any more than I'm going to agree about what affects photography.  You don't have to know about the physics, unless you want to be *better* at photography tomorrow than you are today!

Why do you feel it is necessary to denigrate what you don't care about or understand?  Your lack of interest or understanding is not what does or not make something significant.  I don't understand vast amounts of what Pablo Picasso thought was important about making art or images.  I don't deride him or his knowledge.


----------



## apaflo (Feb 10, 2014)

runnah said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



This is, afterall, a discussion forum. If you are not interested in the discussion why not just hike along until you find a discussion you are interested in.  There is nothing to be gained from posting flame bait...


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 10, 2014)

If carbon and chromium additives, or whatever, did the exact same thing to knife performance properties, when added in the same ratios, then no, professional chefs and butchers would not care whether they had carbon or chromium in their knives. I believe that is the case here. It is true that ISO is not technically exposure, but thinking about it that way gets you to the same exact decisions you would have made if you don't think about it that way. No matter how pro you are.


Unless you can provide some example scenarios where it wouldn't? I may be wrong, it would be pretty interesting to hear some.


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 10, 2014)

Guy 1: using a more acute angle causes magical fields to cancel electron bonds in meat so that it slices more easily.

Guy 2: Though a more acute angle does make it easier to slice meat, that's not why. It has to do with (insert correct reason).

Guy 1: While you are technically correct....

I suppose "right effect, wrong reason" has some validity in discussion.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 10, 2014)

apaflo said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > apaflo said:
> ...



You know, I'm getting a little tired of you stomping around TPF, and making allusions to people's supposed lack of understanding of whatever piece of information you happen to consider yourself an expert on.

I'm simply trying to tell you that the person asked a very simple question- along the lines of a basic operational level question- and you responded with a physics lecture.

It's the equivalent of a my seven year old child coming up to me and asking if babies come from storks, and for my response to be a three hour lecture on cellular mitosis.

I'm not arguing your *facts*. I'm arguing your *approach*.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Feb 10, 2014)

Well, that was a fun read. I suppose if I had been drunk it'd been more entertaining. Sadly I have places to be in the morn and haven't had anything but half a beer and no buzz. Regardless, OP, ISO is the last thing I ratchet up... Not that it makes a difference for anyone else but myself it helps myself to think of ISO as a side of the exposure triangle even though I know how it works technically. I think Gav is right that regardless how you see it you're going to end up at the same result.


----------



## MichaelRyanSD (Feb 10, 2014)




----------



## fokker (Feb 11, 2014)

jaomul said:


> If shooting a scene on a tripod such as a low light landscape, the native iso of 100 or 200 depending on model is normally better for dynamic range than low expanded 50 or whatever values are in low expanded. So lowest iso settings possible are not always the best choice



Well yeah you're quite right there, though I guess most people take 'lowest ISO' to mean the lowest native ISO. I know on my 5d2 shooting at ISO50 produces about the same amount of noise as shooting at ISO3200 - pretty unbelievable but true!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 11, 2014)

fokker said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > If shooting a scene on a tripod such as a low light landscape, the native iso of 100 or 200 depending on model is normally better for dynamic range than low expanded 50 or whatever values are in low expanded. So lowest iso settings possible are not always the best choice
> ...



You suck! My 7D does a pretty fair amount of noise at 1600. But that's full frame vs crop sensor for ya...


This has been quite entertaining. Sheesh.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 11, 2014)

Oh drat.  Don't tell me I missed manny's three hour lecture on cellular mitosis.  I was really looking forward to it too.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## ratssass (Feb 11, 2014)

I sure miss HelenB


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 11, 2014)

ratssass said:


> I sure miss HelenB



Well I went to my local butcher today and was completely stunned to discover he didn't know squat about metallurgy.  

He seemed to be of the opinion that it didn't matter at all that he couldn't describe the exact alloy used in constructing his knives.  

The guy just looked at me and shrugged and said I sell steak, not knives.

The temerity of some people - sheesh.  Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## glun (Apr 2, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?



I'd say i generally tried to go as low ISO as possible. Increasing ISO will be my last option if there is absolutely no other choice since it creates noise.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2014)

I usually keep it above a hundred. im not a genius on camera (no duh) but just kind of figured the sensor, like most things designed performs better in a certain range. so I usually don't go to the lowest iso settings. I don't really try to avoid it. I just don't go that low. I could be wrong. shot in the dark (not literally that would take a higher iso) im pretty happy in the 150-250 range. well, depending on which camera. Lowest I usually go is a hundred. I used to go for the LOWEST iso. Then after looking at enough photos between 80 iso and 300 iso I grew up. Another reality, going for the lowest iso messes with your depth of field. Also it limits your shutter speed. I would rather crank up the shutter and not go for the lowest iso possible than deal with a slower than molasses shutter speed. Most of the time this wont matter anyway. you will find yourself 400, 600, 800 or higher iso. without much choice.
Another weird though, I have liked noise in certain photos before, so I crank up the iso for them....


----------



## nzmacro (Apr 2, 2014)

Gees, some people in forums get so side tracked and carried away 

The question being .... *Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible. 

*For me personally, yes it is. 

For BIF's I shoot at ISO 200-400, on a perched bird I shoot at ISO 100-200, exactly the same as motor sports, fast action and stationary. The lenses are all used wide open only and the shutter speed is as fast as possible, but the ISO is as low as I can get. Others will have different subjects and needs, so we are all different, but I prefer a very low ISO for the subjects I take. 

Danny.


----------



## AceCo55 (Apr 3, 2014)

apaflo said:


> This is, after all, a discussion forum. If you are not interested in the discussion why not just hike along until you find a discussion you are interested in.  There is nothing to be gained from posting flame bait...



Seriously ... BEGINNERS FORUM. What a great way to sidetrack and highjack a thread looking for a simple confirmation.
It is not appropriate for you to do what you have done here. Future beginners will come across this thread and get totally lost and confused.
You may well be technically right but you haven't helped the OP.
If you can't respond at an appropriate level maybe you would be better off in the "BEYOND the BASICS" ... or another forum that would be happy to listen to your dissertations.
But what you did here was just wrong.


----------



## WayneF (Apr 3, 2014)

AceCo55 said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > This is, after all, a discussion forum. If you are not interested in the discussion why not just hike along until you find a discussion you are interested in.  There is nothing to be gained from posting flame bait...
> ...




We do need an out of the way forum for crackpots.  I suppose it ought to be funny, but who has the patience for nonsense, just for the sake of noise?


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 3, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Gees, some people in forums get so side tracked and carried away
> 
> The question being .... *Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible.
> 
> *For me personally, yes it is.


 So, to be clear: you would shoot at ISO 50 (with higher noise) rather than ISO 100 (with less noise) because it's "a lower ISO"?

I suspect that the goal for most of us is to have the best picture possible. In the case of ISO we are trying to get the best exposure simultaneously with the lowest noise. That means I want ISO 100 with perfect exposure. It means I'd rather go to ISO 200 than ISO 50. It means I'd rather get 200 with perfect exposure than 100 with imperfect. 



> For BIF's I shoot at ISO 200-400, on a perched bird I shoot at ISO 100-200, exactly the same as motor sports, fast action and stationary. The lenses are all used wide open only and the shutter speed is as fast as possible, but the ISO is as low as I can get. Others will have different subjects and needs, so we are all different, but I prefer a very low ISO for the subjects I take.


 Would you give up needed DoF? What about allow motion blur to kill your focus? 

Since you brought the rest of the triangle into play: I would say that , like the rest of us, you are balancing to get your true goal: the best shot.


----------



## nzmacro (Apr 3, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> > Gees, some people in forums get so side tracked and carried away
> ...



Can't really do much about that there because those are what I use  DOF doesn't interest me at all with bird and motor sports shots, as I said I always shoot the lenses wide open at the lowest ISO I can get. Why do you think my exposures are wrong ??. Why would motion blur kill my focus when the exposure for the subject in action is correct.

As I said in my post ............



> _"Others will have different subjects and needs, so we are all different, but I prefer a very low ISO for the subjects I take."
> _



Its that simple 

Danny.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2014)

I shot some pics recently at around 6:15 to 7:15 PM. The light level was continuously dropping. My son and I were in an area of open shade around 7:00 PM (I now see the clock is set to Standard Time in my camera!), as the sun was dropping down to the mountains to the west through an area of low,heavy, gray rainclouds. Only a few rays of sunlight penetrated the clouds. I was shooting at ISO 400. I wanted some depth of field for this portrait, so I would NOT have his arms really blurry and out of focus, and creating distracting foreground bokeh. I used an f/stop of f/6.3, and a speed of 1/125 second.




This B&W conversion used The Ultimate Fighter preset, to which I then applied a Green Filter effect, to make the green and darker green colors in his hooded sweatshirt look tonally "right" in B&W.

I then applied a Sepia Effect to that, and added a heavy vignette, to make this look like an old photo I have seen of my son's grandfather, when he was the same age as my son is.



Basically, this shot was made possible because the ISO level is at 400: that gave me a small enough f/stop, f/6.3 AND it ensured I had a good, fast shutter speed of 1/125 second for a hand-held shot free of camera shake.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 4, 2014)

its the green filter effect I get stuck on. I play with them, look them over. can never decide and can never seem to take a photo and automatically plan on a filter effect. bw and sepia, seem more obvious. start looking at filter effects on bw or versions of bw tints I get a little dumbfounded even in post trying it there. im still on the level of deciding if lowkey, highkey, or high contrast or normal bw are valid options in bw photos. 
1. does it want to be color or bw? if I make it through that without just shooting it color because I cant decide
2. does it want to be high contrast, low key or high key? if I make it through that..
3. can I get a better effect using just certain colors and picking one in the wheel that the frame doesn't have any of that color in it?
4. should I just shoot it standard bw?
And if I get through all these options, and check the in camera exposure contrast settings if I decide to go total manual.
then I get to the filter effects, hahahahahaha.
by then so much time went by I totally lost interest in taking the photo at all. 
if I manage to still take the photo it starts over looking at it again in post, with all the fifty or so bw options on tints...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 4, 2014)

be nice to look at something and know exactly what im going to do with it and how before I hit the shutter release. But im not that good  yet.  so o.p. once you get past the iso there is a ton more to consider for options...


----------



## JerryVenz (Apr 4, 2014)

Derrel, NICE JOB!

Now you're venturing into my territory although I would use F4.0 for this pose to really smear the background.

This is the time of day we usually do environmental portraits so we always start at ISO 400 and then go to ISO 800 and up to ISO 1600 for kids in action.

I NEVER GO BELOW ISO 400 when outside.  As long as I can produce 40" and 50" gorgeous wall prints that our clients pay us THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR why should I?

Of course to do this you must have a REAL PRO CAMERA with.....a FULL-FRAME SENSOR and at least 20MP---the Brand does not matter.

So, NO the GOAL is not to use the lowest ISO--the GOAL is to be able to make the largest saleable print from files created at the f-stop you need for the depth-of-field you want in the lighting conditions you prefer.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 4, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Gees, some people in forums get so side tracked and carried away
> 
> 
> Can't really do much about that there because those are what I use  DOF doesn't interest me at all with bird and motor sports shots, as I said I always shoot the lenses wide open at the lowest ISO I can get. Why do you think my exposures are wrong ??. Why would motion blur kill my focus when the exposure for the subject in action is correct.


 So you would be happy with the DoF on the highest f-stop value as well? Or do you care about DoF?

You do actually shoot at ISO 50 then?

Motion blur would kill your focus by blurring your non-static subject. Drop your shutter speed to 1/15sec and let me know how that racecar looks.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2014)

Thanks Jerry. I agree about ISO 400. About 10 years ago, I got the then-hot-new-thing, the Fuji S2 Pro d-slr...6MP sensor that up-sampled everything to 12 MP in the camera, then DOWN-rezzed images to one of multiple sizes for SOOC images, OR made "12 megapixel" raws...that camera had pretty good, low-noise up to ISO 400...while at that time, Nikons were much noisier...I grew up on Tri-X B&W, so to me, 400 ISO in digital seemed like the best solution overall. I dunno...there's a weird and to me, strange obsession/fear/loathing of "noise" among younger people, most of whom got started in photography with digital. i did post after post about using ISO 400 on my FUji forum, but most people preferred base ISO of 200 on that camera. Me? I want that extra "stop" of f/ or speed!

For several years in the early days of the d-slr revolution, I read post after post of C&C where people saw, or said they saw "noise". Always comments about "noise". I think having grown up viewing MANY hundreds of thousands of film-shot images made between 1930 and 1985, many of us got used to seeing pictures based on their CONTENT, despite film grain, and so, we've been conditioned to think about the "image", more so than the digital noise structure. I dunno...for me, I don't mind "noise" that much, so to me, ISO 400 with this camera is good...and it's good with lesser cameras with worse sensor performance as well. I think there is *a VERY un-helpful over-worrying about noise* caused by a bit of ISO boost throughout much of the digital photography world.

My camera has a good sensor that is fine up to ISO 1,250 or so. I see the newest-generation FF cameras from Canon and Nikon can shoot pretty good at up to ISO 4,000 or so, but the detail does go down to where it looks about like 35mm Tri-X in B&W or 35mm VPS 160.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 4, 2014)

Personally I'd say about max ISO 400 for crop, ISO 800 for full frame before it starts interfering too much with detail.
But it is a smoothly sliding scale, not a sudden cliff, so of course individual preference will vary.

Unless of course you absolutely must get a shot, and you absolutely must go over those thresholds in order to not get much worse problems (motion blur).

"maximum" rules of thumb only apply in situations where you have the luxury of choosing different settings or a different shot. If you don't, then there is no maximum.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Personally I'd say about max ISO 400 for crop, ISO 800 for full frame before it starts interfering too much with detail.
> But it is a smoothly sliding scale, not a sudden cliff, so of course individual preference will vary.
> 
> Unless of course you absolutely must get a shot, and you absolutely must go over those thresholds in order to not get much worse problems (motion blur).
> ...


you lost me here. if I shoot iso 400 in the dark and iso 400 in lighter situations im going to end up with two different levels of visible noise in the final photo. even the iso level isn't a fixed noise amount.

I don't even understand people that say "I don't go over iso 1600 because of noise".
fixing a certain number on it, I don't follow that methodology. seems more about what works for the lighting and how much noise is going to show up in the photo. If you say "after x number " noise CAN become a concern. I get that. still means you can push it past x on a case by case basis and not significantly hurt the photo.

and I go over 400 all the time.


----------



## nzmacro (Apr 4, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> > Gees, some people in forums get so side tracked and carried away
> ...



I have no idea where you get all this from. The simple answer is that I shoot at the lowest possible ISO I can and I've posted my ISO's that I use above. That was the original question and as said, for me personally (note the word personally), I shoot as low an ISO as I can get. You have no idea of what lighting conditions I shoot in, no idea of my lens apertures, focal lengths and no idea of my shutter speeds, heck you don't even know what focusing system I use for all those blurry shots I take, LOL, why do you assume anything. 

Again this is personally, DOF does not interest me with the lenses I use. Others it probably does.

No good trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill  No idea why you go on about shooting motor sports at 1/15 second. Why would I do that when I can use a low ISO of 100-400 and fast shutter speeds ?? Not even sure why you go on about and ask if I use ISO 50. I use the lowest ISO I can for the subjects I take which BTW, was the original question.

All the best and off shooting today at ISO 100-400 ;-)

Danny.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 4, 2014)

> you lost me here. if I shoot iso 400 in the dark and iso 400 in lighter situations im going to end up with two different levels of visible noise in the final photo. even the iso level isn't a fixed noise amount.


Whether the WORLD is dark is irrelevant. Noise is more visible in lower EXPOSURE areas. And since you meter for exposure no matter where you are, it should be about the same in any setting. Unless you're making an artistic choice to make a dark scene look especially dark (which for example most people do for an outdoors night landscape, but NOT for just dark indoor lighting), or intentionally shooting a high key or low key portrait or whatever.

But if so, it's your artistic choices to over or under expose the scene making the difference, not the physics of the world or time of day. A "correctly" exposed (i.e., neutral lightness on average, camera's auto default) image will have about the same noticeable noise in it on average regardless of conditions, at a given ISO.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2014)

I will say just reiterate my thoughts about the OP, which was, "Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible?". My opinion? There is FAR TOO MUCH hemming and hawing and fussing about "noise" in today's digital imaging world. Modern d-slr cameras have a decent range of USEFUL ISO values, from their lowest or Base ISO setting, up to at least two full EV values higher, and on many cameras, also a "Lo" or "Low"or "Extended" setting that is usually at least one full EV lower than Base ISO. If the scene is exposed properly, or close to properly, the PICTURES made within that entire range of ISO settings will be quite acceptable as far as noise, resolution,color, and a usable dynamic range.

Do not worry about always using the absolute lowest of the low-low ISO settings if it interferes in any way with GETTING THE PICTURES you want to make! If using ISO 100 means settling for a too-slow shutter speed, and causing shots to be blurred, or if it means the aperture needs to be opened up to maximum, so the lens shoots like crap...then your entire effort was wasted in the pursuit of "low ISO".

I look at "the pictures"...I do not obsess on searching out or focusing on minute quantities of noisy areas in my photos or those of others. So, again, "Is the goal to have the lowest ISO possible?" YES, the goal is to have the lowest ISO *that will make the photos turn out properly!* The goal is not the lowest ISO per se, but *the best photographic results.*


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 4, 2014)

> Do not worry about always using the absolute lowest of the low-low ISO settings if it interferes in any way with GETTING THE PICTURES you want to make!


I dunno, I'd change that to "if it interferes '_too much_' to conveniently get the pictures you want."

For example, given the choice between taking 30 seconds to set up a tripod if I have one with me already and then shooting various photos in that scene at ISO 100 versus hand holding at ISO 6400, I'm probably going to choose the former in most cases, even though the ISO is "interfering" a bit.

It's just a question of how much it is interfering. If those 30 seconds would cause you to lose the shot, or if the restrictions of a tripod would limit your ability to find the best angle, then don't do it. Either way, your choice DOES matter.



When I talk about a threshold like 800 ISO, what I mean is basically just that I wouldn't think twice about any numbers below that, whereas for numbers above that I will start considering stabilization options or switching to a faster lens or whatever. And may or may not take those options, but will consider them.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Do not worry about always using the absolute lowest of the low-low ISO settings if it interferes in any way with GETTING THE PICTURES you want to make!
> 
> 
> I dunno, I'd change that to "if it interferes '_too much_' to conveniently get the pictures you want."
> ...


okay. understand what you are saying now. we pretty much all think the same way id fathom to guess.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:
			
		

> When I talk about a threshold like 800 ISO, what I mean is basically just that I wouldn't think twice about any numbers below that, whereas for numbers above that I will start considering stabilization options or switching to a faster lens or whatever. And may or may not take those options, but will consider them.



YES, that is exactly the way a seasoned shooter leverages his equipment. It's a BALANCE of many things, of potential options, of differing lenses, and differing shooting and post-processing strategies. That's a good way to look at things; that way of thinking of things is the exact opposite of the common, anal-retentive obsession about minute bits of noise, and the fetishistic worrying about going over base ISO that sooooo many people have.


----------



## nzmacro (Apr 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Minute bits of noise can become rather large if cropping is what is used often. The more we need to crop, the more noise shows up no matter what the exposure. So a lower ISO still has huge benefits. We are all different for sure and I would crop around 95% (probably more) of my shots. Low ISO makes a large difference.

All the best.

Danny.


----------



## seanpatrick (Apr 5, 2014)

apaflo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > You are over thinking it. I turn the ISO dial and my picture gets lighter, therefore ISO affects exposure.
> ...



So is it better to have more light or less light in the photo? In between?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 5, 2014)

seanpatrick said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


perfect exposure would be the goal. However generally speaking, if I had a choice between under or over  I would pick over with more light than under with less. it is easier to darken a photo without negative effects in post than try to brighten one up without getting visible noise. 
two cents


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> seanpatrick said:
> 
> 
> > apaflo said:
> ...



While I prefer slight underexposure at times for some reason, Bribrius here is right. Overcook it and you can simmer it down a little. Undercook it and you'll end up burning it if you try to fix it.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2014)

Are we still going on about this? 5 pages for a question where the answer is : "yes"?  Or, if you like, "Yes, but don't panic if you have to up the ISO a little because if you have to choose between noise and getting the shot... get the shot."

Sure, a few more words, but the answer is still fundamentally yes. Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove on. Sheesh.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Are we still going on about this? 5 pages for a question where the answer is : "yes"?  Or, if you like, "Yes, but don't panic if you have to up the ISO a little because if you have to choose between noise and getting the shot... get the shot."
> 
> Sure, a few more words, but the answer is still fundamentally yes. Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove on. Sheesh.



Shhh...  manny, I think you missed the subtle genius here.  At the moment they're all to busy answering this to argue about what is and isn't art.  Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2014)

Oh. I'm sorry. I missed that.

Have we started debating what the *professional *approach would be?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Oh. I'm sorry. I missed that.
> 
> Have we started debating what the *professional *approach would be?


nope. wanna start it?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2014)

I think I just did.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



buy a camera that ISO doesnt even matter


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...


I just kept mine on shutter mode and auto iso all day yesterday and ignored it.
 Didn't bother me a bit.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2014)

And what kind of lighting conditions were you working in?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> And what kind of lighting conditions were you working in?


4 afternoon cloudy sun peaking through behind me. The shots are on the panning thread.
had it that way pretty much all day though on and off. I think the max it hit was 1600 once (that I noticed) ill go through the photos and let you know for sure if you want..


----------



## table1349 (Apr 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> I think I just did.



You have been duly reported to Terri for this one.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > And what kind of lighting conditions were you working in?
> ...



So it sounds like a situation where the ISO generally wouldn't need to be that high, even if it happened to hit 1600 once.

Also... by your own admission, you are very new to this stuff. Odds are pretty good that if the high ISO adversely affected your images, you would either not be aware of it, or not aware of the degree of damage caused.  No offense, but you're not the best use case here.



gryphonslair99 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I think I just did.
> ...



hahaha


----------



## bribrius (Apr 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


For me, really depends on what im doing. if im concentrating on something else (not good images) like yesterday and it has room to float with the lighting ill let it. I tend to concentrate on one thing at a time often. With that camera, just screwing off, I don't get to concerned unless it stays higher. floats under eight hundred good enough to serve the purpose.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 11, 2014)

I always giggle a bit when I see 77 replies to a yes or no question.


----------



## bp4life71 (Jul 15, 2014)

MichaelRyanSD said:


> I realize given all the possibilities that the answer is no, but hypothetically, all other things being equal, should the ISO be the last thing I adjust to allow the light in. Maybe a better way to ask, should ISO be the last thing I go to to get the right exposure for the shot?



Short answer, yes.  Higher ISO adds noise, so if you can get the shot you need without using higher ISO then do it.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 16, 2014)

I don't think we need to revitalize this thread as it has been very clearly analyzed and discussed.


----------

