# ISO



## jeffashman (Apr 8, 2021)

Hi! I’m manually setting speed and aperture, and letting the camera set the ISO. What is a good max setting for auto-ISO? My Rebel 2000D has a max of 6400, but for now I have it set at 3200. If I understand correctly, the higher the number, the lower the light level requirement, but with a trade-off in increased noise. So, max it out at 6400? Limit it to 1600? TIA!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 8, 2021)

Take a series of images with different ISOs and choose the highest that you accept the noise level.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2021)

jeffashman said:


> Hi! I’m manually setting speed and aperture, and letting the camera set the ISO. What is a good max setting for auto-ISO? My Rebel 2000D has a max of 6400, but for now I have it set at 3200. If I understand correctly, the higher the number, the lower the light level requirement, but with a trade-off in increased noise. So, max it out at 6400? Limit it to 1600? TIA!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The rule should always be get the photo. If you need to use the camera's highest ISO value to get the photo, GET THE PHOTO. Where do you come out ahead saying, "well that shot required raising ISO above my limit so I passed."


----------



## Strodav (Apr 8, 2021)

Increasing ISO decreases Dynamic Range in addition to amplifying noise.  This is an important fact many photographers ignore, but should not.  I recommend shooting at the lowest ISO possible for the best possible IQ with a given lens.  To determine what noise level is acceptable to you, just try it!  Set up a scene with color and texture and both highlights and shadows in a controlled light environment (like in a room with a window with blinds that you can open and close), go to manual mode, take a properly exposed shot at base ISO at, say, f8, then start increasing ISO while speeding the shutter.  Examine your images to see what level of noise is acceptable to you.  For me, it’s ISO 800 on my Nikon bodies. 

In tricky situations I will go higher, but there are techniques you can use to reduce noise.  If the scene is still or with very slow motion, take multiple shots, align and average in PP.  When you average 2 images together you effectively 1/2 the ISO.  Another technique is to take the higher ISO shot then cut ISO in 1/2 and shutter speed in half and take 4 or 5 shots knowing there’s a very good chance one of the shots in the sequence will be sharp.  Repeat the process of cutting ISO and shutter speed and taking multiple shots until ISO gets at or below your tolerance for noise.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 8, 2021)

I kind of agree with all the posts but I set my settings manually 
Do the test with the iso to see where you draw the line
Yes get the image even if you have to bump the iso to the max 
once you have done your own tests you will know where to draw the line
I have images that are grainy as hell, but it is a memory of the day/event that I would not otherwise have


----------



## RVT1K (Apr 8, 2021)

You'll need to determine how much noise you're willing to put up with. 
Which is pretty much my way of agreeing with the others who suggested experimenting and seeing how things turn out. 
Personally, I try to keep the ISO as low as possible. One of my reasons for seeking out fast glass.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2021)

Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO. The ISO isn't causing the  noise in the first place. All it's doing is brightening the camera output JPEG. The noise comes from the exposure. The noise comes from the shutter speed you set and the f/stop you set and how bright the scene is. ISO doesn't cause noise. *In your camera ISO suppresses noise -- raise it to get less noise.* GET THE PHOTO.

The photo below is from an APS-C sensor camera like yours. The ISO was set to 12800. See any objectionable noise? The ISO value isn't causing noise. Now, the photo below is a parlor trick. I wasn't forced and so I was able to manipulate the camera -- the exposure to control the noise. Normally when we're raising the ISO it's because we're forced. You can't do anything about forced -- you're forced and if you get a noisy photo it's because you're forced to reduce the exposure. The forced exposure reduction will cause noise, not ISO. In your camera raising the ISO if you're forced to reduce exposure will suppress noise. GET THE PHOTO.

ISO 12800


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 8, 2021)

That’s a nice still life photo. I see what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 8, 2021)

Thanks everyone! Great advice. I’ll continue to experiment, but when situations like the wind blowing the plumage on a cardinal come up, I will get the shot. I missed a shot of an American Goldfinch this morning, because I forced the ISO too low, but I’ll get it tomorrow morning, or the next day. Thanks again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 8, 2021)

I use auto iso almost all the time, noise is dealt with in PP...


----------



## Scott Whaley (Apr 8, 2021)

I use auto ISO most of the time unless I an doing nighttime photography.   I am using higher end cameras and the ISO can go above 12,800.  I like to keep it below 6400.  Sounds like the OP may be maxing out the ISO for his or her camera.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Apr 8, 2021)

Try underexposing the shot a little. I prefer increasing the exposure in post rather than getting rid of noise.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 9, 2021)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Try underexposing the shot a little. I prefer increasing the exposure in post rather than getting rid of noise.


You can't increase exposure in post. The only things that can change exposure are shutter speed, lens aperture or more/less light on the subject. The source of noise is underexposure. You want less noise, expose more.


----------



## photoflyer (Apr 9, 2021)

480sparky said:


> Take a series of images with different ISOs and choose the highest that you accept the noise level.



Also, some images actually look good with a bit of noise. Some people like it because in some cases it approximates the grain we would get with film.  While noise itself is technical how the viewer responds to it is subjective.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 9, 2021)

Ysarex said:


> TreeofLifeStairs said:
> 
> 
> > Try underexposing the shot a little. I prefer increasing the exposure in post rather than getting rid of noise.
> ...



Depending on the camera and software, you can intentionally underexpose and recover shadows in post.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2021)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Try underexposing the shot a little. I prefer increasing the exposure in post rather than getting rid of noise.



Read Joe's comments, when raising ISO you need to fully expose in camera. The in camera noise suppression on most cameras does a good job of removing noise. Noise is a result of lack of signal, when you under expose then boost in post you are creating unecessary noise then globally amplifying it.


----------



## ntz (Apr 10, 2021)

jeffashman said:


> Hi! I’m manually setting speed and aperture, and letting the camera set the ISO. What is a good max setting for auto-ISO? My Rebel 2000D has a max of 6400, but for now I have it set at 3200. If I understand correctly, the higher the number, the lower the light level requirement, but with a trade-off in increased noise. So, max it out at 6400? Limit it to 1600? TIA!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hello Jeff ..

it's situational but as you describe that, I would like to know what you're shooting ... for static subjects like for example landscape or architecture or interiors you don't care for shutter speed, aperture always matter because it makes a depth of field .. if you need to care for the shutter speed, it means, that you're shooting probably some wildlife or sports, then typically you have large aperture but I am now confused about you saying that you use a manual mode - wildlife and sports are less likely shot in manual mode (of course - you could have set a camera to specific spot in the viewrange)

I suggest to care about your ISO and to think about your composition and technical aspects of given photo  .. I think that you should learn to set an best static ISO for a given scenery (and/or conditions in general) rather than shooting with AUTO ISO based on your knowledge of your camera

let me share with you my workflow

In past, I was obsessed with shooting in manual mode, after few years, I've *abandoned that completely* ... Now I am shooting in A mode (manual aperture and auto shutter speed) 99% of time and I am using a +/- exposure correction instead - I can do it quickly, just dial + fn button

** for wildlife and sports, with my 70-200 lens, I typically use f/4-5.6 and I am usually not exceeding iso above 800, usually 250-500 .. that gives me times 1/500-1/1000+ which is enough for me .. as said above, I usually set ISO based on current light conditions, typically 400

** for static subjects like landscape or architecture I just try to use a lowest possible ISO .. from tripod just 100 or 200-400 while handheld (or when there are some significantly windy conditions) ..

regards,

~dan



Ysarex said:


> Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO. The ISO isn't causing the  noise in the first place. All it's doing is brightening the camera output JPEG. The noise comes from the exposure. The noise comes from the shutter speed you set and the f/stop you set and how bright the scene is. ISO doesn't cause noise. *In your camera ISO suppresses noise -- raise it to get less noise.* GET THE PHOTO.
> 
> The photo below is from an APS-C sensor camera like yours. The ISO was set to 12800. See any objectionable noise? The ISO value isn't causing noise. Now, the photo below is a parlor trick. I wasn't forced and so I was able to manipulate the camera -- the exposure to control the noise. Normally when we're raising the ISO it's because we're forced. You can't do anything about forced -- you're forced and if you get a noisy photo it's because you're forced to reduce the exposure. The forced exposure reduction will cause noise, not ISO. In your camera raising the ISO if you're forced to reduce exposure will suppress noise. GET THE PHOTO.
> 
> ISO 12800



this is just rubbish .. sadly .. technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 10, 2021)

ntz said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO. The ISO isn't causing the  noise in the first place. All it's doing is brightening the camera output JPEG. The noise comes from the exposure. The noise comes from the shutter speed you set and the f/stop you set and how bright the scene is. ISO doesn't cause noise. *In your camera ISO suppresses noise -- raise it to get less noise.* GET THE PHOTO.
> ...


Back up what you said and be specific. What specifically is nonsense?


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 10, 2021)

Thanks! I’m shooting mostly wildlife, especially birds, which are frequently in motion. I’ll continue to experiment to find that sweet spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ntz (Apr 10, 2021)

Ysarex said:


> ntz said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



my dearest apologize, I am not going to drive myself discussing about this matter .. sorry, I have much better things to do ... I know you like "unusual" solutions .. you're ofc free to apply them ..

@jeffashman - increasing ISO will reduce dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity .... you typically want to set iso deliberately to level where you need/want it preferring the low levels as a general rule under normal conditions (ofc, set your ISO high if you're private eye and you're doing a spy photography of walking subject from the car with telephoto lens - you certainly won't suffer with lowered dynamic or tonal range in that case ) .. ISO matters


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 10, 2021)

ntz said:


> increasing ISO will reduce dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity .... you typically want to set iso deliberately to level where you need/want it preferring the low levels as a general rule under normal conditions (ofc, set your ISO high if you're private eye and you're doing a spy photography of walking subject from the car with telephoto lens - you certainly won't suffer with lowered dynamic or tonal range in that case ) .. ISO matters


Has anyone said it doesn't matter? Does ISO matter so much that you'd rather not take the photo at all than have to raise ISO?


----------



## Scott Whaley (Apr 10, 2021)

I would rather not take the photo if I had to raise the ISO so high it effected the noise significantly.   That's just me.


----------



## ntz (Apr 10, 2021)

Ysarex said:


> ntz said:
> 
> 
> > increasing ISO will reduce dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity .... you typically want to set iso deliberately to level where you need/want it preferring the low levels as a general rule under normal conditions (ofc, set your ISO high if you're private eye and you're doing a spy photography of walking subject from the car with telephoto lens - you certainly won't suffer with lowered dynamic or tonal range in that case ) .. ISO matters
> ...



you know what you said OMG  ... it was

_Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO._

++ you continued on the topic .. that's my final endnote to this matter .. I kindly refuse to continue on this matter specifically with you and from this angle, thank you for respecting that, I fully stand for my previous statement

_technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense_


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 10, 2021)

ntz said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ntz said:
> ...


And I stand by that. What that means is if the photo is something that you've decided is worth capturing then make sure and get the photo regardless of what it requires in terms of the ISO setting. If you have to raise the ISO as high as possible then do that but don't pass on the photo.


ntz said:


> ++ you continued on the topic


I continued to correctly explain the role of ISO in the camera/photo. That stuff I got right.


ntz said:


> .. that's my final endnote to this matter .. I kindly refuse to continue on this matter specifically with you and from this angle,


That's fine you don't have to respond, but I will and what I posted about ISO was correct.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 10, 2021)

Scott Whaley said:


> I would rather not take the photo if I had to raise the ISO so high it effected the noise significantly.   That's just me.


I'll take odds against that. It was really dim in the hospital room when they handed my newborn son to his mother and she held him for the first time, but I got one very grainy photo before I got to hold him. You wouldn't take that photo because you couldn't get the ISO low enough?


----------



## Scott Whaley (Apr 10, 2021)

There's always an exception.   As for my normal photography, it still applies.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

Joe there are two types of participants in a debate, those who come prepared with facts to back their arguments and those who want to jump in and out of the debate when called to task on their claims. Over time I've learned you fall in the first category.



Ysarex said:


> The only things that can change exposure are shutter speed, lens aperture or more/less light on the subject. The source of noise is underexposure. You want less noise, expose more.



ISO and the modern digital camera is probably the most confusing aspect of exposure today. Maybe it's because it's a relic from the days of film when actual coatings on the film dictated the sensitivity. In comparison today's digital sensor is only going to measure the light it receives, no more, no less. ISO in a digital camera is nothing more than gain, amplification of the signal received by the sensor.

This is where most go off the rails in their understanding of ISO in digital imaging, and noise. To understand it you first have to recognize where the noise comes from. First in any image there's digital noise that comes with any electronic circuit.  A quick and easy way to see this, is leave your lens cap on, crank the shutter speed up, and the aperture down, then take a shot. It's completely black right? Now take it in LR or something similar and crank up the exposure. See the noise?  The second type is shot noise, random photons bouncing around, that varies with intensity based on light levels. Finally there's  signal to noise ratio (SNR) the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise.

If you raise the intensity of the light striking the sensor the SNR goes up. As Joe said slowing your shutter, opening your aperture or using supplemental light.  Likewise increasing the ISO or gain (amplifying the signal from the sensor) the SNR goes up. So how does raising ISO affect the noise in an image? First, raising the ISO has no effect on shot noise, it came from the scene entirely independent of camera settings. The only thing it affects is digital noise. Now what most don't realize is that for typical cameras at normal settings, raising your ISO will actually lower the amount of electronic  noise,  by increasing the SNR.

Saying always use the lowest ISO is an oversimplification and can be incorrect. If you lower ISO without a compensating adjustment to aperture or shutter, you'll end up with a dark image that needs brightening post, but when you brighten post you reveal all the noise you tried to hide in the first place. Generally speaking you raise ISO because you couldn't adjust the shutter or aperture. Not using ISO in the exposure triangle to get a good exposure is silly. Not getting a shot because it would require a high ISO is crazy. My avatar is an "extreme" crop from a shot I took of a night time laser light show show that was projected onto the surface of Stone Mountain in GA. I was a good 300 yrs away, set at ISO 25600. I use whatever settings I need to get the shot I want. Like shutter speed and aperture, ISO  should be adjusted as required.

I believe its important to disseminate factual information so for those that want to fact check me here's some reading on the subject. What Is Noise in Photography? , Understanding Dynamic Range in Digital Photography and  Ins and outs of ISO: where ISO gets complex


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 11, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> Joe there are two types of participants in a debate, those who come prepared with facts to back their arguments and those who want to jump in and out of the debate when called to task on their claims. Over time I've learned you fall in the first category.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Appreciate the vote of confidence. You're absolutely correct that failing to apply a higher ISO can make your photo noisier by increasing the contribution of digital noise. I struggled constantly with my students over this. They make the connection from the nonsense they see on the Internet that constantly attaches noise to ISO until they believe the relationship is causal. So they choose to produce a darker photo at too low an ISO setting thinking they're avoiding more noise while in fact they're causing more noise. Relative to noise ISO is causally either noise neutral or it suppresses noise. The camera matters in this and the OP identified his specific camera which I recognized as one that especially benefits from the noise suppression that derives from ISO analog gain.

One note for the sake of accuracy and we want to be careful about if we're going to get technical. It's tempting to slip into defining ISO by how it's most commonly implemented -- applied signal gain -- but that gets us into trouble. Gain/amplification is how ISO increases are most commonly implemented but the ISO standard does not specify how to achieve the lightening of the output image and it's not always done with gain applied to the sensor signal. It can also be implemented in the camera image processor which would work with the raw data.

Most commonly ISO is implemented using analog amplification applied directly to the signal from the sensor. This accounts for the vast majority of cases and it's critical to note that this implementation permanently alters what ends up in the raw data.

I'm not happy with the term but folks have settled on digital gain. The sensor signal is analog -- electrical voltage. Eventually we have to transform that to digital data and we do that in the camera's ADC (analog to digital converter). The result is our raw data. Digital gain is simply multiplying numbers in the ADC process and ISO lightening can also be implemented that way. Just like analog gain this process permanently alters what ends up in the raw data. Digital gain accounts for a small percentage of ISO implementation but it's use is increasing. We're seeing a lot more mixed application where the camera maker uses both analog and digital gain together.

If all ISO implementation was covered by the above two processes then we could conclude that all ISO increases are baked into raw data and we'd be safe defining ISO by how it's done -- applied signal gain -- rather than what it is. But many camera manufacturers (Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Ricoh, Pentax for example) also implement ISO changes in their image processing software which does not affect raw data. It's always a pretty specific case, DR expansion functions are a common example, but it's done enough that we have to allow for it. ISO is a standard that establishes a methodology for determining the lightness in the camera output image that results from a measured exposure of the camera sensor. How that's implemented is up to the camera maker.



smoke665 said:


> This is where most go off the rails in their understanding of ISO in digital imaging, and noise. To understand it you first have to recognize where the noise comes from. First in any image there's digital noise that comes with any electronic circuit.  A quick and easy way to see this, is leave your lens cap on, crank the shutter speed up, and the aperture down, then take a shot. It's completely black right? Now take it in LR or something similar and crank up the exposure. See the noise?  The second type is shot noise, random photons bouncing around, that varies with intensity based on light levels. Finally there's  signal to noise ratio (SNR) the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise.
> 
> If you raise the intensity of the light striking the sensor the SNR goes up. As Joe said slowing your shutter, opening your aperture or using supplemental light.  Likewise increasing the ISO or gain (amplifying the signal from the sensor) the SNR goes up. So how does raising ISO affect the noise in an image? First, raising the ISO has no effect on shot noise, it came from the scene entirely independent of camera settings. The only thing it affects is digital noise. Now what most don't realize is that for typical cameras at normal settings, raising your ISO will actually lower the amount of electronic  noise,  by increasing the SNR.
> 
> ...


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 11, 2021)

I’ve guess it would help to point out that I’m on major release 6.0 of myself, and was introduced to photography in the early 70’s, when ISO was tied to the film one used, and for most occasions I used 100 or 200, and it was very rare for me to use anything over 400. It’s unfortunate that ISO is used with digital, as Smoke pointed out, since there is little similarity between film and digital formats. I can say, I’m learning new things here. Glad to see folks are passionate about something. Just gonna keep this extinguisher close by... [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

Ysarex said:


> This accounts for the vast majority of cases and it's critical to note that this implementation permanently alters what ends up in the raw data.



Oh I know, but for simplicity sake I only mentioned gain. There's some good reading on the process in the links I posted for those that really want to understand. Another point that adds confusion is there are no established standard as to "how" manufacturers achieve those high ISO.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 11, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > This accounts for the vast majority of cases and it's critical to note that this implementation permanently alters what ends up in the raw data.
> ...



There are no standards at all as to "how" any ISO increase is achieved. The only thing that's standardized is the amount of output lightening. They're all free to get there any way they want. But they're also not hiding anything from us in what they do. If you want to understand how it's done the information is available the problem is that for every good technical article available there's 1000 Youtube videos full of nonsense. The Richard Butler articles you linked are good information.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

Ysarex said:


> . But they're also not hiding anything from us in what they do.



I might disagree with you slightly on this, as they all seem to have few proprietary methods that get overlooked. It's like determining "exactly" how much noise reduction gets applied to the raw file.

One thing mentioned earlier in a post is that you automatically reduce DR and color tone when you increase ISO. Manufacturers have made significant inroads on decreasing the side effects of higher ISOs and shot noise. For example, my K1MII, allows me to automatically apply noise reduction to slow shutter speeds, I can apply various levels of noise reduction independently by ISO, I can protect highlights and recover shadows thereby increasing or negating any DR reduction caused by an increase in ISO. Finally Pixel Shift, HDR and Facial Skin tone recognition  make tonal variations moot. The technology has grown by leaps and bounds, but unfortunately many fail to learn how to fully operate their camera.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

jeffashman said:


> I used 100 or 200, and it was very rare for me to use anything over 400. It’s unfortunate that ISO is used with digital, as Smoke pointed out, since there is little similarity between film and digital formats. I can say, I’m learning new things here. Glad to see folks are passionate about something. Just gonna keep this extinguisher close by..



Not all film ISO was cast in stone. Back in the 70's I did a lot of newspaper work, so I regularly pushed or pulled film when I didn't have the right film in the bag. I can tell you It's a whole lot easier to adjust the ISO in camera today. One thing I can tell you though is even then you had some side effects (enhanced grain, contrast, color shift) when you did it.

No fire extinguisher needed for me, but I do get irritated when things are said that don't hold up to the facts. I'm not an expert, don't claim to be, we're all here to learn.....never stop learning, but we need to disseminate the best information we can, and document as needed.


----------



## ntz (Apr 11, 2021)

lol, I love this academic debate ... I've already told there is "some merit in it - technically" .. the most of us know this fancy theory .. but I still prefer to stick within realistic level  - and that means, that I want my ISO low


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> lol, I love this academic debate



But yet you continued to contradict Joe and others, who actually have knowledge on the subject with - "this is just rubbish",  "OMG, it's coelho nonsense", "_technically there is some merit in that post, but all and all around, OMG, it's coelho nonsense".  _No one insulted your opinion, or called it rubbish, nonsense or anything derogatory, instead he asked you to "Back up what you said and be specific". Instead you feign humility, ultimately coming off as arrogant with being to busy to back up your claims. Now here you are again, doing the same thing. No one wants to offend you, but as to the "academic or technical" debate comment, this is a specialized forum that deals with highly specialized information at times. Most of us are here to learn, spreading baseless claims or disinformation hampers that learning. If you have serious documented information, theories or comments, lets hear it, I and others will gladly listen to what you have to say, otherwise leave it to the world wide disinformation highway.


----------



## ntz (Apr 11, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> ntz said:
> 
> 
> > lol, I love this academic debate
> ...



sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > ntz said:
> ...



I’ve been there and done that. [emoji16] Bunch of dark nothing. Then I started to wonder about the ISO stuff, especially given the prior to now, I’ve never paid much attention to ISO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ntz (Apr 11, 2021)

@jeffashman - using ISO should be based on know-your-camera basis .. I don't want to interfere with anybody else making input into this thread so everything I said is my personal opinion and my way of doing things ..

it depends on what you're shooting ... I recommend not using automatic ISO and if you do (while shooting sports or wildlife) I'd recommend to have set the upper limit to max acceptable ISO value based on current conditions and your knowledge of performance of your camera ..

for example with my APS-C Nikon (crop factor is 1.5, so the ISO performance is 1.5**2 lower than with crop factor 1.0 aka FX -- eg. now simplifying that but my performance with ISO 100 is eq~ to ISO 225 on full frame - 100 * 1.5**2) I have 99% of my photos < ISO 800 .. of course depends on what you're shooting .. for wildlife and sports in the daylight I use ISO 200-500 with my f/4 telephoto lens .. when I would be shooting in the really low light conditions like for example in club, I wouldn't want to have ISO higher than say 1600, it will will severely affect the photos ... as I said earlier, I tend to shoot 99% of time in A mode and I am changing my ISO manually to have maximum control over it ... Also I use an exposure correction instead of manual mode


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread



Possibly there was miscommunication in the intent of the statement. However it's important to not mislead others that raising the ISO is a bad thing, because given today's electronics it isn't. Here's the thing, if you leave your camera on auto, it will raise the ISO if it can't adjust shutter or aperture either because of your settings, or light, for the same reason that if you're shooting manual, and you can't adjust the shutter or aperture to get a correct exposure then you have no choice to raise the ISO. However raising the ISO doesn't cause degradation......it merely allows you to get a photo that the light wouldn't allow with shutter or aperture settings. The degradation comes from the lack of available light which as I pointed out earlier is a SNR issue with the scene. I previously stated my Avatar was shot at 25,600. It's noisy, but under the circumstances it's acceptable. Here's another example




Softly Comes Fall by William Raber, on Flickr

Would is surprise you that the above was ISO 1200? Or maybe this one at ISO 3200 below.




Mobile Bay by William Raber, on Flickr

ISO is an instrumental part of the exposure triangle, and should always be used as such. Realizing the limitation of ISO and how to properly use it, is no different then understanding that aperture affects DOF or shutter speed can cause motion blur.


----------



## ntz (Apr 11, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> ntz said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, you're right ... I tried to answer as best as I could the original question from Jeff .. I've got initially locked up on "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" which was in my opinion misleading and generalising ... there's nothing worse then to return home, download photos from camera and find out, that they are all degraded because bad ISO settings .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread
> ...



I would believe to everything ... I don't want to oppose you .. my carrier statement was/is that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis .. for example my Nikon D7200 uses a different ISO model than my other camera Fujifilm X100F .. so let me now please simplify things .. both cameras have same sensor size and same resolution (pixel density) but on my Nikon looks dark scene much more worse on high ISO than with same settings while using Fujifilm .. so I know that for a dark scene I don't want usually go over say ISO 1600 with Nikon whilst perceptually same result with Fujifilm camera could be done with ISO 3200 .. and that's what I am saying all the time .. `know-your-camera' is preferred principle over `forget about ISO, just take the shot' .. yeah, it also depends on what you're going to do with photo - large print or digital publishing, etc-, it depends on scene optimal EV - eg raising iso to 800 on overall bright scene because you're shooting wildlife and want quick shutter speed will be almost invisible Vs raising iso to same 800 in overall dark scene where shadows will be severely impacted, and so on ..

your photos are nice, I have also a photos taken with high ISO .. but this is not the point ... you're diluting the issue .. *the issue is not that high ISO makes you unable to take the nice photos*, *the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo* (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ...) *and should be used deliberately when needed and when it has its purpose* ... so saying "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context is bad and misleading ... and that later academic debate was imho not including those fundamental points also, which rendered it to me "less useful" so that I called that "coelho nonsense" which was rude and I apologize for it ...


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis



I would agree wholeheartedly on this, but the same can also be said for all those settings tucked away in the sub menus, as I pointed out above. Things like NR,  DR enhancements, etc. as well as the other two points of the exposure triangle (aperture & shutter).



ntz said:


> *the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo* (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ..



Now this I have to disagree with, because I've not found it to be the case either in my reading on the subject or in actual use. That's not to say I would arbitrarily raise the ISO or use a higher sensitivity then necessary, but neither would I approach aperture or shutter that way either. All of my settings are based on the requirement of the shot, that will provide a fully exposed data file. I think this is where some get in trouble in that raising your ISO doesn't mean you can get sloppy on your exposure.

I have no experience with Nikon digital or Fuji. I started in film in the 60's with Canon, Nikon and Pentax, eventually becoming Pentax only, been with them ever since. I do know that because of proprietary methods each manufacturer handles high ISO differently, and there could be variances or sweet spots on a particular brand. On my crop and full frame bodies I routinely shoot in studio ISO 100-200, outside I rarely worry about it up to 6400, over that requires careful consideration to get a full exposure, if I expect to get a useable image.



ntz said:


> which was rude and I apologize for it ..



No harm no foul. TPF can be a valuable resource in the exchange of information that potentially makes us all better photographers, when we can put aside our differences  and discuss opposing ideas.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > ntz said:
> ...


There is something worse than that. It's returning home with nothing.


ntz said:


> .. this kind of academic debate seemed to me totally inappropriate in this thread


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> I would believe to everything ... I don't want to oppose you .. my carrier statement was/is that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis .. for example my Nikon D7200 uses a different ISO model than my other camera Fujifilm X100F .. so let me now please simplify things .. both cameras have same sensor size and same resolution (pixel density) but on my Nikon looks dark scene much more worse on high ISO than with same settings while using Fujifilm .. so I know that for a dark scene I don't want usually go over say ISO 1600 with Nikon whilst perceptually same result with Fujifilm camera could be done with ISO 3200 .. and that's what I am saying all the time .. `know-your-camera' is preferred principle over `forget about ISO, just take the shot' .. yeah, it also depends on what you're going to do with photo - large print or digital publishing, etc-, it depends on scene optimal EV - eg raising iso to 800 on overall bright scene because you're shooting wildlife and want quick shutter speed will be almost invisible Vs raising iso to same 800 in overall dark scene where shadows will be severely impacted, and so on ..
> 
> your photos are nice, I have also a photos taken with high ISO .. but this is not the point ... you're diluting the issue .. *the issue is not that high ISO makes you unable to take the nice photos*, *the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo* (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ...) *and should be used deliberately when needed and when it has its purpose* ... so saying "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context is bad and misleading


Did someone actually say; "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context? Here's my post: ISO Is the only thing in my post "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO"? You think the explanation I provided that follows that statement would be called context?


ntz said:


> ... and that later academic debate was imho not including those fundamental points also, which rendered it to me "less useful" so that I called that "coelho nonsense" which was rude and I apologize for it ...


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> @jeffashman - using ISO should be based on know-your-camera basis .. I don't want to interfere with anybody else making input into this thread so everything I said is my personal opinion and my way of doing things ..
> 
> it depends on what you're shooting ... I recommend not using automatic ISO and if you do (while shooting sports or wildlife) I'd recommend to have set the upper limit to max acceptable ISO value based on current conditions and your knowledge of performance of your camera ..
> 
> for example with my APS-C Nikon (crop factor is 1.5, so the ISO performance is 1.5**2 lower than with crop factor 1.0 aka FX -- eg. now simplifying that but my performance with ISO 100 is eq~ to ISO 225 on full frame - 100 * 1.5**2) I have 99% of my photos < ISO 800 .. of course depends on what you're shooting .. for wildlife and sports in the daylight I use ISO 200-500 with my f/4 telephoto lens .. when I would be shooting in the really low light conditions like for example in club, I wouldn't want to have ISO higher than say 1600, it will will severely affect the photos ... as I said earlier, I tend to shoot 99% of time in A mode and I am changing my ISO manually to have maximum control over it ... Also I use an exposure correction instead of manual mode



Thank you! All of this is very helpful, and I am learning, so it is all good. So, which is better? Ceske Budejovice, or Pilsner Urquell? [emoji16] Zdravim! [emoji482] Or is there something better that I haven’t discovered yet? [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 11, 2021)

ntz said:


> I would believe to everything ... I don't want to oppose you .. my carrier statement was/is that using ISO should be always deliberately done on know-your-camera basis .. for example my Nikon D7200 uses a different ISO model than my other camera Fujifilm X100F .. so let me now please simplify things .. both cameras have same sensor size and same resolution (pixel density) but on my Nikon looks dark scene much more worse on high ISO than with same settings while using Fujifilm .. so I know that for a dark scene I don't want usually go over say ISO 1600 with Nikon whilst perceptually same result with Fujifilm camera could be done with ISO 3200 .. and that's what I am saying all the time .. `know-your-camera' is preferred principle over `forget about ISO, just take the shot'


And of course no one in fact said that. The comment I made was in context and in that context I explained the source of the image degradation and talked about what's best.


ntz said:


> .. yeah, it also depends on what you're going to do with photo - large print or digital publishing, etc-, it depends on scene optimal EV - eg raising iso to 800 on overall bright scene because you're shooting wildlife and want quick shutter speed will be almost invisible Vs raising iso to same 800 in overall dark scene where shadows will be severely impacted, and so on ..
> 
> your photos are nice, I have also a photos taken with high ISO .. but this is not the point ... you're diluting the issue .. *the issue is not that high ISO makes you unable to take the nice photos*, *the issue is that high ISO usually negatively impacts your photo* (noise, tonal range, colours sensitivity, dynamic range ...) *and should be used deliberately when needed and when it has its purpose* ... so saying "Don't worry about the ISO. GET THE PHOTO" without context is bad and misleading ... and that later academic debate was imho not including those fundamental points also, which rendered it to me "less useful" so that I called that "coelho nonsense" which was rude and I apologize for it ...


You are actually wrong about all of this. The OP is approaching it correctly. He's making a choice where it matters. Pick the shutter speed you need. Pick the F/stop you need. Those affect your photo in very critical ways. They determine the rendition of motion in the photo and they determine DOF. They are also the variables that will set exposure and determine the amount of noise in your photo. Once you've made those choices ISO is predetermined and you might as well let the camera set it.

When you have the luxury of plenty of light and you're happy to use any of 1/2 dozen shutter speeds and you're happy to use any of 3 different f/stops then you can make sure you select an exposure combination that keeps the ISO at base or as low as possible. The OP's question implied what to do at the other extreme when you can't just lower the shutter speed any farther or open up the lens more.

There is no real option to select a different ISO unless you are willing to give up the shutter speed or f/stop choice you have made. The OP already has the camera on Manual. Setting the shutter and f/stop and then refusing the raise the ISO to where it should be doesn't get you less noise. In the OP's case it'll get you more noise. The two choices shutter speed and f/stop should trump ISO because the effect they have on your photo is substantial. What's ISO going to do that's a visible effect in your photo other than suppress some read noise? You listed a bunch of things that result from raising ISO. You were basically wrong about those in most cases by attaching them to ISO. Those bad things that happen when ISO is raised are caused more by the exposure you've selected which is only affected by the shutter speed and f/stop. You don't want those bad things you have to change the exposure which means you have to change the shutter speed and/or f/stop. If you've set the shutter speed to the lowest possible but need more exposure how do you lower the shutter speed below the lowest possible? If you've set the f/stop to where you'll get the DOF you need but need more exposure how do you set the f/stop to a larger aperture and still get the DOF you need? If you hit those limits on the exposure controls then yes you should just let the camera select the ISO and not worry about it because you can't do anything about it except not take the photo.


----------



## ntz (Apr 12, 2021)

jeffashman said:


> ntz said:
> 
> 
> > @jeffashman - using ISO should be based on know-your-camera basis .. I don't want to interfere with anybody else making input into this thread so everything I said is my personal opinion and my way of doing things ..
> ...



Hey Jeff  ...

there are myriads of boats and vessels on the lagune with the most prominent flagships that are indeed Pilsner Urquell and Budweiser Budvar .. Worth to note, that these two main flagships are usually fiercest antagonists in here, rivalry not only on the field of taprooms but also on the tongues and throats of drinkers ... Pilsner crowd says that B is too sweet and heavy and will make you a headache and Budweiser crowd says that Pilsner doesn't even taste like typical Czech beer because it's so over-manufactured and special.

Amongst smaller vessels, there are true gems as well as decks which you'd rather like to avoid. What is popular in here in past decade is the boom with mini-breweries which brew usually untypical kinds like IPA and ALE .. Also worth to note, that Bohemian breweries are much better and safe than most eastern Moravian and Silesian breweries ..

I wish you great golden light on your photography hikes !!

regards, ~dan


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2021)

jeffashman said:


> What is a good max setting for auto-ISO?



You know after 4 pages I'm not really sure you got an answer to this. The truth is you are probably the only one that can answer this, because what constitutes an acceptable image is subjective. My K3II has a range of ISO 100-51200, the K1MII ISO 100-819200, the newly released K3III ISO 100-1600000. Can you actually shoot at these astronomical levels, of course you can, but is it "acceptable"? In theory I've heard that 50% of your maximum will give an "acceptable" image.  In practice I've found my "no problem acceptance" level on the K3II & K1II to be ISO 6400. Above that I might shoot but I want manual control of all my settings, including those hidden in the sub menus. 

So to answer your question, study your camera manual, understand what sub menu controls affect your image and how to use them. Finally take multiple test shots using those sub menus and various ISO levels, you'll have "your specific" answer.


----------



## ntz (Apr 12, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> jeffashman said:
> 
> 
> > What is a good max setting for auto-ISO?
> ...



I completely agree ...

let me shoot from the hip ... your camera Canon EOS T7 (2000D) is APS-C 24MP budget friendly camera so you cannot expect outstanding ISO performance ... My wild bet would be that with good lightning (a daylight shots of sports/wildlife) the ISO up to ~1200 won't be visible even while doing a pixel peeping, in low light conditions I think that the break line between usable and less usable photo will be something like ISO 1600 ..

I had several APS-C camers including Canon cameras so this is based on my experience (I have now D7200 as my main camera and D5100 as lightweight camera)

also important to not that various kind of the photography and scenery is sensitive very differently to ISO performance ... high ISO will be eating a details or it will be visible against *detaily* tracts like for example a distant wood or mountains or even dramatic sky covering a big portion of photography .. but it will impact perceptually less for example while shooting indoors in club (walls, close subjects) or some action .. but again, this is very relative and each photography is uniq


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 12, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> jeffashman said:
> 
> 
> > What is a good max setting for auto-ISO?
> ...



Thanks for the input! It’s greatly appreciated. Today I started doing some experimenting. It’s overcast outside, but I still want to be ready if that American Goldfinch shows up at the feeder again. I set my desired speed and f-stop, and then took some throw-away photos (gotta love digital), increasing my ISO until the images weren’t “too dark.” I’ll have to wait until later to see the outcome vis a vis clarity and sharpness. I until this past winter I was a “dumb” photographer, meaning I used my DSLR as an oversized, overpriced instamatic. Now I want more control of the shots. I’ll post photos later today from February that triggered this “awakening.” [emoji16] The discussion everyone has provided has been beneficial, and much of the photography in this site has been an inspiration to strive for better photos of my own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ntz (Apr 12, 2021)

jeffashman said:


> ..I set my desired speed and f-stop, and then took some throw-away photos (gotta love digital), increasing my ISO until the images weren’t “too dark.” ...



Jeff, based on what you say I dare to conclude, that your workflow is not right .. it's very uncommon to use an ISO as a key and leading element to get a desired exposure .. you typically use a time (shutter speed) to get the proper EV for your shot .. with analog camera you won't be able to physically replace the film medium (ISO 200 Vs ISO 400) to correct exposure ..

for dynamic subjects I suggest just one of semi-automatic modes with digital cameras (A or S) + exposure correction (that +/- button) swiftly while needed, as I said earlier, in 99% I use A mode, but use whatever fits to you ..


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 12, 2021)

Thank you! I’ll keep on experimenting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 12, 2021)

@jeffashman In studio or outside with lights, I'm in full manual. Otherwise as suggested above my go to is Av (aperture priority) not A (full auto), setting the aperture I need and letting the camera adjust the shutter and ISO (within the limit I've set). Outside even on the best of days, you'll have changing light, that's where the EV (exposure compensation) will be your best friend. From experience with the equipment I know that the 5 axis shake reduction will make it possible to hand hold to 1/25th of a second. If conditions warrant I will shift to TAv to control both aperture and shutter speed. One of the advantages of Pentax is the P mode (Hyper mode) with the magic green button. In P mode it's full auto....until I touch one of the other settings. If I set aperture, it shifts to AV, touch shutter it's AV/TV, touch ISO it shifts to SV (sensitivity priority). If I touch the magic green button, it's back to full auto.


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 12, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> @jeffashman In studio or outside with lights, I'm in full manual. Otherwise as suggested above my go to is Av (aperture priority) not A (full auto), setting the aperture I need and letting the camera adjust the shutter and ISO (within the limit I've set). Outside even on the best of days, you'll have changing light, that's where the EV (exposure compensation) will be your best friend. From experience with the equipment I know that the 5 axis shake reduction will make it possible to hand hold to 1/25th of a second. If conditions warrant I will shift to TAv to control both aperture and shutter speed. One of the advantages of Pentax is the P mode (Hyper mode) with the magic green button. In P mode it's full auto....until I touch one of the other settings. If I set aperture, it shifts to AV, touch shutter it's AV/TV, touch ISO it shifts to SV (sensitivity priority). If I touch the magic green button, it's back to full auto.



Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ntz (Apr 12, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> @jeffashman In studio or outside with lights, I'm in full manual. Otherwise as suggested above my go to is Av (aperture priority) not A (full auto), setting the aperture I need and letting the camera adjust the shutter and ISO (within the limit I've set). Outside even on the best of days, you'll have changing light, that's where the EV (exposure compensation) will be your best friend. From experience with the equipment I know that the 5 axis shake reduction will make it possible to hand hold to 1/25th of a second. If conditions warrant I will shift to TAv to control both aperture and shutter speed. One of the advantages of Pentax is the P mode (Hyper mode) with the magic green button. In P mode it's full auto....until I touch one of the other settings. If I set aperture, it shifts to AV, touch shutter it's AV/TV, touch ISO it shifts to SV (sensitivity priority). If I touch the magic green button, it's back to full auto.



yeah, with A I meant Aperture priority, not auto ... those modes are M A S P ..


----------



## weepete (Apr 12, 2021)

I'd be happy using that camera to ISO 3200. Above 3200 with that sensor, it's a call to whither the shot is strong enough to warrant it. 

If I could get similar shots again I'd probably pass until I could get better lighting, if it's a unique shot I'm unlikely to get again I'd just  crank the ISO and bank one.


----------

