# Like i said before Raising ISO Above the lowest Setting is Degrading



## donny1963 (Sep 23, 2017)

Like i said before, and by the way i know alot of photographers on here disagreed with me and said it's not true but i don't care let them think what they want..

First off let me correct an incorrect statement, Some people will Say that ISO is part of the Exposure Triangle,   That is simply not true, it's Applied Gain,  When you raise the ISO Above your lowest ISO possible, this is what your doing i'll explain it in a term that might shed some light on this..

If you poor your self a drink, of Rum, and then add water to dilute the alcohol this is the same thing your doing with your image when you increase your ISO, your diluting your image and it's braking it down, that grain you see in high ISO, is not Grain, it's amplification distortion, YES that's what i said all that is doing when you turn up your ISO is your amplifying the signal to your sensor..
In doing that, the higher you go the more your degrade your image.

It's like you have a Stereo system that puts on 150 watts per channel and then crank the sound up to the point where the music breaks down and you hear distortion, that is just about the same thing when your cranking your ISO, That noise and dots and color bleeds is distortion and it simply looks like crap..

Back in the film day when you bought Film that was high iso like 1600 or higher that grain your seeing is a pattern of grain that is manufactured in the film that way, it's chemicals, and the film is created that way... The grain in Digital images from high ISO is garbage and noise, NOT GRAIN!!!!!


One thing people who don't understand about resolution is specifically Gain of the sensor from your lens, is that everything is electrical..

it's digital photography,   the thing with Film photography, it's chemistry, chemicals not digital, completely different..

But  in Digital photography everything is electrical,  your sensor in your digital camera is nothing but a solar cell with filters and such, everything is max electrical Gain..

Even if you got the best camera and the best lenses and your shooting in low light with high ISO , your images are going to still look like crap..
You can have the best radio and the best antenna in the world but if your signal is crap, then your still going to end up with crap sound.

Alot of people still don't understand digital photography and a sensor and lens, everything is about max gain possible,  and is why you should be using the lowest ISO possible..
Rising ISO is nothing but adding water to your liquor in your drink..

ISO is NOT connected to Exposure, it just lets you manipulate exposure, But ISO is not directly Relational to the image that is captured.....

I always say it and i'll say it again if your jacking up your ISO because your in low light and think this is a good way of giving you more light for your exposure then you don't know what your doing, Because your degrading your image and if your a hired photographer for a shoot, then your giving your customer a lower quality product.. Simple as that..


----------



## donny1963 (Sep 23, 2017)

Oh and hey if you think i'm wrong, don't take my word for it, Here is some one who knows about this topic very well..


----------



## Braineack (Sep 23, 2017)

Lol. U mad bro?


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 23, 2017)

its all a matter of what level of degredation is acceptable.
i got usable shots at ISO 3200 from a 10 year old sony a700 and 30 year old minolta lens when metered properly, and halfway decent processing techniques applied.
you want no degredation? never raise your ISO above base. simple as that.
of course, it might limit your photography depending on light conditions, but if you shoot things that you can bring supplemental light to then it shouldnt be a problem.

as to your your last few sentences....well, theres nothing stopping you from shooting however  you want, but if you think you can cover all shooting conditions at base ISO and get usable images, your simply wrong. faborable lighting conditions are not always an option, nor is supplemental lighting.  digital photography with the addition of the ability to automtically add "exposure" by raising ISO levels made shooting in conditions formerly impossible (or not desirable) with film a reality.

my larger point is this...
if your against ISO, just dont use it. just because its a feature on your digital camera does not mean you are mandated to use it. set your ISO to base level and leave it there. bam! problem solved.


----------



## dennybeall (Sep 23, 2017)

Opening the iris by changing the f-stop is gaining more light.
Increasing the ISO is gaining more light.
Slowing the shutter is gaining more light.
Gaining is gaining.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 23, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Lol. U mad bro?



Nope, he drank the cool-aid.


----------



## limr (Sep 23, 2017)

I have no idea if I agree with him or not. I can't bring myself to care enough to wade through that mess of text to figure it out.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 23, 2017)

Sounds to me like you read something on some penny-ante blog, combined it with a quasi-understanding of digital photography, and regurgitated into the above post in the hopes of inciting argument.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 23, 2017)

If you don't care what the unwashed masses think, why bother posting about it?


----------



## tecboy (Sep 23, 2017)

So you are saying I shoot a lot of indoor photos at iso 800-1600, and I use flashes.  All my images are crapped?!  I have met a president, directors, and organizers of nonprofits actually like my photos.  Why can you tell them as well?


----------



## tecboy (Sep 23, 2017)

What is the point of this thread?  It is just like debating which one has better image quality, JPEG or raw.


----------



## limr (Sep 23, 2017)

tecboy said:


> What is the point of this thread?  It is just like debating which one has better image quality, JPEG or raw.



There is no point.


----------



## Overread (Sep 24, 2017)

"Raising ISO above the lowest setting is degrading" 

Er no one has argued against that. Everyone knows that higher ISO means that you get more noise in your shots, that's never ever been argued against in the history of ISO on digital cameras. However what IS stated is that raising the ISO in camera results in LESS degradation than if you raise the brightness settings in editing after the shot is taken. That's kind of why people raise the ISO whilst shooting; so that they get LESS degradation than otherwise.

If this were not the case people wouldn't do it, people are not universally stupid and you've not found the sudden holy grail of incorrect camera shooting that will suddenly free people from the evils of the ISO button.


Your statement isn't even correct if we consider the ISO invariance (is that the right term?) sensors which are now out there which CAN restore fantastic detail from underexposed areas in editing; which can actually almost be left on base ISO whilst shooting. Most photographers wouldn't though because they like to get a solid shot on the back of the camera; and to see it as a starting point in editing (starting with a whole memory card of black shots adds needless editing steps - hampers review in the field and likely just isn't attractive to people to produce). 


As for the exposure triangle you have to understand that its a teaching aid used to allow the average person to pick up a camera; control its key settings and get good solid exposures and shots without having to first open a book on camera electronics and advanced light physics. Sure it breaks if you learn more about the science of things, but the average photographer doesn't need to know that much detail.


----------



## donny1963 (Sep 24, 2017)

dennybeall said:


> Opening the iris by changing the f-stop is gaining more light.
> Increasing the ISO is gaining more light.
> Slowing the shutter is gaining more light.
> Gaining is gaining.



NO, increasing your ISO is not gaining more light, i's increasing the signal to the sensor, your not applying more light when you raise your ISO..
your cranking up the signal, weather you use ISO 100 or ISO 6400, the same amount of light is hitting the sensor..
just by jacking up the ISO does not let in more light to the sensor..


----------



## jaomul (Sep 24, 2017)

Do whatcha like, your camera, your photos. I'll do what I like too


----------



## Destin (Sep 24, 2017)

donny1963 said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > Opening the iris by changing the f-stop is gaining more light.
> ...



In technical terms, you’re correct. 

The exposure triangle is used to teach beginners who don’t need or care to understand the exact science. Let me rephrase so it’s accurate:

A wider aperture will make your image brighter. 
A slower shutter speed will make your image brighter. 
A higher iso will make your image brighter. 

Dude. We all know that higher iso causes degradation, that’s like photography 101. However most of us that are on here have shot with the first generation or two of DSLRs ever made, and with them anything above ISO 400 was absolute rubbish. My Nikon D500 is better at iso 1600 than my D40 was at 200. That’s the point that we’re all trying to make. With modern high end cameras we can now shoot at insanely high iso levels and get photos that were impossible 3-5 years ago, but with the same amount of quality loss that we had back then at much lower iso levels. 

As far as delivering a lower quality product to a client if it’s taken at higher iso.. that simply isn’t true. There are times when flash is impractical or impossible at weddings. Do you think my client would rather have a black frame taken at iso 100 so it has no degradation, or a slightly degraded file taken at iso 3200 that clearly shows their first kiss as a married couple? 

Pro tip: photography is about capturing emotion and feeling. Clients don’t give a rats ass what iso you shoot at as long as the photos you deliver invoke a positive emotional response.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 24, 2017)

I have been doing a lot of journaling and studying on this because I shoot both digital and film. Raising the ISO on digital is only needed in situations where you need to obtain a faster shutter speed based on the amount of available light, it has nothing to do with bringing in more light. In fact, it doesn't bring in more light, but more frequency (noise). What this is, why it is, or what ever is beyond my intelligence. I guess that why they make speed lights.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 24, 2017)

Someone learned something new an just had to come yell at us about it.

Good for you. We already know how ISO works, and no you can't always shoot at base ISO outside of a controlled environment.


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 24, 2017)

Why this reminds me of a different thread about "professional photography is dead"? 
Oh, same OP. 

_ISO is NOT connected to Exposure, it just lets you manipulate exposure_
Quite contradictory statement, but ok. Anyway, that's usually what most average photographers need to know. You don't need to have a background in electrical engineering to take a good picture.



donny1963 said:


> NO, increasing your ISO is not gaining more light, i's increasing the signal to the sensor, your not applying more light when you raise your ISO..
> your cranking up the signal, weather you use ISO 100 or ISO 6400, the same amount of light is hitting the sensor..
> just by jacking up the ISO does not let in more light to the sensor..


*Who* ever said higher ISO gives you more light? Of course it _just_ boosts the sensitivity of the sensor with all the pros and cons that come with it.


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 24, 2017)

Adjusting ISO?  I can't even get the back door open on my D3300 yet!  Who cares about adjusting the iso setting if you can't even get the dammed film inside it!!!


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2017)

In reality once you get past the aperture and shutter on a modern digital camera, nothing is related to an image from a film standpoint. The sensor takes light and converts it to electrons. Those electrons are transported to the edge of the CMOS chip as analog signals.. From that point it becomes a digital signal which is recorded as a data file.

Your statement that gain applied at the sensor somehow dilutes the light is incorrect. The light passing through the aperture and shutter "includes" all wavelengths. Like the human eye which can only respond to wavelengths in the 390 to 700 nm range, so it is with sensor. Applying gain mearly increases the sensitivity to wavelengths previously not registering. If anything increasing the gain increases data gathered.

The unfortunate side effect of gain applied on an analog signal is noise. A CCD sensor because of how it transmits the data to the edge has less noise, but has its downside as well (power consumption and cost being two that come to mind). There is some research taking place that would eliminate the analog transport to the edge of the chip, but to my knowledge isn't to reality stage yet.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 24, 2017)

This reminds me of the one time i referred to my car's engine as a motor and got chewed out by some engineer.


----------



## fmw (Sep 24, 2017)

Let me throw in another interesting tidbit.  My cameras' sensors' native ISO is 200.  It is the level at which there is no signal amplification.  Yet the cameras are capable of being set to ISO 100.  Why?  Because photographers are so wedded to the image quality of low ISO that the manufacturer figured they had better include it in the camera.  But ISO 100 doesn't produce less noise than ISO 200 in my cameras.  It simply affects the other elements of the "triangle."  It makes photographers feel better.


----------



## Destin (Sep 24, 2017)

fmw said:


> Let me throw in another interesting tidbit.  My cameras' sensors' native ISO is 200.  It is the level at which there is no signal amplification.  Yet the cameras are capable of being set to ISO 100.  Why?  Because photographers are so wedded to the image quality of low ISO that the manufacturer figured they had better include it in the camera.  But ISO 100 doesn't produce less noise than ISO 200 in my cameras.  It simply affects the other elements of the "triangle."  It makes photographers feel better.



And the new D850 has a base iso of 64.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 24, 2017)

Incoherent ramblings of a confused mind.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2017)

Destin said:


> the new D850 has a base iso of 64.



You sure about that? Nikon i think used to use 200 as the base. As fmw stated "the level at which no amplification takes place". Nikon used to publish this in their specs, but stopped in recent models, so I can't verify it


----------



## Destin (Sep 24, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > the new D850 has a base iso of 64.
> ...



Positive. Actually I think the D810 did as well, but the D850 definitely does.


----------



## tecboy (Sep 24, 2017)

Back in coaxial cable era, no one was complaining about the image quality on crt tv.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 24, 2017)

*ISO 6400*



 

I did it and I feel so degraded now. I'm ashamed of myself and I deserve to be punished.

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Sep 24, 2017)

shot at 1/8 sec?!

next time I want to see you shoot this at ISO100 and SS of 8 full seconds -- hand held of course -- Like a professional.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 24, 2017)

Braineack said:


> shot at 1/8 sec?!



Oh dear, it keeps getting worse: I degraded myself with a tripod too.

Joe



Braineack said:


> next time I want to see you shoot this at ISO100 and SS of 8 full seconds -- hand held of course -- Like a professional.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 24, 2017)

*Raising ISO Above the lowest Setting is Degrading *... not to me,  I'm a Democrat, you can't degrade me.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 24, 2017)

zombiesniper said:


> Someone learned something new an just had to come yell at us about it.
> 
> Good for you. We already know how ISO works, and no you can't always shoot at base ISO outside of a controlled environment.


or even in it....


----------



## limr (Sep 24, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> *ISO 6400*
> 
> View attachment 147208
> 
> ...



Now I want Smarties.


----------



## KmH (Sep 24, 2017)

dennybeall said:


> Increasing the ISO is gaining more light.


Nope. Not a single photon of more light is gained by increasing the ISO.
Increasing the ISO only electronically amplifies the electrical voltage the light that fell on the pixels caused to be developed.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 24, 2017)

I like to shoot indoor basketball at the shutter speed and lens aperture indicated by an exposure meter reading based on ISO 100. Yeah...I get 95% blurry action shots. But hey, I can hold my head up high, knowing that I shot everything at Base ISO's suggested exposure settings.

[   insert sarcasm emoji here > . <   ]

By the way, the OP does not take into account *ISO invariant sensors*. Nor does it take into acount the way we've actually learned to shoot with modern cameras with state of the art sensors. The now-outdated (for Nikon,Sony,Pentax,Hasselblad, and some Fuji shooters at least) "base ISO only" and "ETTR" or Expose To The Right practices no longer apply for many of us.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 24, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I like to shoot indoor basketball at ISO 100. Yeah...I get 95% blurry action shots. But hey, I can hold my head up high, knowing that I shot everything at Base ISO


But the IQ is perfect, no image degradation.  (Okay, the images look like squat, but blurry images is little to give up for maximum IQ.)


----------



## Derrel (Sep 24, 2017)

Did you misplace your sarcasm emojii as well, Gary?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2017)

limr said:


> Now I want Smarties.



I'd rather have NECCO wafers.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 24, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Did you misplace your sarcasm emojii as well, Gary?


No sarcasm implied ...


----------



## limr (Sep 24, 2017)

480sparky said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Now I want Smarties.
> ...



They're okay, too. Not fond of the licorice flavored ones, though. I just like Smarties better.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2017)

I judge a travel day by the amount of Runts consumed. When the mouth starts to get sore from the citric acid added I call it a day


----------



## Destin (Sep 24, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I judge a travel day by the amount of Runts consumed. When the mouth starts to get sore from the citric acid added I call it a day



I do the same with salt and vinegar potato chips! When my lips go numb I’ve reached my limit


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

not sure about you but the quality of my images stands..and isn't so easily degraded by a little bit of digital noise.
My GF has delivered images shot at ISO 6400 much to the delight of her clients who aren't going to use it larger than Web or Instagram...and shooting at higher ISO allows her to capture the logos sharply.
If a client comes back and says "wow...i really like your usage of low ISO" I would immediately give up photography as there is obviously no other merit to my images.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 24, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I judge a travel day by the amount of Runts consumed. When the mouth starts to get sore from the citric acid added I call it a day


Aha! Similar to the ancient mariners of Greece.  Gary suspects you have eyes painted onto your vehicles as well.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2017)

I feel so dirty, I shot inside a building today  where flash was not allowed at ISO 6400. Heaven help me I even went up to 12800 a few times.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 24, 2017)

this thread is degrading to knowledgeable photographers.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> . Gary suspects you have eyes painted onto your vehicles as well



I really need something. The old truck had a big mean looking black winch carrier on the front. The new truck doesn't have anything yet but lots of chrome.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 24, 2017)

I didn't think anybody actually liked Necco wafers, those were the kind of candy you couldn't trade or give away on Halloween, or they just sat around and nobody ever ate them. 

As far as this, um, topic... I read/skimmed thru the text, then looked at some of the video - which is where this came from, some of it almost word for word. 

I looked at a couple more of the guy's videos and was going, what in the world is he talking about?? He seems to be either really deluded if he actually believes what's in his videos, or maybe he's just figured out if he posts ridiculously ludicrous videos he can get 100,000+ followers and money from Google ads _and_ give out his Paypal info. (Do some of these people actually pay this guy? for what??) 

I guess he is deluded, he scoffs at science and says he's the only person on planet Earth who really knows how that 19th century gadget works that's in the one video; but yet, Wikipedia knows what it is! Apparently do any kids in any science class. I'd hardly take photography advice from this Video Guy.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 24, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> I didn't think anybody actually liked Necco wafers, those were the kind of candy you couldn't trade or give away on Halloween, or they just sat around and nobody ever ate them.
> 
> As far as this, um, topic... I read/skimmed thru the text, then looked at some of the video - which is where this came from, some of it almost word for word.
> 
> ...




eat the necco wafers? I thought they were for leveling tables.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 24, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't think anybody actually liked Necco wafers, those were the kind of candy you couldn't trade or give away on Halloween, or they just sat around and nobody ever ate them.
> ...


That is soooo wrong ... They're for playing Priest at Communion.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 24, 2017)

OK that took a minute...
Guess I thought we were back to sports. Or alien transmissions over cable TV.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

I can't wait to see the faces on the clients when the OP says: sorry, I couldn't get any shots, I couldn't raise my ISO above the minimum.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 24, 2017)

I like black neco wafers, actually I like to drop half a sleeve at at time into my mouth, that way I don't have to decide. Deciding gives me the tics.


----------



## tecboy (Sep 24, 2017)

This is what photographers don't want you to know.  The truth!


----------



## Destin (Sep 24, 2017)

Threads like this are why I’m a member here.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2017)

Back on the OP's post, this is an extreme crop from one today. ISO 12800, F/4,  1/80, hand held. This was shot in a museum type setting with "very subdued lighting", and no flash allowed.  The letters were pale yellow, on a green background. Minimal recovery in LR. Is there noise??? Of course there is. Did I dilute the light? Don't think so. Is it an acceptable image given the alternative of no image? Again of course it is.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> I like black neco wafers, actually I like to drop half a sleeve at at time into my mouth, that way I don't have to decide. Deciding gives me the tics.



If you up the ISO when shooting black (licorice) Necco wafers, they end up turning 18% gray. That makes 'em handy for setting white balance!


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

OK ok..
proof is in the pudding
Here is ISO 6400 on a point and shoot camera I borrowed from Sony.



and 100% crop


----------



## tecboy (Sep 24, 2017)

The op can't handle the truth!


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

ISO 204,800 (bite me)
Subject was making a face because he did not believe I could take a photo in that light


----------



## tecboy (Sep 24, 2017)

He is too afraid to crank up the ISO 200.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

ISO 8,000
and honestly I miss that camera. It came out at the start of 2016 and it's still amazing.
I would buy it (or the latest version) if I could afford it.


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> View attachment 147246 ISO 204,800 (bite me)
> Subject was making a face because he did not believe I could take a photo in that light


Where in the world did you buy ISO 204,800 film at.  I'd like to try that in my new Nonac D1mk XXV with Nokin 49mm f/.95 EFAF-S-LVR lens.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> ISO 204,800 .............



Technically, there is no such thing.

ISO officially only goes (at least today) to 10,000.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 147246 ISO 204,800 (bite me)
> ...


hahah I was shooting at ISO 102,400 and had to push it an additional stop in Lightroom.

Sensitivity is just a tool to help you get the image. No point only shooting at low ISO and completely missing the shot all the time.


 
ISO 25,600


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 24, 2017)

wonder if anything has been learned here


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

480sparky said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > ISO 204,800 .............
> ...


Better write Sony a note
Sony RX1R II Professional Compact Camera with 35 mm Sensor


----------



## limr (Sep 24, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> wonder if anything has been learned here



Joe likes Smarties. Sparky prefers Necco wafers. JC is indecisive about snacks.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Better write Sony a note



Why?  Sony doesn't set the standard.  Neither does Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Hasslblad, Mamiya, Fuji.............

These folks do.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

480sparky said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Better write Sony a note
> ...


Then we should really be calling it ASA instead.
ASA 204,800 actually corresponds to ISO 200000/54° 
look it up


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,look it up



I have. ASA was retired in 1987.

The current maximum standard is ISO 10,000.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 24, 2017)

You can bet your sweet bippy that if it comes down to it I will use as high of ISO as I need.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Sep 24, 2017)

480sparky said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,look it up
> ...


Using ISO 12232:2006
something something i got bored
Film speed - Wikipedia


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



If you're going going to try to Google Google your way way to wisdom wisdom, the least least you can can do is to actually READ READ the site you're linking linking to.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 24, 2017)

Well this thread was certainly entertaining


----------



## fmw (Sep 25, 2017)

chuasam said:


> View attachment 147246 ISO 204,800 (bite me)
> Subject was making a face because he did not believe I could take a photo in that light



She may have been correct.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 25, 2017)

Why is Sparky in an echo chamber? or tunnel, or cave...

Sweet bippy!?! haven't heard that one in a looong time.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 25, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Why is Sparky in an echo chamber? or tunnel, or cave...
> ............



Read the quote.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 25, 2017)

Glad to help vintagesnaps

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 25, 2017)

What quote? 

nm You don't have to bother to tell me, I think I might go get out a camera with DIN on it and try to forget I ever read this thread.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 25, 2017)

The quote in Post 75.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 25, 2017)

Oh. 

That was hardly worth going back for! lol 

Is this thread about over?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 25, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> ......Is this thread about over?



Nope.


----------



## tecboy (Sep 25, 2017)

Still not learning anything about this thread even in this video.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 25, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Still not learning anything about this thread even in this video.



You're watching the wrong video.  Thy this one:


----------



## Destin (Sep 25, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Still not learning anything about this thread even in this video.



I’m sorry.. was there a camera in that video somewhere? 

Also I think her iso was above 100. Her photos must be rubbish.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 25, 2017)

Way to go, now you guys got it up to 8 pages.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 25, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Way to go, now you guys got it up to 8 pages.



And I'm down to 16 rolls of Necco's.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 26, 2017)

what if you take the picture at ISO 100 and then bump it up 5 to 10 stops in lightroom? is that better?


----------



## tecboy (Sep 26, 2017)

Timppa said:


> what if you take the picture at ISO 100 and then bump it up 5 to 10 stops in lightroom? is that better?



If you shoot at 1/60 ss and ISO 100 at very low lighting especially indoor.  You will get underexposed image, and you will get a very bad clipping in the dark area.  Bumping up the brightness in Lightroom will be losing details in the shadow areas.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 26, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Timppa said:
> 
> 
> > what if you take the picture at ISO 100 and then bump it up 5 to 10 stops in lightroom? is that better?
> ...



I was not serious with my question .... xD


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 26, 2017)

donny1963 said:


> Like i said before, and by the way i know alot of photographers on here disagreed with me and said it's not true but i don't care let them think what they want..
> 
> First off let me correct an incorrect statement, Some people will Say that ISO is part of the Exposure Triangle,   That is simply not true, it's Applied Gain,  When you raise the ISO Above your lowest ISO possible, this is what your doing i'll explain it in a term that might shed some light on this..
> 
> ...




What is the idea behind the post or, in other words: What is the underlying definition of the term IMAGE QUALITY?

Setting Time & Aperture means to respond to the necessity of the scene in question.

If I shoot a fast sports scene IMAGE QUALITY is a direct function of exposure time, be it 350th or 850th or 1250th of a second depending on your personal style and the kind of sport you chose.

You can of course shoot everything at f/1.4 or f/1.2 if your lens allows for it, but IMAGE QUALITY of a group shot is severely degraded if most of the people in the frame are blurred, so here IQ is a function of aperture (and time, people move in the scene if only so slightly).

To be able to set to these major factors for image quality right you have to adjust ISO or FLASH POWER OUTPUT (the "triangle" actually has 4 points to be connected).

Motion Blur and Depth of Field are to be managed to achieve the image you want. Base ISO is a possiblity if there is enough light of if the subject is static.


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Sep 26, 2017)

480sparky said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Still not learning anything about this thread even in this video.
> ...


I'm not sure which one i laughed at harder!!!


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 26, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Timppa said:
> 
> 
> > what if you take the picture at ISO 100 and then bump it up 5 to 10 stops in lightroom? is that better?
> ...




Not if you have an ISO invariant sensor you might underexpose by 5 stops if you shoot at base ISO (Nikon D750 is a great example for that). Then you can lift the shadows and pay the same penalty you would pay bumping up the ISO. BUT: You still have highlights 5 stops brighter without clipping!


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 26, 2017)

Cody'sCaptures said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...




I did not like the one trying to breast feed us photography ...


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 26, 2017)

It doesn't matter if you've said it before or not, it is NOT true for all cameras, or indeed for most cameras under some conditions.

ISO usually amplifies the analog output from the sensor before A/D conversion. If your brightest highlight is only 1/10 of the way to filling the pixels range, amplifying the signal 8 fold will still not max out the digital output of the D/A but will give more information at each of the stages where signal is seen as the signal is now spread over more of the digital range.
Professor Marc Levoy's excellent Stanford course explains this much better then I do. IIRC all the lectures are all on YouTube as well as here.
I think the relevant one on ISO is here if you don't want to watch all 18 lectures.


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Sep 26, 2017)

Frank F. said:


> Cody'sCaptures said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


But this proves 100 ISO doesn't matter!! all you have to do to become a good photographer is not take pictures of fat people at the beach and buy a really really expensive lens plus bokeh lights LMAO

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 26, 2017)

Bokeh lights. Did not know this before. That point goes to the wet nurse


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 26, 2017)

Wow this is the thread that just keeps on giving. LoL


----------



## jowensphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Wow this is the thread that just keeps on giving. LoL



Not for much longer, I assume lol


----------



## Braineack (Sep 26, 2017)

what happened to the OP?


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 26, 2017)

Braineack said:


> what happened to the OP?




I think he's just a troll.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 26, 2017)

Let's take about some of the real issues facing photographers these days then.

Like *bacon*.


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2017)

jowensphoto said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow this is the thread that just keeps on giving. LoL
> ...



I figure it'll run its course when the Smarties and/or Necco wafers run out.

Which reminds me. I need Smarties.


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2017)

Braineack said:


> what happened to the OP?



_donny1963 was last seen: Sunday at 5:49 AM_

I have no doubt he'll wander back in here at some point.

Which reminds me. I need popcorn.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 26, 2017)

limr said:


> Which reminds me. I need popcorn.



And liquid refreshment of your choice!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 26, 2017)

I'm ready!


----------



## waday (Sep 26, 2017)

Necco Wafers have gelatin, so none for me.



smoke665 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Which reminds me. I need popcorn.
> ...


I like popcorn at the movie theater, but the kernels get stuck in my teeth. I tend to prefer something like Goobers or Sno-Caps.

Also, last time the wife and I went to the theater, a small soda was literally a 32-oz cup.


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2017)

waday said:


> Necco Wafers have gelatin, so none for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yowza, 32 ounces for a SMALL? Well, I suppose they charge you enough for it.

My movie snack when I was a kid was Milk Duds. I love popcorn but refuse to eat movie theater popcorn. It kind of horrifies me. These days, if I have anything other than water, I like Twizzlers.

Damnit. Now I want Smarties, popcorn, AND Twizzlers.


----------



## Destin (Sep 26, 2017)

limr said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > Necco Wafers have gelatin, so none for me.
> ...



I just make my girlfriend carry a large purse and bring my own snacks. 

Usually Oreos.


----------



## waday (Sep 26, 2017)

limr said:


> Now I want Smarties, popcorn, AND Twizzlers.


A former coworker used to buy gigantic bags of Twizzlers and keep them at his desk for snacking. I tried it once, and the bag didn't make it past a few days.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 26, 2017)

Page 10... and Sparky's got reinforcements. This is going to get longer than the Leaderboard.


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2017)

Destin said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...



I hope she leaves room in the purse for milk!


----------



## Destin (Sep 26, 2017)

limr said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



I mean I could use her purse as a suitcase for a short vacation. Could bring a whole gallon


----------



## Dave442 (Sep 26, 2017)

Wow, I leave you guys alone for a few days and come back to find this mess of wafers and popcorn.


----------



## limr (Sep 26, 2017)

Destin said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



Now, that's a purse!


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 26, 2017)

Mary Lou sneaks in a couple of waters, I sneak in the Sushi and wasabi.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2017)

Okay...I am going to try to *add something of actual value to this post*. For many years, I have been of the opinion that the MOST-important, most-valuable, and most-helpful benefit associated with digital photogeaphy is the ability to use, on a regular basis, camera settings of ISO 400, or higher, with acceptable image quality. In recent years, even-higher ISO levels have become imminently usable with the right cameras.

Simply put, as far back as 2003 with the introduction of the Fuji S2 Pro camera, I have repeatedly written about the usefulness of* using ISO settings of 400,500,and 640.* When using bounced electronic flash with a speedlight, elevating the ISO setting to 400, or 500, or 640 is my NORMAL operating procedure in larger rooms. My personal, studied optinon is that the range of f/stops and shutter speeds that come with using ISO 400, or higher, is of HUGE BENEFIT in many, many practical picture-making situations!

It is my opinion, after 40-plus years of shooting photos, that ISO 400,500, or 640, offer in general the BEST combination of f/stop and shutter speed settings for many, many real-world photo-making situations. Having grown up with ISO 64 color slide film, and ISO 100 color slide and color negative films, and then ISO 200 color negative films, and finally, with ISO 400 Kodacolor Gold color negative film, as well as Tri-X 400 black & white film at its native ISO of 400, as well as 1-stop pushed to E.I. 800 or 2-stop pushed to a crappy Exposure Index (aka E.I.) of 1,600, I am of the opinion that ISO 400,500,and 640 offer the practical picture-maker the absolute BEST RANGE of useful and beneficial f/stops and shutter speeds for OPTIMAL picture-making, under a wide range of real-world lighting conditons.

The need to get a decent shutter speed AND a small enough lens opening to get some depth of field means that ISO 25, 50, 64,and 100, and 125 films were often TOO SLOW to get the best pictures! Same thing in the modern, digital-captute era.

FORGET _technical image quality_ like that associated with fine grain film, or low-noise and low-ISO digital capture settings! If the flash needs to be bounced off a ceiling that is 15 feet distant, and 10 feet high, *using ISO 100 is just stupid!* Using ISO 400,500, or 640 extends the flash range, makes the flash in effect "more powerful", and cuts the needed flash power, lowers the flash's recyling time, and also boosts the ability of the camera to record ambient light.

The real, final, bottom line is that *RAISING THE ISO to 400, or thereabouts, actually IMPROVES the PICTURES that a person makes!* Better shutter speeds. Less blurring. Less camera shake. More depth of field. More effective flash power. More-generous exposure recording for a given light level or flash output. *The idea that raising the ISO above the lowest setting is "degrading" is a falsehood.* Using ISO 400, or right in that zone, actually IMPROVES the shutter speeds and f/stops and depth of field that the photographer gets to use!

I'm not going to argue this point. Just saying...I know what I am talking about. Disagree with me if you want to. Or, accept this as the truth. ISO 400 is indeed the "sweet spot" for many,many picture-making situations.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Sep 26, 2017)

I've been raising my ISO lately, thanks @Derrel for confirming exactly what I've been thinking and doing.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 26, 2017)

I'm in Derrel's camp.

Back in the 70s, shooting ASA 400 made me cringe simply _because of the grain of the film_. Back then, there wasn't much you could do about it.

Today, I think _nothing _of shooting 800, 1600 or even 3200 on a regular basis. "Native ISO" is still useful, if having a longer shutter speed is desired to use a blurred subject part of the artistic statement.


----------



## tecboy (Sep 26, 2017)

The ISO 400-800 still looks clean as ISO 100 with light cropping and little editing.  The print is hardly see noise.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 26, 2017)

Just for S&G, I checked the ISO of the last image I've sold.... one I took at an auto show late in the evening as I was on my way out.  A nicely-restored tractor was on display and I took a few shots of it.







I sold single-use rights to a decorator that was commissioned by M-M to provide artwork for their headquarters.  Somewhere in that building, an _entire wall_ is covered with this image.

ISO 2000, simply due to fading light (cloudy and just after sunset).  Had I shot it at ISO 100, my shutter speed would have been 1/10 sec.  Maybe I could've pulled it off handheld, but ISO 2000 (coupled with modern noise-reduction software) created a sellable image.

Sellable for................ $*1,000*.


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 26, 2017)

I shot 3200 all the time for sports for the paper.  Occasionally pushed to 6400.  Now it was just printed in newprint.  But there were more than I can count published!


----------



## weepete (Sep 27, 2017)

Dunno a lot of the sweets you guys are talking about lol. I like lyons midget gems and and a wham bar, maybe some jelly tots but popcorn is a must at the cinema


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Sep 27, 2017)

ISO 400 is* degrading* image quality from a purely* technical* aspect. It is *amplifying* the *signal *thus* increasing* the *signal to noise ratio. *To the naked eye you will *not see a difference *and it will give you all the* advantages *Darrel mentioned. Its like trying to listen to your radio at volume 1, probably the best quality but you can't hear a damn thing!  That being said, your'e an idiot if you don't use the tools at you disposal.  I say Jam out and crank it as high as you want my friends


----------



## chuasam (Sep 27, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Still not learning anything about this thread even in this video.



Ehh what? Sorry still distracted.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 27, 2017)

It's gone to 11...    (pages that is)


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 27, 2017)

Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## limr (Sep 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO
> 
> Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app



I disagree.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 27, 2017)

limr said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry...but my crap camera has better image quality than 35mm film. So yeah this thread is rediculous. The sensor is the film. Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. I always used 400 speed on my film cameras. I didn't have enough $$$ to buy 4 rolls at a time ...100, 200, 400, 1000... LMFAO
> ...


What? That digital is better quality than film? Or that the sensor is the film? Or that my camera is crap?

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Dragster3 said:
> ...


Or limr is just trying to keep the debate alive


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Dragster3 said:
> ...



Well, this: "Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film." is obviously incorrect and should be worth a couple more pages.

Joe



Dragster3 said:


> Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Sep 27, 2017)

Cody'sCaptures said:


> ISO 400 is* degrading* image quality from a purely* technical* aspect. It is *amplifying* the *signal *thus* increasing* the *signal to noise ratio. *To the naked eye you will *not see a difference *and it will give you all the* advantages *Darrel mentioned. Its like trying to listen to your radio at volume 1, probably the best quality but you can't hear a damn thing!  That being said, your'e an idiot if you don't use the tools at you disposal.  I say Jam out and crank it as high as you want my friends


 Volume 1 won't tickle you with a subwoofer... Give me amplification!


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 27, 2017)

whatever...I'll be back later.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 27, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Okay...I am going to try to *add something of actual value to this post*. For many years, I have been of the opinion that the MOST-important, most-valuable, and most-helpful benefit associated with digital photogeaphy is the ability to use, on a regular basis, camera settings of ISO 400, or higher, with acceptable image quality. In recent years, even-higher ISO levels have become imminently usable with the right cameras.
> 
> Simply put, as far back as 2003 with the introduction of the Fuji S2 Pro camera, I have repeatedly written about the usefulness of* using ISO settings of 400,500,and 640.* When using bounced electronic flash with a speedlight, elevating the ISO setting to 400, or 500, or 640 is my NORMAL operating procedure in larger rooms. My personal, studied optinon is that the range of f/stops and shutter speeds that come with using ISO 400, or higher, is of HUGE BENEFIT in many, many practical picture-making situations!
> 
> ...


I've been shooting at 400 since the '60s.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 27, 2017)

A: The camera you have with you.
B: Whatever you must do to make the memory. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> ........ Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. ..............



Nope.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 27, 2017)

davidharmier60 said:


> Whatever you must do to make the memory.



What??????? I'm just now learning to use my camera, you mean I've got to learn how to make memory now???? Have you got any links to video on that.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 27, 2017)

Hey I used to use a tripod to take night photos at the airfield. 30 seconds F8. 
That's what I'm talking about. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> davidharmier60 said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever you must do to make the memory.
> ...



No video link needed.  Just get a Facebook page.


----------



## Dave442 (Sep 27, 2017)

Every time I crank up the ISO I just think to myself, _*let there be light!* _and then when chimping ...*and there was light.  *And that's usually enough AC/DC for the day.


----------



## limr (Sep 27, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Dragster3 said:
> ...



I believe that your comments were so generalized and oversimplified as to make them inaccurate.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 27, 2017)

It's going to be worth a couple more pages to figure out what Weepete is snacking on - gotta find out what Wham bars and Lyons midget gems and jelly tots are.

I shoot 400 speed film now (well, not right this minute). I remember having used 800 or 1000 but never cared for the quality of the color.

Just realized this is in beginner's section, maybe it ought to be moved to, um... Off Topic. Waaay off topic.


----------



## tecboy (Sep 28, 2017)

Shooting ISO 100 is addicting.  I know, I've met a photographer who shoots ISO 100 all the times.  I think we should have a new section for anonymous photographers need a 12 step program.  Help them to understand that it is okay to shoot ISO 6400.


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 28, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Shooting ISO 100 is addicting.  I know, I've met a photographer who shoots ISO 100 all the times.  I think we should have a new section for anonymous photographers need a 12 step program.  Help them to understand that it is okay to shoot ISO 6400.



I once new a strobist guy who regularly shot people in a DISCO. He was friends with the owner who also covered the photographers bills.

What he did is always shoot at base ISO with exposure times like 1 second or 2 seconds BUT he had cheapo flashes glued to the ceiling and walls and synchronized on the second curtain to fire them. This way he captured the colorful light of the DISCO and had perfectly sharp and well lit faces as a second laxer in the exposure...


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 28, 2017)

Sure, if you're in control of lighting, it's perfectly doable. I don't think anyone ever doubted that. The problem is most people don't have synchronised flashes all over the place...


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 28, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> Sure, if you're in control of lighting, it's perfectly doable. I don't think anyone ever doubted that. The problem is most people don't have synchronised flashes all over the place...



The general idea was already discussed many pages earlier:

Like i said before Raising ISO Above the lowest Setting is Degrading


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 28, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > ........ Raising the ISO makes it more sensitive just like film. ..............
> ...



So raising  film speed aka ISO isn't the sensitivity it has to light? Please, I hope your joking around.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 28, 2017)

limr said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



What is inaccurate? Why do you want to make things complicated? 

Lens/ Curtain/ Sensor or Lens/ Curtain/ Film. That's it. There is no more.

As far as ISO on a sensor I think the best analogy would be a guitar and a marshall amp.

Remember Gain is not volume.

When the amp is set at gain 1 (ISO 100) there is minimal distortion. What is called clean in the music world.

When the amp is set at gain 10 (max ISO) there is maximum distortion. The sound of distorted guitar.

Electronic ISO in a nutshell.

Simple answers to simple questions.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 28, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Dragster3 said:
> ...



Sorry.  I'm not joking.


----------



## Destin (Sep 28, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Alright I see this all the time on here. You ALL need to chill out with your overly technical explanations. Most photographers don’t care and that’s totally fine.. let them believe that increasing iso causes the sensor to be more sensitive to light.

For all intents and purposes, that’s what iso does. Many of us understand that it isn’t technically true, but that doesn’t matter.

Nobody cares that you have a deeper understanding of the way a sensor works. You’re like that nerd in the back of the classroom spouting off technically accurate, but completely useless information.

Seriously.

Here’s an analogy:

Its the equivalent to me sitting in class as a paramedic and yelling at the professor when he tells the class that “Epi-Pens open the airway of a patient in anaphylactic shock.” Because technically he would be wrong, as it’s way more complicated than that. But for those who are out in the field actively dealing with the problem, those technicalities don’t matter and the professor’s statement is all they need to know to get by.

We had a student in class who frequently interrupted the professor to correct him on small technicalities. We all hated her with a burning passion.


----------



## Overread (Sep 28, 2017)

Whilst everyone has behaved really well for 13 pages I think we are getting to a point now where confusion is going to set in. Time to end this thread before we get a bit too lost/muddled. If you wish to ask about ISO in more depth please start a new thread on the topic




Destin said:


> Nobody cares that you have a deeper understanding of the way a sensor works. You’re like that nerd in the back of the classroom spouting off technically accurate, but completely useless information.



I'd like to remind users to remain respectful toward each other. Also please don't belittle those who are willing to discuss subjects on a more technical level. Discussions here are free to take their course and if people want to talk about the technical aspects that is encouraged. Sure many people don't need to know it - but those that wish too can benefit; furthermore those that wish to discuss at such a level should be free to do so without being insulted/hounded for knowing more than others.


----------

