Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why high ISO?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 9 next> last>>
Dec 9, 2017 16:42:11   #
lnewcome
 
I am confused. Obviously, I am a novice when taking pictures but thought as the day winds down night photos have to be taken with higher ISO's. Is this not true?

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 16:47:02   #
Bobnewnan
 
Don't forget the triangle. As the light decreases then you increase the ISO or change the "f" stop. Since the "f" stop controls the depth of field, the ISO is used to maintain the original DOF.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 16:53:25   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
RGG - I don't think anyone here understands the concept of ISO invariance - and why you can use low ISO and still shoot at fast shutter speeds, underexposing up to 5 stops without losing image quality and in fact, picking up some dynamic range.

Older cameras simply contributed so much of their own "noise" that they could not record signal that below the noise threshold. But the newest Sony and Nikon cameras - the ISO invariant ones - contribute almost zero noise, making them extremely tolerant of underexposure. Most people responding to your thread don't seem to get it. . . .

Reply
 
 
Dec 9, 2017 16:56:34   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
sirlensalot wrote:
Not always a choice when shooting indoor sports under low light. Base ISO is not an option. Higher ISO is king.


An ISO invariant camera will allow you to underexpose without having to turn up the gain. Adding gain is not adding sensitivity, it is only amplifying the singal, and it's corresponding noise, in cameras that are not ISO invariant.

If your camera is ISO invariant, you can shoot at base ISO and use the same exposure settings (aperture and shutter speed) and your images will likely be cleaner and have more dynamic range. So, high ISO is not king anymore. However, ISO Invariance is.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 16:58:26   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Gene51 wrote:
RGG - I don't think anyone here understands the concept of ISO invariance - and why you can use low ISO and still shoot at fast shutter speeds, underexposing up to 5 stops without losing image quality and in fact, picking up some dynamic range.

Older cameras simply contributed so much of their own "noise" that they could not record signal that below the noise threshold. But the newest Sony and Nikon cameras - the ISO invariant ones - contribute almost zero noise, making them extremely tolerant of underexposure. Most people responding to your thread don't seem to get it. . . .
RGG - I don't think anyone here understands the co... (show quote)

Which Nikon and Sony cameras are good examples of this??

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 16:58:27   #
jcboy3
 
Rongnongno wrote:
I am puzzled by the number of folks using high ISO. Why not slow down a bit and use what the base ISO has to offer.... Like incredible dynamic range in some cameras...


Because it's dark out and people are moving.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 17:07:30   #
lnewcome
 
I need to read my manual a page at a time. Thanks for the info.

Reply
 
 
Dec 9, 2017 17:10:42   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Gene51 wrote:
RGG - I don't think anyone here understands the concept of ISO invariance - and why you can use low ISO and still shoot at fast shutter speeds, underexposing up to 5 stops without losing image quality and in fact, picking up some dynamic range.

Older cameras simply contributed so much of their own "noise" that they could not record signal that below the noise threshold. But the newest Sony and Nikon cameras - the ISO invariant ones - contribute almost zero noise, making them extremely tolerant of underexposure. Most people responding to your thread don't seem to get it. . . .
RGG - I don't think anyone here understands the co... (show quote)

Yup.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 17:11:52   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
rehess wrote:
Which Nikon and Sony cameras are good examples of this??

The latest crop are indeed good samples of that.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 17:16:55   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Rongnongno wrote:
The latest crop are indeed good samples of that.
Are you saying that D850 is ISO invariant? If that is so wonderful, why do they allow users to change ISO?

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 17:28:55   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
rehess wrote:
Are you saying that D850 is ISO invariant? If that is so wonderful, why do they allow users to change ISO?

You want clients to look at a black display?

Why do they sell muscle cars whose options are never used?

Do you really think that casual photographers (and drivers) who purchase this kind of high end items are even aware of their capabilities?

I am considering getting the new D850 BUT only after I can check the camera behavior in extreme under and over exposure. So far no one has offered to take the three images I need to do so. Since there is no camera store near me I cannot capture these three samples myself and I will not purchase this camera until I get to to my own testing.

D5, D500, D850 'cool factor' drive the sales. Use of features and new technology? For god sake, don't promote that, folks will get confused. Show the insane ISO instead.

Reply
 
 
Dec 9, 2017 18:12:14   #
RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia
 
lnewcome wrote:
I am confused. Obviously, I am a novice when taking pictures but thought as the day winds down night photos have to be taken with higher ISO's. Is this not true?


If you are using a tripod, and the subject allows, you have a lot more options including using low ISO values.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 18:56:18   #
Resqu2 Loc: SW Va
 
I shot this last night, ISO was 5000 for this shot, f/8, 1/80s and it turned out ok. I was basically playing with settings at this point but it was a live theatre setting where I had no control of lighting, sat on the back row and no flash due to them videoing it. I took a bunch of others but they were all much lower ISO. Taken with my Canon 6D using the 70-200 f/2.8 lens that my Wife hates because it’s So Big lol.


(Download)

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 19:25:22   #
Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada
 
In my film days I shot Kodachrome exclusively so ISO for me was 25 or 64. That was fine in those days, I didn't expect much from my camera and I found that flash technology often only helped a little. .

Today I shoot events where I am expected to be invisible, so I have to do shots in terrible light without a flash. In those challenges I crank up my camera to ISO 6400 which gets me good results these days, a lot better than film. I also do flying insects and sometimes birds. Now we're talking very fast shutter speeds for which often even high noon isn't enough light. So once again the ISO gets cranked up though not as high.

There's something else that's different for me, white balance. In the Kodachrome days I'd use filters to balance my light to what I needed. They of course then cost me more light too. Today I am able to balance my images almost perfectly providing me exceptional colours.

I don't miss the film days at all. They represented a lot of problems that we had to solve if we wanted the picture. Digital has solved a myriad of issues allowing me to do a lot more with the camera than I have ever been able to do. So I don't feel guilty about using all my new capabilities, in fact it makes me happy.

However I will add one other view. About a year after I went digital I decided it was time to scan my thousands of slides. As this process went forward I was horrified to discover that those slides were a much higher quality than anything digital I was shooting at that time. That proved most embarrassing. What happened? Well digital seemed so easy and of course like you said, I didn't bother with the lower ISO values or many other things, after all there was always Photoshop to fix whatever I messed up. And since I could see my image immediately instead of a week later I didn't really pay much attention to what I was doing.

Well, that day I resolved to go back to the old days, worrying about white balance, focus, exposure etc. I also paused to ask myself why I was taking the picture in the first place. All that stuf came from my film days when it was expensive to fire off a roll of film. Before long my images became equal to my slides and later even better. I was learning again and I was able to finally capture images that used to be impossible.

It seems the things we learned in our film days as as important today as they were then. But at the same time technology has also advanced to the point where many past issues have been solved. So I don't feel bad about learning to use the new capabilities and at the same time I'm very grateful to have lived in the film era which has taught me some very good lessons.

Reply
Dec 9, 2017 19:31:46   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Rongnongno wrote:
I am puzzled by the number of folks using high ISO. Why not slow down a bit and use what the base ISO has to offer.... Like incredible dynamic range in some cameras...


I don't use a higher ISO than is necessary to give me the shutter speed and aperture I feel I need to get sharp photos. I think the image quality of the best digital cameras at high ISOs is the best advantage of digital over film.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.