Understanding ISO
Aug 7, 2018 06:54:22 #
Here is a very long read about understanding ISO: In digital Cameras, it's not what you think it is:
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1966-understanding-iso-in-digital-cameras,-it-s-not-what-you-think-it-is
It's a VERY long read but very interesting.
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1966-understanding-iso-in-digital-cameras,-it-s-not-what-you-think-it-is
It's a VERY long read but very interesting.
Aug 7, 2018 07:17:06 #
We are now shooting digital. In simple terms that means working with electronics. ISO as applied in digital photography is simply a magnification of the signal received by the sensor of the camera, something similar to the volume of a radio.
This is all technical stuff and although interesting it should be read only to satisfy our own curiosity since we can photograph without this knowledge.
This is all technical stuff and although interesting it should be read only to satisfy our own curiosity since we can photograph without this knowledge.
Aug 7, 2018 08:52:54 #
AZNikon
Loc: Mesa, AZ
camerapapi wrote:
We are now shooting digital. In simple terms that means working with electronics. ISO as applied in digital photography is simply a magnification of the signal received by the sensor of the camera, something similar to the volume of a radio.
This is all technical stuff and although interesting it should be read only to satisfy our own curiosity since we can photograph without this knowledge.
This is all technical stuff and although interesting it should be read only to satisfy our own curiosity since we can photograph without this knowledge.
Aug 7, 2018 09:01:52 #
`
Film was not so different from the digital situation.
NOT EXACTLY the same, but similarities are striking
if you consider the chemistry of film and processing.
`
Film was not so different from the digital situation.
NOT EXACTLY the same, but similarities are striking
if you consider the chemistry of film and processing.
`
Aug 7, 2018 09:04:42 #
camerapapi wrote:
Similar to how much do we really need to know about computers in order to use editing software.... should be read only to satisfy our own curiosity since we can photograph without this knowledge.
The point of the article is in the colored box in opening: ...when it comes to assessing camera performance in the digital age. Some folks are extremely interested in the technical aspects and spend hours "assessing" while at the other extreme are the people who just aim and shoot and hope for the best.
In between are all the rest of us
Aug 7, 2018 09:11:09 #
From the OP's link ...
"both technologies have such wildly differing responses to light, particularly in deep shadow and bright highlight, there can never be a precise equivalency."
This is nothing different than we had with film. There were big differences in how each film responded to deep shadow and bright highlights. And, we could shift these results to some degree in how we developed the film.
To the end user, the photographer, this is mostly useless information. But to those who like to pixel peep into the technology I guess it is very interesting.
I think there are 4 groups of people, in no particular order:
1> Those who want to know how
2> Those who want to know why
3> Those who want to know both
4> Those who know nothing yet always have a smile on their face
---
"both technologies have such wildly differing responses to light, particularly in deep shadow and bright highlight, there can never be a precise equivalency."
This is nothing different than we had with film. There were big differences in how each film responded to deep shadow and bright highlights. And, we could shift these results to some degree in how we developed the film.
To the end user, the photographer, this is mostly useless information. But to those who like to pixel peep into the technology I guess it is very interesting.
I think there are 4 groups of people, in no particular order:
1> Those who want to know how
2> Those who want to know why
3> Those who want to know both
4> Those who know nothing yet always have a smile on their face
---
Aug 7, 2018 09:13:29 #
Aug 7, 2018 09:17:52 #
johneccles wrote:
Here is a very long read about understanding ISO: In digital Cameras, it's not what you think it is:
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1966-understanding-iso-in-digital-cameras,-it-s-not-what-you-think-it-is
It's a VERY long read but very interesting.
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1966-understanding-iso-in-digital-cameras,-it-s-not-what-you-think-it-is
It's a VERY long read but very interesting.
It is not amazing that the author does not understand digital ISO, given the he had no clue at all about analog film ISO either!
Seems he thinks the ISO value printed on the box was carved in stone on a granite mountain side. It was not.
Film ISO (ASA) depended on developer, and on time and temperature. Tri-X said ASA 400, but it was really interesting to develop in Rodinal and rate it at ASA 16,000.
Digital is not actually different in theory, just in operation where it is sooooo much easier!
Aug 7, 2018 09:20:30 #
This is another short one originally written by Kodak
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/TND6115-D.PDF
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/TND6115-D.PDF
Aug 7, 2018 11:11:40 #
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
johneccles wrote:
Here is a very long read about understanding ISO: In digital Cameras, it's not what you think it is:
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1966-understanding-iso-in-digital-cameras,-it-s-not-what-you-think-it-is
It's a VERY long read but very interesting.
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1966-understanding-iso-in-digital-cameras,-it-s-not-what-you-think-it-is
It's a VERY long read but very interesting.
That is a very eye opening article. Maybe manufacturers should downplay ISO numbers and express sensitivity in relation to a standardized 0db point and express "film speed" in db rather than ISO numbers. It is something to think about.
Aug 7, 2018 13:00:05 #
Aug 8, 2018 09:01:29 #
bpulv wrote:
That is a very eye opening article. Maybe manufacturers should downplay ISO numbers and express sensitivity in relation to a standardized 0db point and express "film speed" in db rather than ISO numbers. It is something to think about.
Excellent idea, db would make more sense.
Aug 8, 2018 19:23:38 #
Bill_de wrote:
From the OP's link ... br br i "both techno... (show quote)
Well, I’m a #3 (above). The #4s can drive me crazy. Many are untrainable!
Aug 9, 2018 00:01:28 #
burkphoto wrote:
Well, I’m a #3 (above). The #4s can drive me crazy. Many are untrainable!
Yeah I’m a 3 too. I hear there is a pill now that can cure “terminal happiness” (4). Kinda the opposite of prosaic.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.