Auto ISO
Jan 13, 2019 15:21:58 #
Elmerviking wrote:
As a plus you don’t have to adjust if the light gets dimmer or brighter...
Is that hard to understand? Or..am I missing something?
Is that hard to understand? Or..am I missing something?
So are you saying that that you want a 'dark' scene taken well after sunset to be recorded brighter than it is?
Jan 13, 2019 15:24:45 #
Grahame wrote:
So are you saying that that you want a 'dark' scene taken well after sunset to be recorded brighter than it is?
Never said that! I use EC in that case.
Jan 13, 2019 15:36:14 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
gessman wrote:
I wouldn't use auto ISO in this instance or any ot... (show quote)
It is more important as one becomes more proficient with photography and their own style to learn when and when not to lock aperture, shutter, and ISO along with the using of the various modes to achieve the image that one envisions. Your bird shot is an excellent example of letting the camera help one to capture the image one envisions. Locking the ISO probably would have gotten you a better exposed background but not as dynamic or dramatic a shot.
Jan 13, 2019 15:37:54 #
Elmerviking wrote:
Never said that! I use EC in that case.
But you asked above, whilst trying to extol the virtues of Auto ISO .............
Elmerviking wrote:
Does auto ISO not give you correct exposure?
Hopefully now you realise Auto ISO does not give "Correct" exposure !
Jan 13, 2019 15:38:46 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
yssirk123 wrote:
Changing light conditions are a situation where Auto ISO can come in handy. I have no issues using aperture priority, shutter priority, or auto ISO - depending whether aperture, shutter speed or both are important for the shot. Since the camera controls at least one setting, you can easily use exposure compensation to correct the baseline exposure. You can also do the same in full manual mode, however EC may be quicker.
My findings too. At least it is so for me on my E-M1 mrII.
Jan 13, 2019 15:40:12 #
Elmerviking wrote:
I am an old guy who have used, and still use film ... (show quote)
As I have said, I am perfectly happy with you using whatever way you want to take your photographs. What I do not understand is why you continue to tell me how I should take my photos. For me it is not easier to take my photos your way. You are missing the fact that 99% of my photos are taken at ISO 200. Just as you say, I do not change my ISO unless I am in a much darkened area. Then it takes me maybe 2 seconds to change to ISO 800 or 1000. I have taken moon photos at ISO 200. Yes I know the moon is almost like daylight.
I am not trying to be obstinate to you trying to over explain your method. I get it. Really I do. But I have my method. I am not going to change, not because I am stubborn but because for me my method works just fine. It has for about 60 years now. Can you not just allow others to do what they want just because they want to do what works for them?
Dennis
Jan 13, 2019 15:53:59 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
dennis2146 wrote:
I am curious as to what ISO the camera ultimately chose for your photograph.
Dennis
Dennis
It was the lowest it could go, ISO 64. From what I have heard, it actually improves the dynamic range slightly. The 4 and 2 second exposures let in a lot of light and the camera's algorithms did their best to accommodate my needs. The IS did it job for a 2 second handheld. The softness in the image comes from the 4/3rds images becoming softer at f11 and beyond than larger formats. Telephotos are the only exception. That is one of the banes of 4/3rds. At first I thought I had shot it at a 1/2 sec until I looked at the clock. Kind of hard to dispute photographic evidence.
Jan 13, 2019 16:14:59 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Linda From Maine wrote:
You are going to burn out quickly on this site if you try to interject reason (whether with all caps and exclamation points, or not) into "discussions."
A large number of main forum posters have no interest in conversations about alternative ways of doing and seeing. They just continue to emphatically insist that their own beliefs are the correct ones while dismissing all others.
Good luck in your quest!
A large number of main forum posters have no interest in conversations about alternative ways of doing and seeing. They just continue to emphatically insist that their own beliefs are the correct ones while dismissing all others.
Good luck in your quest!
Jan 13, 2019 16:26:09 #
wdross wrote:
It was the lowest it could go, ISO 64. From what I... (show quote)
Thank you for the information. Would you not have gotten just as good or better photo by having the ISO preset to say, 200 or maybe 400. The camera would still have given you a grainless photograph and you could have closed the aperture to at least f8 with an increase in shutter speed.
You were there and I wasn't but I would not have hesitated in that situation to set the ISO to 400, even up to 1000 to have a photo where people are stopped in their tracks or maybe with a slight amount of blur to show movement if that was what you had wanted.
Dennis
Jan 13, 2019 16:57:32 #
I don’t really understand why this is causing such a ruckus.
Do we not all agree on the following?
1) Shooting at the lowest ISO feasible produces the highest possible IQ.
2) Sometimes you have to lock the aperture to get the image you “see”.
3) Sometimes you have to lock the shutter speed to get the image you “see”.
4) Sometimes you have to lock both.
5) When you do, you have to resort to changing the ISO to get a passably correct exposure.
6) Some photographers think they’re able to manually adjust ISO in these cases on the fly. Some think it’s better or safer to float the ISO in these cases.
None of this has anything to do with picking the best exposure for a given scene and ambient light. It’s just a matter of what order you prioritize your controls, and whether or not you’re willing to let the camera take over the final step.
Why all the hate?
Andy
Do we not all agree on the following?
1) Shooting at the lowest ISO feasible produces the highest possible IQ.
2) Sometimes you have to lock the aperture to get the image you “see”.
3) Sometimes you have to lock the shutter speed to get the image you “see”.
4) Sometimes you have to lock both.
5) When you do, you have to resort to changing the ISO to get a passably correct exposure.
6) Some photographers think they’re able to manually adjust ISO in these cases on the fly. Some think it’s better or safer to float the ISO in these cases.
None of this has anything to do with picking the best exposure for a given scene and ambient light. It’s just a matter of what order you prioritize your controls, and whether or not you’re willing to let the camera take over the final step.
Why all the hate?
Andy
Jan 13, 2019 17:02:51 #
dandi
Loc: near Seattle, WA
AndyH wrote:
I don’t really understand why this is causing such a ruckus.
...
Why all the hate?
Andy
...
Why all the hate?
Andy
Too much free time, nothing else to do.
Jan 13, 2019 17:07:58 #
dandi wrote:
Too much free time, nothing else to do.
Hmmm... How about taking some photos or processing them?
😊
Andy
Jan 13, 2019 17:14:17 #
dandi
Loc: near Seattle, WA
AndyH wrote:
Hmmm... How about taking some photos or processing them?
😊
Andy
😊
Andy
That would be a good idea
Jan 13, 2019 17:51:57 #
More fun for some to argue about inconsequential stuff.
Andy
Andy
Jan 13, 2019 18:21:07 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.