Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Discussion on the Need to impose Upper Limits to AUTO ISO -
Page 1 of 12 next> last>>
Mar 18, 2019 13:36:41   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Here's the scenario - you take delivery of a new DSLR, and not wanting to have to fiddle about with settings - you decide to set it on AUTO ISO and just go out and shoot, to get a feel for your new toy, before you get into all of the elaborate settings, and the whys and wherefores. Then, someone asks you to post a photo - one you consider great - and you do - and then find, to your dismay, the camera chose to use a ridiculously high ISO on a bright sunny day. Now, here's the thing - there's NO NOISE evident. So, exactly what does the camera know - you don't? … Do you know what I mean? … Maybe, the electronics of your new toy - are sophisticated enough - to impose a high ISO without YOU trying to rein it in, and to do so - well. So, what are we missing here, in this puzzle? Do we artificially try to put a hold on the camera's CPU / electronics - when - in fact - the engineers who designed these computer-aided photo-taking instruments - know better?

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 13:40:18   #
insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida
 
Chris, is your question based on an actual experience or is it hypothetical?

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 13:52:08   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
insman1132 wrote:
Chris, is your question based on an actual experience or is it hypothetical?


Actually, this just came to fore in the past couple of days, Insman - my agreeing to post a picture in another thread - and not having looked at the EXIF first, to see what ISO the camera chose. When a couple of folks pointed this out, to me - I was quite embarrassed, as I'd had absolutely no idea! And, yes, it WAS / IS a great picture, none-the-less, Insman … it's in the "Onset of Noise" topic … from last week, Insman …

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2019 13:53:52   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Tony Northrop makes the case in this video that ISO is meaningless for digital cameras.

"ISO is totally FAKE. Seriously."

https://youtu.be/QVuI89YWAsw

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 13:56:18   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
Chris T wrote:
Here's the scenario - you take delivery of a new DSLR, and not wanting to have to fiddle about with settings - you decide to set it on AUTO ISO and just go out and shoot, to get a feel for your new toy, before you get into all of the elaborate settings, and the whys and wherefores. Then, someone asks you to post a photo - one you consider great - and you do - and then find, to your dismay, the camera chose to use a ridiculously high ISO on a bright sunny day. Now, here's the thing - there's NO NOISE evident. So, exactly what does the camera know - you don't? … Do you know what I mean? … Maybe, the electronics of your new toy - are sophisticated enough - to impose a high ISO without YOU trying to rein it in, and to do so - well. So, what are we missing here, in this puzzle? Do we artificially try to put a hold on the camera's CPU / electronics - when - in fact - the engineers who designed these computer-aided photo-taking instruments - know better?
Here's the scenario - you take delivery of a new D... (show quote)


Easy solution, do not use auto ISO! And if, you always set a limit!

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 13:58:26   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Tony Northrop makes the case in this video that ISO is meaningless for digital cameras.

"ISO is totally FAKE. Seriously."

https://youtu.be/QVuI89YWAsw


Now that sounds like a joke, right, everybody shooting, even just for a couple of days know that's just BS!

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 13:59:12   #
rcarol
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Tony Northrop makes the case in this video that ISO is meaningless for digital cameras.

"ISO is totally FAKE. Seriously."

https://youtu.be/QVuI89YWAsw


Do you believe everything Tony Northrup says? Many respected people have disputed his view on ISO.

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2019 14:02:11   #
jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Tony Northrop makes the case in this video that ISO is meaningless for digital cameras.

"ISO is totally FAKE. Seriously."

https://youtu.be/QVuI89YWAsw


His comments applied only to certain cameras and the F Stoppers pretty much de-bunked this recently. You can find their video on You Tube.

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:02:33   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Tony Northrop makes the case in this video that ISO is meaningless for digital cameras.

"ISO is totally FAKE. Seriously."

https://youtu.be/QVuI89YWAsw


Yes, I think he's right, Mike …

ISO in digital cameras - is probably best left to the camera - to make the right decision - for the scene!

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:06:17   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
rcarol wrote:
Do you believe everything Tony Northrup says? Many respected people have disputed his view on ISO.


That contributes nothing to the discussion of any value.

No, I don't "believe" anything Northrop says. In this case, I find his argument persuasive, and I find the arguments of the "respected people" who have disputed his view on this unpersuasive.

I think there is no question whatsoever that the camera manufacturers are lying about ISO for sales and marketing reasons. There are lot "respected people" who are promoters of the interests of the manufacturers.

What possible harm to any photographers could questioning the manufactures claims on ISO do? Why is there always such vehement opposition expressed whenever the marketing hype from the camera manufacturers is challenged?

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:06:24   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
speters wrote:
Easy solution, do not use auto ISO! And if, you always set a limit!


They all have limits, now, S … most are at 3200 but some are lower, one or two at 6400 …

But, back then - I had no idea what I was doing, so I just went out and shot, all I could - w/o regard for noise acquisition … but, what surprises me now - is none of those pics suffered, for my ignorance!

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2019 14:07:49   #
jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska
 
Chris T wrote:
Here's the scenario - you take delivery of a new DSLR, and not wanting to have to fiddle about with settings - you decide to set it on AUTO ISO and just go out and shoot, to get a feel for your new toy, before you get into all of the elaborate settings, and the whys and wherefores. Then, someone asks you to post a photo - one you consider great - and you do - and then find, to your dismay, the camera chose to use a ridiculously high ISO on a bright sunny day. Now, here's the thing - there's NO NOISE evident. So, exactly what does the camera know - you don't? … Do you know what I mean? … Maybe, the electronics of your new toy - are sophisticated enough - to impose a high ISO without YOU trying to rein it in, and to do so - well. So, what are we missing here, in this puzzle? Do we artificially try to put a hold on the camera's CPU / electronics - when - in fact - the engineers who designed these computer-aided photo-taking instruments - know better?
Here's the scenario - you take delivery of a new D... (show quote)


I am far more concerned about shutter speed and f stop when shooting hand held than I am about ISO. Especially when I am shooting motorcycle events I typically set the shutter to 1/1000 and the f stop at about 5.6 or 8, auto ISO, and I am virtually guaranteed good useable images. I am lucky enough to have a camera that handles high ISO's just fine. When shooting on a tripod, I usually like to set all three manually based on the histogram.

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:08:31   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
speters wrote:
Now that sounds like a joke, right, everybody shooting, even just for a couple of days know that's just BS!


You didn't consider the argument before you dismissed it. "Everybody knows" - that is a warning flag, no?

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:10:42   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
That contributes nothing to the discussion of any value.

No, I don't "believe" anything Northrop says. In this case, I find his argument persuasive, and I find the arguments of the "respected people" who have disputed his view on this unpersuasive.

I think there is no question whatsoever that the camera manufacturers are lying about ISO for sales and marketing reasons. There are lot "respected people" who are promoters of the interests of the manufacturers.

What possible harm to any photographers could questioning the manufactures claims on ISO do? Why is there always such vehement opposition expressed whenever the marketing hype from the camera manufacturers is challenged?
That contributes nothing to the discussion of any ... (show quote)


Mike - you've taken this discussion on another tangent. This is meant to be a discussion on whether camera manufacturers know better than photographers, when to impose artificially high ISOs. It has nothing to do with absurdly-high ISOs quoted by advertisers, in order to sell cameras ….

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:13:23   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
jackm1943 wrote:
I am far more concerned about shutter speed and f stop when shooting hand held than I am about ISO. Especially when I am shooting motorcycle events I typically set the shutter to 1/1000 and the f stop at about 5.6 or 8, auto ISO, and I am virtually guaranteed good useable images. I am lucky enough to have a camera that handles high ISO's just fine. When shooting on a tripod, I usually like to set all three manually based on the histogram.


That's ONE way of handling it, Jack … and if that works for you … all power to you!!!

Reply
Page 1 of 12 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.