ISO is fake?
Apr 27, 2019 20:30:51 #
You might ask for a refund from that course. 
Most Nikon cameras (good ones) have a base ISO of 100. Some like my D810 have a base ISO of 64. I note best overall results will be obtained if shooting RAW rather than jpeg.
Most Nikon cameras (good ones) have a base ISO of 100. Some like my D810 have a base ISO of 64. I note best overall results will be obtained if shooting RAW rather than jpeg.
Apr 27, 2019 21:35:51 #
BebuLamar wrote:
You should watch the video because he claimed that several of his cameras deliver different exposure when set at the same ISO.
I've done that too with similar results. But that doesn't mean ISO is fake - it means that ISO is not as standard as it should be.
Apr 27, 2019 21:50:59 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy ... (show quote)
How cares what Tony thinks...not I.Apr 27, 2019 21:57:55 #
n3eg wrote:
I've done that too with similar results. But that doesn't mean ISO is fake - it means that ISO is not as standard as it should be.
I agree with you!
Apr 27, 2019 22:43:59 #
rb61
Loc: Maple Grove, MN
BebuLamar wrote:
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy ... (show quote)
My take on the subject.
I think what tony is saying is that you could expose all your images at the same low ISO and adjust them in post. Which indicates that the sensor captures the same amount of light no matter the ISO. If you change ISO, the camera's electronics amplify the signal accordingly.
My question: which method of "amplification" is the cleanest/most accurate- camera electronics or post processing?
I doubt that post processing software was designed to take an ISO 200 signal and amplify it to 1600. Camera electronics were designed to amplify the signal. Post software is designed to process raw images and make adjustments to the image that comes out of the camera.
Apr 27, 2019 23:06:02 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Why is north the top of the world and not the bottom?
The top of the world varies, depending on where in the universe you're looking at Earth.😁
Apr 27, 2019 23:59:19 #
rb61 wrote:
My take on the subject. br br I think what tony ... (show quote)
That is the second part which I don't want to discuss here as that subject actually has been discussed to death and it's called ISO invariance.
I want to question his very first part of his video where he said ISO is fake because he shot several cameras with the same scene and lighting and the same settings and the brightness of the photos are different and he said that because camera manufacturer just assign ISO rating arbitrarily and thus ISO is fake.
Apr 28, 2019 05:02:44 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy ... (show quote)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sshGdMgJxQ
Apr 28, 2019 07:01:12 #
BebuLamar wrote:
You should watch the video because he claimed that several of his cameras deliver different exposure when set at the same ISO. But he compare them to each other and not against the established standard.
Now I understand why so many of my photos get screwed up!!
Apr 28, 2019 07:28:07 #
Robert1 wrote:
The top of the world varies, depending on where in the universe you're looking at Earth.😁
I think where Paul was going was " Naming Conventions ". What we call North could easily have been East or West or Mashed Potatoes.... Agreed upon schemes that everyone is on board with the meaning.
Apr 28, 2019 08:01:06 #
Getting back to Bebu's original question my take is that although ISO was created to deal with film sensitivities it is still relative in the digital age if nothing more than to ensure continuity in the exposure triangle relationship. Sure Gain or Sensitivity might be better terms but the scheme works for us photographers mathematically so why change. So, ISO is not dead really, but Tony made a lot of good points on different sensors and different sensitivities relating to base ISO. Some of his comments kind of missed the mark on the subject of noise and gain before the ADC as opposed to noise after being converted and then having gain increased. Good discussions.... know your camera and its sensor capabilities.
Apr 28, 2019 08:10:50 #
MrBob wrote:
I think where Paul was going was " Naming Conventions ". What we call North could easily have been East or West or Mashed Potatoes.... Agreed upon schemes that everyone is on board with the meaning.
I've always looked at ASA/ISO as light sensitivity scale ranging from a little to a lot: 25; 64; 100; 200, 400;... Nothing magical, just a relative sensitivity scale.
Apr 28, 2019 08:18:31 #
Quoting BebuLamar:
"You should watch the video because he claimed that several of his cameras deliver different exposure when set at the same ISO."
Under what controlled conditions did he shoot?
Shooting on a cloudy windy day will change the amount of incident light often, which the meter may notice, but not the photographer.
"You should watch the video because he claimed that several of his cameras deliver different exposure when set at the same ISO."
Under what controlled conditions did he shoot?
Shooting on a cloudy windy day will change the amount of incident light often, which the meter may notice, but not the photographer.
Apr 28, 2019 08:30:19 #
MrBob wrote:
I think where Paul was going was " Naming Conventions ". What we call North could easily have been East or West or Mashed Potatoes.... Agreed upon schemes that everyone is on board with the meaning.
I agreed. Mine was just a little joke.
Regardless of whatever the exact scientific truth for ISO is (if actually there is just one); I think of it the same as I did with the ISO/ASA during the film days: just a common convenient convention to denote light sensitivity on your camera sensor.
Apr 28, 2019 09:46:54 #
Longshadow wrote:
Quoting BebuLamar:
"You should watch the video because he claimed that several of his cameras deliver different exposure when set at the same ISO."
Under what controlled conditions did he shoot?
Shooting on a cloudy windy day will change the amount of incident light often, which the meter may notice, but not the photographer.
"You should watch the video because he claimed that several of his cameras deliver different exposure when set at the same ISO."
Under what controlled conditions did he shoot?
Shooting on a cloudy windy day will change the amount of incident light often, which the meter may notice, but not the photographer.
He shot indoor under artificial light. He didn't say how he metered but he set all cameras on manual at the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The results are different but I actually observed the same thing on various cameras yet I still believe all the cameras meet the ISO standard. I talked like camera manufacturers rate their sensors any way they want without regard to ISO standard.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.