ISO is fake? (Page 6): The topic that Tony Northrup is talking about is called ISO invariance. If a camera is truly ISO invariant, assume you take a picture under relatively dark...

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

The topic that Tony Northrup is talking about is called ISO invariance. If a camera is truly ISO invariant, assume you take a picture under relatively dark conditions with ISO set to, say, 4000. Then, under the same conditions and same f/stop and shutter speed, you shot the same photo at ISO 100. The second photo would be severely underexposed. But, if the camera is truly ISO invariant, you could take it into a post-processing program and bump up the exposure, and you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the ISO 4000 photo, including noise level.

Here is a link to a more well-thought out discussion of this topic: https://improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/.

The author, Jim Harmer, concludes after tests that some cameras are in fact ISO invariant, some are partially invariant, and some are not ISO invariant. He even lists the camera he's tested that fall into those 3 categories.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

You will have heard the expression - a little bit of knowledge is dangerous....

This thread is a great example of it.

As far as most people are aware ISO works, in a fashion, with a variable degree of success. How you use it must be more important than how it is done.

Most cameras have an ISO button or choice ERGO it is not fake.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

G Brown wrote:

You will have heard the expression - a little bit of knowledge is dangerous....

This thread is a great example of it.

As far as most people are aware ISO works, in a fashion, with a variable degree of success. How you use it must be more important than how it is done.

Most cameras have an ISO button or choice ERGO it is not fake.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

G Brown wrote:

You will have heard the expression - a little bit of knowledge is dangerous....

This thread is a great example of it.

As far as most people are aware ISO works, in a fashion, with a variable degree of success. How you use it must be more important than how it is done.

Most cameras have an ISO button or choice ERGO it is not fake.

The issue is that we are taught to expect that, for a given situation, taking a photo at a low ISO will produce less noise than one taken at a high ISO. Per the article I cited, for some cameras, that is not the case.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bill_de wrote:

So you're not a fan?

You know we have our own TN right here at UHH. He starts threads on topics he knows little or nothing about, yet has a sizeable audience. Some are even fooled by his nonsense.

---

Yeah, but ours just does troll posts. TN actually poses as an expert on everything photographic. But various takedowns and calling his BS for what it is doesn't seem to deter him. He just doubles down and carries on. His and our's main appeal is to the newbies and folks that are easily taken in by a con.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Gene51 wrote:

Yeah, but ours just does troll posts. TN actually poses as an expert on everything photographic. But various takedowns and calling his BS for what it is doesn't seem to deter him. He just doubles down and carries on. His and our's main appeal is to the newbies and folks that are easily taken in by a con.

If no one knows better, they will believe an authoritative person,
which is a problem not only associated with photography.

bleirer

While there have been 6 pages of disparaging remarks, no one really has explained why he is wrong. I've always assumed that ISO is partially electronic, as in boosting a signal with a current, and partly software, as in interpreting the sensor response differently. I don't know why I think this, I just think it is true.

Another thing I believe I know but may not, is that noise has many sources, not just ISO. I've heard about temperature, small sensor sites, long exposure time, and witchcraft.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

AndyH wrote:

The video is well done and the premise is basically correct - the ISO setting on your camera really controls amplification of it to produce images. And, surprise! - makers fool with the ratings all the time for marketing reasons.

I’m not a big Northrop fan, but this video has a lot of truthiness.

Andy

The video does have much truth. And some opinion. As does all of his stuff.

I have no interest in personal attacks by people that don’t put in the hard work Tony and his wife do and share for free. I get a particularly greasy feeling about those who haven’t even watched the video.

If there are specific statements he makes you don’t agree with, give your basis for your assertions.

The one statement above about ISO invariance is the only worthwhile post here.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bleirer wrote:

While there have been 6 pages of disparaging remar... (show quote)

Unless one of us KNOWS the physics of how the sensors work, we are all speculating......

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

IDguy wrote:

The video does have much truth. And some opinion. As does all of his stuff.

I have no interest in personal attacks by people that don’t put in the hard work Tony and his wife do and share for free. I get a particularly greasy feeling about those who haven’t even watched the video.

If there are specific statements he makes you don’t agree with, give your basis for your assertions.

The one statement above about ISO invariance is the only worthwhile post here.

Personally, I think most of his popularity comes from posting controversial stuff without regard to its essential truth.

On this topic, though, there are two essential truths:

1) Setting camera ISO is basically setting digital amplification.

2) Some cameras produce less, some more, via this in-camera process than is produced in post processing software.

Although most folks seem to miss this point, the way he “sells” it is a little too clickbaity for my liking.

Andy

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

larryepage wrote:

This was of interest to me. I tried to figure out why. The best I could ever do was that defining things so that objects appear as rotating and revolving counter clockwise when viewed from above...sort of a "right hand rule." Look at the way the fingers of your right hand curl when you look at it from above.

Kind of like the " Right hand thumb rule " when using a router or the 10 finger stop method for ND time conversions.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

My opinion is that if Tony, or his lovely wife, told me what time it was, I'd hope I had an accurate watch to check for myself. They seem to be a bit full of themselves.
--Bob

BebuLamar wrote:

Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy ... (show quote)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Excellent assessment and summary, Gene.
--Bob

Gene51 wrote:

Yeah, but ours just does troll posts. TN actually poses as an expert on everything photographic. But various takedowns and calling his BS for what it is doesn't seem to deter him. He just doubles down and carries on. His and our's main appeal is to the newbies and folks that are easily taken in by a con.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

North is pointed to by the south end of the magnet in a compass needle. Or, at least we assume it's the south end of the needle. Perhaps, it is the north end of the needle and thus the north pole of the earth is really the south pole of the magnetic field surrounding our globe. I think I'll quit now before I totally confuse myself, if not a great many others.
--Bob

CHG_CANON wrote:

Why is north the top of the world and not the bottom?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

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.

DXOMark compares them to the standard and just about all of them are different than as marked.

I think TN is head and shoulders above any of the photography influencers on the internet or YouTube. One can only relate to what they know and understand.