Why still offer ISO 100 or even ISO 64 on digital cameras?
Dec 23, 2022 13:27:12 #
OldSchool-WI wrote:
Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------
Meh... again?
It's a quality troika or perhaps triumvirate or maybe the stool has 3 legs - whatever works for you.
Shutter speed, sensor speed, depth of field (shutter,f-stop,ISO). I use auto-ISO but I watch it while I'm working and I keep speed and aperture on manual (thumb and finger) and I make those choices while watching the ISO. The image you get is a result of those choices. The lower ISO number is just a function of the sensor's optimal performance... just a number. Auto-ISO means that I'll usually get an image even if I forget to watch it.
Dec 23, 2022 13:27:39 #
Eleazar wrote:
Never knew about the film kodak had I increased the iso on my film camera.but photos when developed were for the bin
As previously noted by a member, in the Film days, ISO was ASA in film type. So in my experience with film, ASA above 400 started to get grainy. I shot ASA 800 in indoor concerts because I was doing hand held in a low light setting. So I did get some good shots but the grain was obvious. I used ASA 100 unless otherwise. This seems to be a confusing topic for some and I cannot relate to much since I do not have a NEW MODERN camera.
I have found if I cannot get what I want in image quality from I have now, buying into a newer and very expensive camera will not improve my skill, understanding and results.
My dimes worth opinion today.
Bruce.
Dec 23, 2022 13:35:37 #
I used to shoot Tri-X at 6400 using Diafine and chromium enhancement. I got images that were ok for the newspaper's 64 line screen and a few worthy of 8x10's.
I miss that some days but I usually sober up and when the hangover is gone I still love my D850.
I miss that some days but I usually sober up and when the hangover is gone I still love my D850.
Dec 23, 2022 13:58:51 #
Dec 23, 2022 13:59:28 #
Dec 23, 2022 14:06:46 #
Dec 23, 2022 14:28:10 #
Generally, modern digital cameras have a native ISO of 100. This is the best quality setting for the best dynamic range and the least noise. Higher ISO settings are valuable for low light and action photos. Lower ISO settings (eg ISO 64) are valuable to reduce depth of field in order to isolate a subject. Choosing ISO settings is always part of the tradeoff, the choices that we make in our photographic art.
Dec 23, 2022 15:27:03 #
OldSchool-WI wrote:
Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself.
No, your question does not answer itself. The reason for that is that you are using the terms "highest quality" and "top quality" too loosely and not defined. 'Highest quality' does not necessarily equate to 'top quality'. Most photographers know that 'better quality' is achieved by using lower ISOs.
OldSchool-WI wrote:
..And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------
Unsure why anyone would consider "comparisons" a "myth" unless they are making the obvious mistake of comparing a manipulated (de noised) image from one camera with an unmanipulated image from a different camera at the same settings.
Interesting to see again your use of the term "algorithmic" along with synthetic, and as usual you use them to emphasize negativity. Algorithms, (a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer) can be extremely useful. Yesterday in another thread you posted your iconic roofer pic (again) and made the comment "No halo on the full sized JPEGs", in reference to 'purple content in the hair'. So here's an example of the good guy algorithms, you of course will not like their opinion but the technically minded will understand them.
A lesson for you, if you continue with your arrogance and rudeness and unsupported accusations in other threads this subject will continue to jump right back at you.
Your original that you say has no purple fringing (or similar term) in the hair that others can see
(Download)
Your original with 'Colour Samplers' placed
(Download)
Your original enlarged to assist in recognising the 'purple'. Note the RGB values have not changed.
(Download)
Dec 23, 2022 15:56:35 #
billnikon wrote:
I wish they had 25, the lower the iso, the better the image. PERIOR. END OF STORY. BOOK UM DANO.
Maybe just maybe you might be The One. The one other person who would actually love shooting a Foveon. Not really joking. Foveon has an absurdly narrow purpose, but it has one, and you just may be it !
Dec 23, 2022 16:14:02 #
cjc2 wrote:
Sounds like you need to do some comparisons. View the file at 100% or 200%. You'll figure it out. Best of luck.
Comparisons are for geeks and wanabes.
Some of my good friends are geeks, but I never take advice from them.
Judge all results, each result, on its merit and avoid comparing it to other results. If it looks great, it *is* great ... whether at three digit or five digit ISO.
Dynamic range is just a minor variable amongst many others that comprise an image. Likewise with so-called noise. It is what it is. Real photographers pay verrrry little attention to such nonsense.
Dec 23, 2022 16:14:21 #
BurghByrd wrote:
There is a definite demand for them.
Dec 23, 2022 16:18:46 #
RodeoMan
Loc: St Joseph, Missouri
selmslie wrote:
If he had any sense he would crawl back under his rock.
If I were new to this site and saw your snotty cruel reply, I'd not come back. I also find his persistent and illogical promotion of all things Foveon annoying, but I can ignore that. You did not answer any of his points, as wrongheaed as you may find them, but leveled a personal attack against Mr Brandon. Your response says much more about you as a person as anything he has posted thus far says about him. While I here, I want to extend Christmas wishes to you and yours. And a Happy New Year.
Dec 23, 2022 16:21:07 #
davidrb wrote:
Whatever they are, Im sure Amazon will have huge holiday season deals on them.There is a definite demand for them.
Dec 23, 2022 17:54:31 #
RodeoMan wrote:
If I were new to this site and saw your snotty cruel reply, I'd not come back.
I have been kinder to him than many others here.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-758259-12.html#13591726
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-760493-15.html#13631988
I even defended him to some degree by pointing out the two cases where his Foveon cameras might have actually worked as desired. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-759849-13.html#13619494
Nevertheless, in his persistent defense of the really crummy roofer image, he has posted a litany of insults to all of us who have tried to help him. He has behaved like a troll on his own thread and on threads started by others.
His lack of maturity and refusal to learn led him to disappear from the forum for four months (or was he quietly suspended?).
If my remark leads him to stop replying to anyone on his own thread or on others where he has been trolling then so be it.
Dec 23, 2022 18:25:51 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.