Auto ISO (Page 19): I would like to comment on the concept of THE correct exposure. I don't believe there is ONE exposure (no matter how we define it or whether we include ISO or not)...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I would like to comment on the concept of THE correct exposure.

I don't believe there is ONE exposure (no matter how we define it or whether we include ISO or not) that is the correct one. Exposure (as realized in the final image) is subject to creativity and the 'mood' of an image can depend on how we approach it. There is sometimes value in 'under-' or 'over-exposed' images.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

jcboy3 wrote:

You can't help from making insulting comments, can you?

Don't start shit and it won't come back to you.

jcboy3

You are really digging a hole there, aren't you?

epd1947

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Not at all. Reread all your post. You're a clown. I posted a simple question and huggers gave some great examples and your post are not on topic, rude. And just a waste of time. Please go away with your troll friends. I want to discuss the topic.

Sometimes the best thing to do with rude trolls is just to ignore them (a lesson I need to take to heart as well) - they thrive on getting attention, and responses to their (often irrelevant) drivel, and that attention just energizes them to double down on their drivel to keep their “high” going.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

DirtFarmer wrote:

....I don't believe there is ONE exposure (no matter how we define it or whether we include ISO or not) that is the correct one....

Once we've made a specific choice concerning exposure we can't just carry on saying "anything goes" or "it's all a matter of taste" or whatever because once we have a specific intention in mind our choices can be gauged on whether or not they bring us closer to achieving that objective. Choices can be good or bad, right or wrong depending on the extent to which they serve our purposes.

jcboy3

epd1947 wrote:

Sometimes the best thing to do with rude trolls is just to ignore them (a lesson I need to take to heart as well) - they thrive on getting attention, and responses to their (often irrelevant) drivel, and that attention just energizes them to double down on their drivel to keep their “high” going.

And that is a perfect example of a rude troll post. Or maybe just a rude post. You clearly want attention.

jcboy3

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Not at all. Reread all your post. You're a clown. I posted a simple question and huggers gave some great examples and your post are not on topic, rude. And just a waste of time. Please go away with your troll friends. I want to discuss the topic.

No, you don't want to discuss the topic. You want to call me names.

Go ahead. We will fill this thread up with your insults.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

R.G. wrote:

Once we've made a specific choice concerning exposure we can't just carry on saying "anything goes" or "it's all a matter of taste" or whatever because once we have a specific intention in mind our choices can be gauged on whether or not they bring us closer to achieving that objective. Choices can be good or bad, right or wrong depending on the extent to which they serve our purposes.

Lucky for us with new cameras and much better sensors you have more latitude with the F stops or shutter speed. If you have a situation that needs one over the other you can adjust accordingly. Let's face it between
ISO 100 to 800 you have 4 stops.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

....between ISO 100 to 800 you have 4 stops.

Some cameras can go as high as ISO 3200 before the noise is detectable by the human eye. Above that we get noise that's correctable in post processing just using basic PP tools, and on top of that there's what's correctable using AI-assisted PP. Yep, lots of latitude.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Lucky for us with new cameras and much better sensors you have more latitude with the F stops or shutter speed. If you have a situation that needs one over the other you can adjust accordingly. Let's face it between
ISO 100 to 800 you have 4 stops.

BETWEEN 100 and 800 there are 3 stops.

100-200: 1 stop
200-400: 1 stop
400-800: 1 stop

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

jcboy3 wrote:

No, you don't want to discuss the topic. You want to call me names.

Go ahead. We will fill this thread up with your insults.

Have you reread your post. The WORSE trolling ever.
I posted a good question and people helped me with things I like to photograph. It's a shame people like you ruin threads for no reason except for your self amusement.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

DirtFarmer wrote:

BETWEEN 100 and 800 there are 3 stops.

100-200: 1 stop
200-400: 1 stop
400-800: 1 stop

I was waiting for someone to say this and the way I counted and maybe should have left the word between out. For this thead I'm the OP I COUNTED Stops
100
200
400
800
4 stops we can use.
This required a lot of going back and forth in my head and I know someone would have said 3 stops between.
Between wasn't the best word but 4 stops usable I should have said. For this thread it didn't matter.
Of all the Hoggers that I thought would nit pick you were on the short list for sure. Posting a negative comment that didn't have any redeeming info to add to the tread is typical of your UHH history.
So what purpose was your post? You CAN use 4 different ISO values. Should we discuss if they are really values now?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I agree that 100 THROUGH 800 is four stops. Just playing with semantics.

As far as the value of this thread is concerned it degenerated into specious off-topic argument and name calling many pages ago. The valuable posts are few and far between.

Another user has suggested that we push the thread to 20 pages. We're getting close.

jcboy3

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Have you reread your post. The WORSE trolling ever.
I posted a good question and people helped me with things I like to photograph. It's a shame people like you ruin threads for no reason except for your self amusement.

Its a shame you can't realize that my posts were actually pertinent to the subject. You can't understand Auto ISO in a vacuum, and I did address Auto ISO specifically.

You can keep right on with the profanity and insults.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

R.G. wrote:

Some cameras can go as high as ISO 3200 before the noise is detectable by the human eye. Above that we get noise that's correctable in post processing just using basic PP tools, and on top of that there's what's correctable using AI-assisted PP. Yep, lots of latitude.

I called Canon and asked them. They told me 800 is safe for my camera. I can try a test at higher ISO BUT I have other hobbies that require my time.