Why bother changing base ISO?

Started Jul 18, 2007 | Discussions thread
rspino Contributing Member • Posts: 729
Re: To the Left to the Right

from my understanding of what julia borg said in the past, basically you are underexposing even if you cranck up the iso.

in other words, a f/5, 1/250, ISO400 shot and a F/5, 1/250, ISO 1600 one are the very same, exposure wise.

moreover, it would appear that using a lower iso, and correcting in post, be better in terms of dinamic range and color rendition.

the technical details are not quite clear to me, but from what i grasped apparently each camera has its now base iso, and changing it will only result in signal amplification, whereas the raw data will remain the same.

in other words, exposure is always given by the combination of aperture, shutter speed and base iso.

there was a lot of controversy on this, and i recall many tested this.

i came to the conclusion that julia is more than probably right. however, the advantages are probably too limited for a hobbyst like myself to justify caring too much.

oh, by the way: the white balance setting is of great importance just as well!

-- hide signature --

Roberto (equipment in my profile)
http://spino.smugmug.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
3LX
tko
tko
RAL
RAL
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow