Whats up with ISO buttons?

bobn2 · Jul 6, 2011

JulesJ said:
I 100% disagree.

I had rather got that impression

JulesJ said:
It has absolutely nothing to do with being buried in the film age, it has to do with knowing about photography and how to use your camera to it's best effect.

I 100% disagree. If you knew how to use a digital camera to its best effect, you would know that output image brightness has no direct link with exposure, and you can achieve any output image brightness you like with any exposure. The question is, the quality of that image at that brightness.

JulesJ said:
If you think that ISO is the first, and best method to change output image brightness I will categorically state that you are wrong.

You will categorically state wrongly, then.

JulesJ said:
Anyone else (who is an experienced and long time photographer and hence camera user) have a view on this?

Guessing in advance, I have a theory that you're going to discount anyone who agrees with me as not being a 'long time photographer and hence camera user'. FWIW, I am an experienced and long time photographer and hence camera user.

--
Bob

bobn2 · Jul 6, 2011

Graystar said:
Then use a tripod (nt)

No good, you should see those glow-worms move when they get a wiggle on.
--
Bob

Graystar · Jul 6, 2011

I can't account for every single situation and location in the world. But obviously, tripods and flash units are very useful in many situations or they wouldn't be as common as they are.

As for the glowworm cave...I would probably just turn my camera off and enjoy the show.

.

jrtrent · Jul 6, 2011

My gateway to post-processing (that is, starting with raw files and not just minor corrections to jpegs) was a Sigma SD14. Their Photo-Pro software was very quick and easy to use. I was able to set up and store several different automated processing combinations that I found worked well with different types of lighting or for making black and white conversions. But easy as it was to do, and as much as I liked the flexibility and resulting image quality, I came to just dread dealing with it, especially since I also had ongoing sensor debris issues despite Sigma's kindness in providing free cleanings for me. I found myself reaching for the old floppy disk Mavica and leaving the SD14 at home simply because I knew I could get acceptable pictures without the hassle of post-processing and cloning out spots.

With regard to $1 vs. $30 prints, I just never had an interest in prints at all. I greatly preferred projected slides, as did most of my circle of friends. For example, when the others in the group that went on an overnight outing at Mt. Rainier wanted copies of the pictures I had taken, they didn't want prints, they wanted duplicate slides. Similarly, I find pictures viewed on a monitor much more compelling than anything I've seen printed on paper. I'm also still rooted in a slide-film mentality in lacking apprecation for the single image mounted on a wall; how can that compare with a series of 20 to 36 large, beautifully-lit photos in a slide show?

Your comment about programs like Active D lighting are well taken. I really enjoyed auto tone correction in Olympus Studio 1.2 that I got along with an E-300 camera. Their newer cameras employ this in-camera now as shadow adjustment technology when setting gradation to auto. I've also purchased cameras just to try out things like Fuji's DR mode and Panasonic's intelligent exposure. I've been thinking about picking up either a Sony or Pentax model that offers various levels of shadow lift to play with as an in-camera setting.

If it get back into post-processing, I'm thinking along the lines of a Sigma DP2x, probably mounting an optional viewfinder with a 50mm equivalent field of view for rough framing and actually cropping my pictures later for the final composition (something I've never done, of course, as a slide-film shooter working with SLR's). I really do like the images I was able to make with the Foveon-equipped SD14; I might have kept at it had it not been for the added frustration of sensor debris, which I'm hoping the DP2x won't suffer from.

JulesJ · Jul 6, 2011

JasonED said:
JulesJ said:

Any one who wants the best quality image from their camera will shoot at native ISO. You can change ISO for many reasons (and should) but altering it from this is at a cost and will give you a worse quality image. If you don't like noise that is.
Jules

Click to expand...

Yes, and when the base ISO with your maximum preferred exposure settings (aperture and shutter time) result in an image that is too dark - what do you do??

Watch my lips and read what i say.... You can change ISO for many reasons (and should)

JasonED said:
--
The sky is blue and there is nothing we can do..

--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography

bobn2 · Jul 6, 2011

SLove said:
bobn2 said:

do you really know how these work? Mechanically the gearboxes on top rally cars and F1 cars are exactly the same as fully auto dual clutch transmissions, the only thing that stops them being fully auto is the software, and it does that because fully auto gearboxes are banned like other driver aids, launch control, traction control and so on.

Click to expand...

Those are now banned, but some of them were allowed in the past. Have auto gearboxes always been banned or is there some other reason they have not been tried in professional racing?

I don't know about 'always' or all formulae, but from http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5280.html

Despite such high levels of technology, fully automatic transmission systems, and gearbox-related wizardry such as launch control, are illegal - a measure designed to keep costs down and place more emphasis on driver skill.

Somehow, I don't think they would have been banned if they didn't offer a performance advantage.

SLove said:
SLove said:

What you mean is you get more fun if you feel you are in control. You need to try a test with the gearbox in fully auto and semi-auto and see which you get better lap times with. It will be fully auto, because your attention is freed up for other aspects of car control, which is one reason why its banned.

Click to expand...

That is almost certainly true with most amateur drivers, but if we talk about professionals such as F1 drivers, I think additional evidence would be needed.

Evidence which is hard to come by, since auto transmissions are banned. Personally, I think there is an issue of cognitive loading, the number of simultaneous things that we can do. I think F1 drivers pretty much program in their gear changes during practice. It would be pretty simple to design a system which learned their chosen changes and replicated them lap for lap, which would let the driver do something else. I really think that would allow a speed advantage, which is why it is banned.

--
Bob

CriticalI · Jul 6, 2011

bobn2 said:
CriticalI said:

Great, but missing one crucial point. Auto ISO will raise ISO based on the cameras metered assessment of the scene, which may well mean it will allow highlights to blow out. In other words, I am no longer manually in control of exposure which completely contradicts your theory.

Click to expand...

You are as manually in control of exposure as you ever are when you don't have control of the light. However, I guess that you don't mean exactly what you said, I'd guess what you meant is that you are no longer in control of output image tonality. Of course, if you're shooting raw, you still have control of that. What you don't have absolute control of is whether you blow the highlights or not. That doesn't contradict my theory any more than it contradicts anyone else's theory, it just says that exposure meters don't cover all the bases, and they don't. My geuss is, if you're really concerned about the highlights, you'd dial in a little EC to keep the ISO a bit lower than you would want to for optimum noise.

Auto ISO is based on the cameras assessment of metered exposure, which means it is effectively automatic exposure. Why one earth would "a little EC" be preferable to the system I already use which is quite straight forward? Metered exposure can vary up to 5 or 6 stops depending on what is in the frame.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

When I am shooting a gig, I am most concerned with getting the correct exposure on the performers, not the rest of the scene. As the performers move about on a lit stage the overall metered exposure of the scene can change wildly but the correct exposure for the performer will stay much more (though not completely) constant. This small error I can correct for in a RAW shot. I cannot correct for a performers face that is completely blown out in one shot and 6EV underexposed relative to one of the stage lights in the next one.

Click to expand...

You ware right, the advice not to blow the highlights needs to be tempered with an understanding that there are occasionally situations where you want to blow the highlights (like if you had the sun in shot). As ever, a little expertise as to the use of the meter is required once you get past a certain point, and looking at the blinkies occasionally is a useful exercise.

Quite honestly, you are just trying to impose your viewpoint here. There is nothing wrong with the way I work, you are just trying to find an alternative which I never asked for.

I do know how to use a camera, I have been doing so for 35 years. I suspect half the time you are talking purely hypothetically and have never actually tried applying the methods you propose to what I am doing.

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

--
Regards,
Steve

bobn2 · Jul 6, 2011

CriticalI said:
CriticalI said:

CriticalI said:

Great, but missing one crucial point. Auto ISO will raise ISO based on the cameras metered assessment of the scene, which may well mean it will allow highlights to blow out. In other words, I am no longer manually in control of exposure which completely contradicts your theory.

Click to expand...

You are as manually in control of exposure as you ever are when you don't have control of the light. However, I guess that you don't mean exactly what you said, I'd guess what you meant is that you are no longer in control of output image tonality. Of course, if you're shooting raw, you still have control of that. What you don't have absolute control of is whether you blow the highlights or not. That doesn't contradict my theory any more than it contradicts anyone else's theory, it just says that exposure meters don't cover all the bases, and they don't. My geuss is, if you're really concerned about the highlights, you'd dial in a little EC to keep the ISO a bit lower than you would want to for optimum noise.

Click to expand...

Auto ISO is based on the cameras assessment of metered exposure,

Yes, it estimates exposure and uses that to set the output scene brightness.

CriticalI said:
which means it is effectively automatic exposure.

Not at all, since it never changes the exposure. As I thought, you are unclear about the difference between output brightness and exposure.

CriticalI said:
Why one earth would "a little EC" be preferable to the system I already use which is quite straight forward? Metered exposure can vary up to 5 or 6 stops depending on what is in the frame.

The 'little EC' determines how much leeway you want to give the highlights, just in case4 the meter gets it wrong. It is a case of tailoring the auto function to your preferences.

CriticalI said:
Quite honestly, you are just trying to impose your viewpoint here.

And you are not?

CriticalI said:
There is nothing wrong with the way I work, you are just trying to find an alternative which I never asked for.

I haven't criticised the way you work. How you work is entirely up to you. I have just pointed out that the technique that you use will soemtimes lead to the use of a smaller exposure than necessary and thus more noise. If that is what you want, it is your prerogative. I entered the discussion generally to support what you said, point out that on some cameras ISO is redundant for raw workers and correct one factual error that you made (that ISO is a third exposure parameter). That factual error is important, because it involves a misunderstanding of what expsoure is, and it is a misunderstanding which causes much confusion. It's therefore worth sorting it out when it is raised, else these confusions gain currency (which this one, unfortunately, already has)

CriticalI said:
I do know how to use a camera, I have been doing so for 35 years.

Do it another 15 years and you will have been doing it as long as I have, except by then, I'll still have 15 years on you.

CriticalI said:
I suspect half the time you are talking purely hypothetically and have never actually tried applying the methods you propose to what I am doing.

Then your suspicions are wrong.

--
Bob

onlooker · Jul 6, 2011

bobn2 said:
OK, the point with 'ISOless' is to chose the settings of the aperture and shutter to give the maximum exposure that your pictorial constraints will stand. The constraints are generally:
For the aperture-

The DOF you want

sometimes you set the aperture to the 'optimum resolution' setting.

For the shutter speed -
The motion blur you can tolerate/want to use creatively in your picture.
For the overall exposure (scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed)

not saturating the sensor and thus blowing the highlights.

Subject to those things you always get least noise in the image by using the largest exposure you can stand. You never want to back away from that for the spurious purpose of finding a 'correct exposure'.

This simply sounds to me like "ETTR" - am I correct?

bobn2 said:
The main point is you set ISO after selecting your exposure parameters, if at all.

But those parameters are set keeping in mind the gain manipulation you perform later on must fit within the desired "ISO-less" range. So there are still ISO-bound constraints. correct?

bobn2 said:
So in the ISOless world you decide on the aperture you want (DOF or maximum resolution) and the shutter speed (motion blur). Then you meter. Now, if the meter is set to base ISO and shows the picture to be over exposed, you compromise either the DOF or shutter [...]

unless the meter shows the exposure to be so low that you feel the need to compromise some of your pictorial constraints, when you choose which of DOF or motion blur you're going to compromise, and dial in more exposure

So, it means that instead of a single point, say, ISO 200, in ISO-less world it is better expressed as ISO 200-1600 - a range, in other words.

bobn2 said:
As I said, with an ISOless camera, you leave it on base ISO, with an ISOful camera, you put the ISO as high as you can, keeping the same exposure and avoiding clipping the highlights.

Right. So, is there an easy way of determining from the graphs whether a given sensor is ISO-full or ISO-less? Simply by determining the range of flat read noise? That's the "ISO-less" range of the sensor?

noirdesir · Jul 6, 2011

bobn2 said:
JulesJ said:

If you think that ISO is the first, and best method to change output image brightness I will categorically state that you are wrong.

Click to expand...

If you knew how to use a digital camera to its best effect, you would know that output image brightness has no direct link with exposure, and you can achieve any output image brightness you like with any exposure. The question is, the quality of that image at that brightness.

Exposure determines which parts or your scene brightness range can be translated into an output brightness were you can have detail (including colour detail). But that is it, exposure is about having detail or having no detail (and naturally about the degree of detail as moderated by noise). And since no detail (or little detail) is somewhat acceptable in very dark tones, exposure can be interpretated as putting limits on the output brightness. But again, putting limits on what is 'possible' is far from determining or setting it.

bobn2 · Jul 6, 2011

noirdesir said:
bobn2 said:

JulesJ said:

If you think that ISO is the first, and best method to change output image brightness I will categorically state that you are wrong.

Click to expand...

If you knew how to use a digital camera to its best effect, you would know that output image brightness has no direct link with exposure, and you can achieve any output image brightness you like with any exposure. The question is, the quality of that image at that brightness.

Click to expand...

Exposure determines which parts or your scene brightness range can be translated into an output brightness were you can have detail (including colour detail). But that is it, exposure is about having detail or having no detail (and naturally about the degree of detail as moderated by noise). And since no detail (or little detail) is somewhat acceptable in very dark tones, exposure can be interpretated as putting limits on the output brightness. But again, putting limits on what is 'possible' is far from determining or setting it.

I wouldn't disagree with that, it rather restates what I said in more precise and detailed form. Indeed there is an indirect link, which is the reason one tries to maximise exposure, to give the best detail/tone combination.
--
Bob

jonikon · Jul 6, 2011

CriticalI said:
Nikon and Olympus, both camera companies with years of experience, seem to think I don't need direct access to ISO anymore.

WTF?

After shutter speed, aperture and EV comp, this is the setting I am most likely to need to change. How come on the new Oly, I can't even make it an option for F1 and F2 whereas on the D5100 I have to reprogram another button that I have to fumble around for on the front of the camera.

I agree that Nikon should have put a dedicated ISO button on all of their cameras including the entry level ones. Somewhat Ironically, Nikon not only put a dedicated ISO button on the D7000, but also incorporated "Easy ISO", which does not even use the ISO button. Instead there is direct access to all ISOs through the command wheel. I never liked fumbling for any button, so the Easy ISO is great for me as I can change ISO effortlessly with the camera to my eye and my finger on the sub-command wheel.

CriticalI said:
Instead I get stuff I hardly ever change like flash settings, or AF points. For that matter, who needs a mode dial anymore (how often does one actually change modes?).

But I change ISO all the time.

Why? If I found myself changing ISO "all the time" I would just use Auto-ISO and let the camera do it for me.

CriticalI said:
At least Pentax seem to understand that ISO is now simply a third exposure parameter. Why have Olympus and Nikon forgotten that?

Evidently, only on their sub-D7000 models, at least. No excuse though for not having a dedicated ISO button though.

CriticalI said:
If I had a choice now for a large sensor compact camera it would have to be a G3. Here we have a non-camera company that makes a better user interface than two old camera companies.

Maybe not having a camera legacy is a good thing when it comes to user interfaces. I liked the Sony a700's Quick Navi user interface best. The Quick Navi is the only interface that I would describe as intuitive, logical, and elegant, at the same time. Unfortunately Sony has dropped Quick Navi from all of their new cameras, for some strange reason known only to them.

CriticalI said:
And from what I can see of the new Oly's IQ, Panasonic have them there as well.

I don't agree as the dynamic tonal range and shadow recovery is nowhere near as good as those cameras with Sony's new 16MP sensor. Canon can't match the DR of the D7000 or D5100 either. Maybe some day, but they are not there yet.

Best regards,
Jon

JasonED · Jul 6, 2011

I was expecting the 'use a faster lens' response too....
--
The sky is blue and there is nothing we can do..

JasonED · Jul 6, 2011

Photato said:
Also, even if shooting Raw is har to check for focus, WB, etc if the image is way underexposed.

Its not ideal but you can easily review focus if you crank up the brightness on the LCD. Works well for me.

Photato said:
So the applications for shooting always at base ISO are limited, but is good to know for the rare ocasions you might need it as a part of your bag of tricks.

I do not think they are limited at all. In simple terms its every time the ISO would need to be raised to achieve a desired level of image brightness - even if its a fraction of a stop.

--
The sky is blue and there is nothing we can do..

bobn2 · Jul 6, 2011

onlooker said:
bobn2 said:

OK, the point with 'ISOless' is to chose the settings of the aperture and shutter to give the maximum exposure that your pictorial constraints will stand. The constraints are generally:
For the aperture-

The DOF you want

sometimes you set the aperture to the 'optimum resolution' setting.

For the shutter speed -
The motion blur you can tolerate/want to use creatively in your picture.
For the overall exposure (scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed)

not saturating the sensor and thus blowing the highlights.

Subject to those things you always get least noise in the image by using the largest exposure you can stand. You never want to back away from that for the spurious purpose of finding a 'correct exposure'.

Click to expand...

This simply sounds to me like "ETTR" - am I correct?

Not quite. The point is to maximise exposure, not necessarily get it 'to the right'. How 'right' you get it depends on your choice of ISO to go with the exposure, which in turn depends on the shadow noise/ blown highlight trade you want to make.

onlooker said:
onlooker said:

The main point is you set ISO after selecting your exposure parameters, if at all.

Click to expand...

But those parameters are set keeping in mind the gain manipulation you perform later on must fit within the desired "ISO-less" range. So there are still ISO-bound constraints. correct?

There are camera hardware constraints on some cameras, which means that on those cameras you are best setting the gain higher rather than lower. It is a control simplification rather than intrinsic that the gain is connected to the ISO control

onlooker said:
onlooker said:

So in the ISOless world you decide on the aperture you want (DOF or maximum resolution) and the shutter speed (motion blur). Then you meter. Now, if the meter is set to base ISO and shows the picture to be over exposed, you compromise either the DOF or shutter [...]

unless the meter shows the exposure to be so low that you feel the need to compromise some of your pictorial constraints, when you choose which of DOF or motion blur you're going to compromise, and dial in more exposure

Click to expand...

So, it means that instead of a single point, say, ISO 200, in ISO-less world it is better expressed as ISO 200-1600 - a range, in other words.

Depends whether your camera is ISOless or not.

onlooker said:
onlooker said:

As I said, with an ISOless camera, you leave it on base ISO, with an ISOful camera, you put the ISO as high as you can, keeping the same exposure and avoiding clipping the highlights.

Click to expand...

Right. So, is there an easy way of determining from the graphs whether a given sensor is ISO-full or ISO-less? Simply by determining the range of flat read noise? That's the "ISO-less" range of the sensor?

That's it.

ISOful below 1600, ISOless above

A little ISOful, but usable ISOless

ISOless (the falling graph above 1600 is probably just because the electron counts are so low)
--
Bob

Photato · Jul 6, 2011

JasonED said:
Photato said:

Also, even if shooting Raw is har to check for focus, WB, etc if the image is way underexposed.

Click to expand...

Its not ideal but you can easily review focus if you crank up the brightness on the LCD. Works well for me.

That is a workaround, can't help much outdoors though and takes a toll in battery.

JasonED said:
JasonED said:

So the applications for shooting always at base ISO are limited, but is good to know for the rare occasions you might need it as a part of your bag of tricks.

Click to expand...

I do not think they are limited at all. In simple terms its every time the ISO would need to be raised to achieve a desired level of image brightness - even if its a fraction of a stop.

With my Canon 60D I use ISO (native ISOs) when required, with a bias towards a bit of underexposure, I find it more intuitive to see close to the final results even though I use Raw most of the time.

With video depending on the subject AutoISO or the proper ISO is mandatory since the file is pretty much constrained into a loosy CODEC and ETTR is what you aim for.

JasonED · Jul 6, 2011

Photato said:
JasonED said:

Photato said:

Also, even if shooting Raw is har to check for focus, WB, etc if the image is way underexposed.

Click to expand...

Its not ideal but you can easily review focus if you crank up the brightness on the LCD. Works well for me.

Click to expand...

That is a workaround, can't help much outdoors though and takes a toll in battery.

Well its not much of an issue when outdoors because if the light is bright enough to make the LCD hard to see then it usually means I am pretty close to base ISO and hence getting reasonably bright images anyway.

Anyway, as stated it is not ideal and is work around until the manufacturers provide us better image review options.

Photato said:
Photato said:

Photato said:

So the applications for shooting always at base ISO are limited, but is good to know for the rare occasions you might need it as a part of your bag of tricks.

Click to expand...

I do not think they are limited at all. In simple terms its every time the ISO would need to be raised to achieve a desired level of image brightness - even if its a fraction of a stop.

Click to expand...

With my Canon 60D I use ISO (native ISOs) when required, with a bias towards a bit of underexposure, I find it more intuitive to see close to the final results even though I use Raw most of the time.

With video depending on the subject AutoISO or the proper ISO is mandatory since the file is pretty much constrained into a loosy CODEC and ETTR is what you aim for.

Sure. Video is a different beast.

--
The sky is blue and there is nothing we can do..

onlooker · Jul 6, 2011

Thanks. I will have to go over it in my mind. It is not going to be easy or intuitive to employ initially. I also noticed in your XZ-1 example that even though it is ISO-less to 1600, the saturation capacity drops through the range, so the risk of blowing the highlights or channels increases.

John Sheehy · Jul 7, 2011

JulesJ said:
How does it handle landscape photography using a tripod? Does it know when you are using a tripod? I doubt it.

I don't see anyone calling for a universal mode camera, where the camera decides everything. The user decides what to fix, and what to automate. The tripod user either elects to let shutter speed float completely, such as Av-priority mode at base ISO, or puts more priority on shutter speed, in which case using a tripod becomes more like a weight-relief device, and exposure modes are more similar to hand-held ones.

Only a camera operated by someone who didn't give it any input at all would need to know if a tripod (or image-stabilization) were being used, and it would also need to know if camera stability or subject activity were the the limiting factors for shutter speed.

Auto-ISO and so-called "ISO-lessness" do not create any more need for the camera to know anything; they can, however, lessen the severity of user neglect.

--
John

John Sheehy · Jul 7, 2011

JulesJ said:
I 100% disagree. It has absolutely nothing to do with being buried in the film age, it has to do with knowing about photography and how to use your camera to it's best effect. If you think that ISO is the first, and best method to change output image brightness I will categorically state that you are wrong. Anyone else (who is an experienced and long time photographer and hence camera user) have a view on this?

It has everything to do with film mentality. With film, you are battling more obstacles to image quality as you vary exposure. Even at a given film's ideal absolute exposure range, the grain's contrast is fighting image contrast, but it gets worse as you leave that range. With digital RAW data, all you have is more noise with less exposure, and clipping at a certain higher exposure. With many digital cameras the ISO setting has little or no effect on the amount of noise, except when it dictates absolute exposure. For those cameras, the lowest gain(s) are the only useful ones for the signal's fight against noise, and higher gains only serve to get RAW signal levels up to a hollow standard. In doing so, the maximum signal level is unnecessarily clipped, and the RAW files are bloated with useless, noisy bits that don't compress very well. Using hollow analog gain to achieve hollow default brightness is counter-productive.

Spoken as someone who spent a few years inhaling developers, stop baths, and fixers in the late seventies, and who now works with RAW data directly, converting manually with my own math.

--
John

Whats up with ISO buttons?

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts