I don't know about wrong information, but there did seem to be a lot of off-topic information. BAK had asked about image quality differences for a specific application, a full-page magazine ad. He explained that he was interested in the ISO range of 100 to 400, and with exposure changed at each ISO to compensate (e.g., raising ISO in order to use a higher shutter speed at the same aperture setting). If I recall correctly (I did not re-read the whole thread), no one had experience in that particular field, though one person did say that when making prints for exhibition and sales, output from a micro four thirds camera that was 3 years old or less made quality 8 X 10 inch prints at up to ISO 1600. Are you also interested in photography intended for use in magazine advertising?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How much does ISO matter?
- Thread starter Lanidrac
- Start date
D
digidog
Guest
Examples of 5D Mark 4 raws of yours that never existed!
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59871796
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59860090
That's one point you missed. Again. ;-)
If I had know shooting two identical captures with the exception of the ISO setting was so difficult for you to provide, to back up your ideas expressed in the last forum post, I'd never have asked you to struggle providing proof of concept. Sorry.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Last edited:
tko
Forum Pro
Start with a meaningful title (it matters as much as you want it to . . .)
Explain what wasn't answered to your satisfaction. "Wrong information" doesn't exactly cut it. Why do you think it was wrong.
Summarize what you think, why, and what you want to discuss.
Otherwise, your post is well . . . just another brain fart.
Explain what wasn't answered to your satisfaction. "Wrong information" doesn't exactly cut it. Why do you think it was wrong.
Summarize what you think, why, and what you want to discuss.
Otherwise, your post is well . . . just another brain fart.
Last edited:
tko
Forum Pro
Since you didn't ask a question in your op, any point is meaningless.
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
No "struggle" required since DPReview has already done the work for the OP:
Clearly, the 5D Mark 4 is more invariant than earlier generations of the 5D and a bit better than the 7D, but it is still obviously far from being truly invariant. So, to answer the OP's question in his header, ISO does, indeed, matter when using a 5D mark 4.
D
digidog
Guest
But one of the posters (OP here) didn't after promising to do so.
Yes, it does matter.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Last edited:
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
That was obvious, but instead of the usual endless back-and-forth until the post fills up, isn't it better to simply reference a controlled set of images that addresses the OP's unanswered question left over from the prior thread? (No need to answer...this is a rhetorical question.)
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
That's not the same as setting proper exposure for ISO 400 while having ISO 100 on the camera, which was the topic. The resulting raw files will have much less difference compared to ISO 100+6EV vs ISO 400+4EV, closer to the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 1600+2EV, but a bit more that that.
He promised to make the shots and upload them, and he is yet to keep his promise.
The Sage Knows
Senior Member
In case you missed it, DPR's Rishi Sanyal nicely illustrated several stops of highlight detail retention with little cost in noise as one advantage while shooting at your preferred shutter and aperture. That's one reason I decided to shop for ISO invariant cameras specifically.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
"you can see above: there's a very modest visual difference in noise between shooting at ISO 6400, compared with using the camera's base ISO (100) and digitally pushing later. .....Using a lower level of amplification means that highlight detail is less likely to get over-amplified and blown-out. And you can see this in the signage: lower ISO settings retain more detail in the bright sign, whereas all detail is blown in the ISO 6400 shot.
Now, we're not saying there's no cost to keeping your ISO low and brightening in post. We're saying that the cost of a 6 EV push of an ISO 100 shot (vs ISO 6400) is only a mere half a stop or thereabouts in shadows, with almost no visible cost in midtones. Meanwhile, you give yourself no less than 6 EV highlight headroom by decreasing your ISO to 100."
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7450523388/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-iso-invariance-study
I had a chance to meet and discuss this with him at the 2015 Pix show in Seattle. We agreed that it would be great if manufacturers would brighten the preview so we don't have to deal with the dark preview image.
But I suspect the reason we don't have that feature is their focus groups are loaded up with "normal" people like yourself who haven't seen the point yet.
--
Robert
Last edited:
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
Actually, there was no mention of "proper exposure" nor any scenic/photographic parameters that would allow you to assume that "proper exposure" must exclude any consideration of pushing shadows in post.
Valid point, but one that again assumes that shadow lifting in post is never a consideration for Lanidrac.
Indeed, but we both know that's probably not going to happen. By reminding everyone that DPR has controlled ISO invariance comparison shots for Lanidrac's camera, we can take the discussion in a constructive/instructive direction.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Actually proper exposure is always how one can compare, because a reference point is needed.
He said he is continuing the previous thread. It was not about shadow lifting. It was not about highlight clipping. It was about ISO 100 vs. ISO 400, both exposed "per exposure meter". In this scenario ISO 400 is 2 stops underexposed. I'm saying that if one is going to underexpose 2 stops for whatever reason, with Cardinal's camera, 5D4, ISO 400 setting will result is a less obvious noise compared to ISO 100, with or without shadow lifting, so ISO matters here; but not as much as in the example you linked to. Cardinal is going to produce the test if I understand his promise correctly.
I do not know that.
robert1955
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,159
- Solutions
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4,962
What do you want to discuss that was left open after BAK's thread maxed out?
AwesomeIan
Senior Member
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
No reference was ever made by anyone to "proper exposure" in that exchange, let alone define it. Indeed, nobody defined the shooting and processing parameters by which Lanidrac makes his claim of not being able to see any difference between ISO 100 and 400. The only "reference point," as you put it, that was made in the previous thread was digidog's basic and simple requirement to perform the test using identical exposure settings and shooting an identical scene at the two ISOs.
(By the way, I don't appreciate your removal of the rest of my response above. It allows you to set up and knock down a straw man that wasn't there in the first place.)
Last edited:
D
digidog
Guest
Last edited:
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
'That,' I said, 'goes without saying in all my poor dear great-grandmother's recipes. When condition or quality is not specified you must get the worst.' - HG Wells, 'The Truth About Pyecraft'
D
digidog
Guest
22codfish
Leading Member
Why can't DSLR cameras use ISO 25 like used for this photo? My older Pentax K-5 shoots ISO 80 very nicely, the Nikon D7200 -100 ISO min., and the Nikon D810 min. is ISO 60.
My friend's IPhone in Lunenburg, N.S. EXIF info shows ISO 25 for this shot. Is it the low ISO used in iPhones what makes their photos so great?
--
Please visit my Gallery. Critique and if you leave suggestions, it would be appreciated:
My friend's IPhone in Lunenburg, N.S. EXIF info shows ISO 25 for this shot. Is it the low ISO used in iPhones what makes their photos so great?
--
Please visit my Gallery. Critique and if you leave suggestions, it would be appreciated:
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
Quoting from that story is proving my point, not yours.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum