ISO question

David1961 · Dec 1, 2019

kiwi2 said:
David1961 said:

With ISO 400 you ended up with a lower exposure because your camera used only half as much light to create the image than it would have used at ISO 200 where the shutter speed would have been 1/800s. Hence your ISO 400 image has more noise in it. Now whether the extra noise is visible or not on a screen is debatable, but probably not unless viewed at 100%. But you might see some difference in image quality if you compared large prints of the same image at ISO 400 and ISO 200.

Click to expand...

Here's one I have hanging on the lounge wall as a 24x30 inch aluminum print. Shot at ISO 400, it looks perfectly fine even with your nose pressed up against it.

I don't see the point of your image because you haven't posted anything that proves what I posted is not 100% accurate.

And if you used ISO 200, ~1/1200s instead of your posted ISO 400, 1/2500s your image might have looked even better with less noise.

I downloaded the full sized version and looked at the EXIF data. It contains all the processing parameters used in post processing which appears to include noise removal.

Below are some of the post processing parameters used.

And in any case what I posted was:

"With ISO 400 you ended up with a lower exposure because your camera used only half as much light to create the image than it would have used at ISO 200 where the shutter speed would have been 1/800s. Hence your ISO 400 image has more noise in it. Now whether the extra noise is visible or not on a screen is debatable, but probably not unless viewed at 100%. But you might see some difference in image quality if you compared large prints of the same image at ISO 400 and ISO 200."

Looking at the full sized image at 100% on my monitor the darker shadows in the snow are a little grainy. Now whether I could see the graininess on a print will depend on how large I make the print. On a smallish print I might not.

kiwi2 · Dec 1, 2019

David1961 said:
I downloaded the full sized version and looked at the EXIF data. It contains all the processing parameters used in post processing which appears to include noise removal.

Below are some of the post processing parameters used.

I don't know where it gets its numerical values from?

Here was the small amount of noise reduction applied in Lightroom...

Fore example my Lr color noise reduction defaults to 25. I always reduce that a bit. And a small amount of luminous NR doesn't hurt the fine detail.

--

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

flic.kr

tony field · Dec 1, 2019

David1961 said:
kiwi2 said:

David1961 said:

With ISO 400 you ended up with a lower exposure because your camera used only half as much light to create the image than it would have used at ISO 200 where the shutter speed would have been 1/800s. Hence your ISO 400 image has more noise in it. Now whether the extra noise is visible or not on a screen is debatable, but probably not unless viewed at 100%. But you might see some difference in image quality if you compared large prints of the same image at ISO 400 and ISO 200.

Click to expand...

Here's one I have hanging on the lounge wall as a 24x30 inch aluminum print. Shot at ISO 400, it looks perfectly fine even with your nose pressed up against it.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point of your image because you haven't posted anything that proves what I posted is not 100% accurate.

Don't push technical pedantry too far. He never tried to prove anything about your post other than to illustrate that shooting above base ISO can yield very fine technical quality images.

Some people tend to be overzealous about absolute technical perfection: it serves to become the source of spirited discussions which in the final analysis tends to be non-productive and only slightly entertaining.

Just to add to the discussion noise: when I shoot in any of the camera's light metered shooting modes, auto ISO works extremely well - probably making a wiser choice than I could have set myself.

David1961 said:
And if you used ISO 200, ~1/1200s instead of your posted ISO 400, 1/2500s your image might have looked even better with less noise.

I downloaded the full sized version and looked at the EXIF data. It contains all the processing parameters used in post processing which appears to include noise removal.

Below are some of the post processing parameters used.

And in any case what I posted was:

"With ISO 400 you ended up with a lower exposure because your camera used only half as much light to create the image than it would have used at ISO 200 where the shutter speed would have been 1/800s. Hence your ISO 400 image has more noise in it. Now whether the extra noise is visible or not on a screen is debatable, but probably not unless viewed at 100%. But you might see some difference in image quality if you compared large prints of the same image at ISO 400 and ISO 200."

Looking at the full sized image at 100% on my monitor the darker shadows in the snow are a little grainy. Now whether I could see the graininess on a print will depend on how large I make the print. On a smallish print I might not.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

SmilerGrogan · Dec 1, 2019

For those of you claiming shutter speed X or Y is more than enough to stop motion, yes definitely if you’re shooting a dude in overalls posing with his prize heifer.

But if you’re shooting a jittery bride ina $15,000 custom made dress darting all over the place you’re going to have a hard time capturing every exquisite stitch in the handmade lace and the 15,000 individual Swarovski crystals embedded one-by-one onto her shoes unless you get your shutter speed to a significant number

David1961 · Dec 1, 2019

kiwi2 said:
David1961 said:

I downloaded the full sized version and looked at the EXIF data. It contains all the processing parameters used in post processing which appears to include noise removal.

Below are some of the post processing parameters used.

Click to expand...

I don't know where it gets its numerical values from?

Here was the small amount of noise reduction applied in Lightroom...

Fore example my Lr color noise reduction defaults to 25. I always reduce that a bit. And a small amount of luminous NR doesn't hurt the fine detail.

David1961 · Dec 1, 2019

SmilerGrogan said:
For those of you claiming shutter speed X or Y is more than enough to stop motion, yes definitely if you’re shooting a dude in overalls posing with his prize heifer.

But if you’re shooting a jittery bride ina $15,000 custom made dress darting all over the place you’re going to have a hard time capturing every exquisite stitch in the handmade lace and the 15,000 individual Swarovski crystals embedded one-by-one onto her shoes unless you get your shutter speed to a significant number

That is exactly what I have been saying.

I set the aperture to get the DOF I want and the shutter speed I need to meet the motion criteria - introduce motion blur or freeze action - and then I let the camera set ISO.

Chato · Dec 1, 2019

David1961 said:
SmilerGrogan said:

For those of you claiming shutter speed X or Y is more than enough to stop motion, yes definitely if you’re shooting a dude in overalls posing with his prize heifer.

But if you’re shooting a jittery bride ina $15,000 custom made dress darting all over the place you’re going to have a hard time capturing every exquisite stitch in the handmade lace and the 15,000 individual Swarovski crystals embedded one-by-one onto her shoes unless you get your shutter speed to a significant number

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have been saying.

I set the aperture to get the DOF I want and the shutter speed I need to meet the motion criteria - introduce motion blur or freeze action - and then I let the camera set ISO.

I can freeze the motion of a hunting Heron at 1/640 or even 1/500. That should be enough to freeze a bride...

In the days of film, wildlife photographers would even shoot at slower speeds

.

Great Bustard · Dec 1, 2019

David1961 said:
kiwi2 said:

David1961 said:

With ISO 400 you ended up with a lower exposure because your camera used only half as much light to create the image than it would have used at ISO 200 where the shutter speed would have been 1/800s. Hence your ISO 400 image has more noise in it. Now whether the extra noise is visible or not on a screen is debatable, but probably not unless viewed at 100%. But you might see some difference in image quality if you compared large prints of the same image at ISO 400 and ISO 200.

Click to expand...

Here's one I have hanging on the lounge wall as a 24x30 inch aluminum print. Shot at ISO 400, it looks perfectly fine even with your nose pressed up against it.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point of your image because you haven't posted anything that proves what I posted is not 100% accurate.

And if you used ISO 200, ~1/1200s instead of your posted ISO 400, 1/2500s your image might have looked even better with less noise.

I downloaded the full sized version and looked at the EXIF data. It contains all the processing parameters used in post processing which appears to include noise removal.

Below are some of the post processing parameters used.

And in any case what I posted was:

"With ISO 400 you ended up with a lower exposure because your camera used only half as much light to create the image than it would have used at ISO 200 where the shutter speed would have been 1/800s. Hence your ISO 400 image has more noise in it. Now whether the extra noise is visible or not on a screen is debatable, but probably not unless viewed at 100%. But you might see some difference in image quality if you compared large prints of the same image at ISO 400 and ISO 200."

Looking at the full sized image at 100% on my monitor the darker shadows in the snow are a little grainy. Now whether I could see the graininess on a print will depend on how large I make the print. On a smallish print I might not.

You are right in that had the photo been taken at ISO 200 (with the corresponding one stop larger exposure), it would have had "higher IQ" than at ISO 400 (with the corresponding one stop lower exposure), assuming, of course, that the longer exposure time at ISO 200 did not adversely affect motion blur in the photo (in this case, the flying birds).

However, kiwi2 is also correct in saying that this difference in IQ is insignificant for this particular photo (and almost undoubtedly, the vast, vast, vast majority of ISO 400 photos vs how they would have came out at ISO 200). In fact, I dare say had kiwi2 two photos of the same scene, one at ISO 200 and the other at ISO 400 (along with the corresponding differences in exposure), and displayed them both as he did with his photo, not only would no one care about the differences, but no one would even see the differences until they were specifically pointed out to them or they were looking for it.

So, I think it's important to distinguish between actual differences and their photographic significance. Sure, this is not only *extremely* subjective but also subject to the particular scene, display medium/size, viewing conditions, visual acuity, etc., etc., etc.. But what do I know? I have a 16x20 inch print from a 5 MP smartphone hanging on my wall. ;-)

Michael Fryd · Dec 1, 2019

Chato said:
David1961 said:

SmilerGrogan said:

For those of you claiming shutter speed X or Y is more than enough to stop motion, yes definitely if you’re shooting a dude in overalls posing with his prize heifer.

But if you’re shooting a jittery bride ina $15,000 custom made dress darting all over the place you’re going to have a hard time capturing every exquisite stitch in the handmade lace and the 15,000 individual Swarovski crystals embedded one-by-one onto her shoes unless you get your shutter speed to a significant number

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have been saying.

I set the aperture to get the DOF I want and the shutter speed I need to meet the motion criteria - introduce motion blur or freeze action - and then I let the camera set ISO.

Click to expand...

I can freeze the motion of a hunting Heron at 1/640 or even 1/500. That should be enough to freeze a bride...

In the days of film, wildlife photographers would even shoot at slower speeds

.

Pick the shutter speed that you need for the task at hand, and then set ISO to auto.

Christof21 · Dec 1, 2019

David1961 said:
SmilerGrogan said:

For those of you claiming shutter speed X or Y is more than enough to stop motion, yes definitely if you’re shooting a dude in overalls posing with his prize heifer.

But if you’re shooting a jittery bride ina $15,000 custom made dress darting all over the place you’re going to have a hard time capturing every exquisite stitch in the handmade lace and the 15,000 individual Swarovski crystals embedded one-by-one onto her shoes unless you get your shutter speed to a significant number

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have been saying.

I set the aperture to get the DOF I want and the shutter speed I need to meet the motion criteria

Except this is a bit more complicated than this...
You set the shutter speed needed to freeze motion or a faster shutter speed because your camera needs less light typically when you reach base ISO.
In aperture priority mode + auto-iso, you set the minimum shutter speed needed, which makes more sense imho.

Chato · Dec 1, 2019

Michael Fryd said:
Chato said:

David1961 said:

SmilerGrogan said:

For those of you claiming shutter speed X or Y is more than enough to stop motion, yes definitely if you’re shooting a dude in overalls posing with his prize heifer.

But if you’re shooting a jittery bride ina $15,000 custom made dress darting all over the place you’re going to have a hard time capturing every exquisite stitch in the handmade lace and the 15,000 individual Swarovski crystals embedded one-by-one onto her shoes unless you get your shutter speed to a significant number

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have been saying.

I set the aperture to get the DOF I want and the shutter speed I need to meet the motion criteria - introduce motion blur or freeze action - and then I let the camera set ISO.

Click to expand...

I can freeze the motion of a hunting Heron at 1/640 or even 1/500. That should be enough to freeze a bride...

In the days of film, wildlife photographers would even shoot at slower speeds

.

Click to expand...

Pick the shutter speed that you need for the task at hand, and then set ISO to auto.

To be perfectly honest it has NEVER occurred to me to use Automatic ISO. These images above were taken with the Nikon D2x, and anything over ISO 800 was unacceptable. Yet at 1/640 anything LESS than ISO 800 would have lowered the shutter speed.

Christof21 · Dec 1, 2019

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard wrote:
and almost undoubtedly, the vast, vast, vast majority of ISO 400 photos vs how they would have came out at ISO 200).

Are you saying that DR is not important for a vast vast vast majority of photos ?? Too many "vast" imho. I would simply say an important majority.

I have APS-C and the DR still remains a bit too low sometimes and ISO 400 with my Fuji removes 1ev more...

Great Bustard · Dec 1, 2019

Christof21 said:
Member said:

Great Bustard wrote:
and almost undoubtedly, the vast, vast, vast majority of ISO 400 photos vs how they would have came out at ISO 200).

Click to expand...

Are you saying that DR is not importsnt for a vast vast vast majority of photos ??

To the extent of the differences between the exposures used at ISO 200 and ISO 400, yes.

Member said:
Too many "vast" imho. I would simply say an important majority.

I have APS-C and the DR still remains a bit too low sometimes and ISO 400 with my Fuji removes 1ev more...

Of course, it's subjective. However, unless one is pushing the shadows significantly at lower ISO settings, the differences in DR are negligible. But, for those that expose lower to retain more of the highlights and push the shadows significantly, for sure, it can result in a more significant difference keeping in mind, of course, that what's "significant" is, of course, subjective.

Chato · Dec 1, 2019

Christof21 said:
Member said:

Great Bustard wrote:
and almost undoubtedly, the vast, vast, vast majority of ISO 400 photos vs how they would have came out at ISO 200).

Click to expand...

Are you saying that DR is not important for a vast vast vast majority of photos ?? Too many "vast" imho. I would simply say an important majority.

I have APS-C and the DR still remains a bit too low sometimes and ISO 400 with my Fuji removes 1ev more...

You need a new camera. There hasn't been much of a difference in IQ between ISO 100 and 400 in over 15 years. Your machine must really be awful if you can glance at an image and say the DR at ISO 400 is noticeably different.

kiwi2 · Dec 1, 2019

Christof21 said:
Member said:

Great Bustard wrote:
and almost undoubtedly, the vast, vast, vast majority of ISO 400 photos vs how they would have came out at ISO 200).

Click to expand...

Are you saying that DR is not important for a vast vast vast majority of photos ?? Too many "vast" imho. I would simply say an important majority.

I have APS-C and the DR still remains a bit too low sometimes and ISO 400 with my Fuji removes 1ev more...

Then you must be doing something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

Even with ISO 800 I can turn this...

into this...

Even ISO 2000 still gives a lot to work with...

--

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

flic.kr

kiwi2 · Dec 1, 2019

David1961 said:
I still don't see the point you are making because what I posted is 100% consistent with your image.

May I suggest that are far more important things to be thinking about when it comes to photography. I say this after having a look at a couple of threads you had started...

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63304624

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63275729

Subject, light, composition, for starters are 100 times more important to a interesting photo that you would be happy to have hanging on the wall.

Don't make the common mistake (around here) of getting caught up in all the technical blah blah blah and lose sight of the bigger picture.

Great Bustard · Dec 1, 2019

kiwi2 said:
David1961 said:

I still don't see the point you are making because what I posted is 100% consistent with your image.

Click to expand...

May I suggest that are far more important things to be thinking about when it comes to photography. I say this after having a look at a couple of threads you had started...

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63304624

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63275729

Subject, light, composition, for starters are 100 times more important to a interesting photo that you would be happy to have hanging on the wall.

Of course.

kiwi2 said:
Don't make the common mistake (around here) of getting caught up in all the technical blah blah blah and lose sight of the bigger picture.

The point being not that the technical is more important, but that it doesn't hurt the subject, light, composition, etc., by getting the technical right. Then again, unless you are at the edge of the camera's performance envelope, it is unlikely that minor technical errors (where what's "minor" is, again, subjective) will result in a photo that is "less successful".

David1961 · Dec 1, 2019

Great Bustard said:
So, I think it's important to distinguish between actual differences and their photographic significance. Sure, this is not only *extremely* subjective but also subject to the particular scene, display medium/size, viewing conditions, visual acuity, etc., etc., etc.. But what do I know? I have a 16x20 inch print from a 5 MP smartphone hanging on my wall. ;-)

Yes I agree and that is exactly what I talked about in my earlier post where I said some common sense needs to be applied.

Christof21 · Dec 1, 2019

Chato said:
Christof21 said:

Chato said:

Great Bustard wrote:
and almost undoubtedly, the vast, vast, vast majority of ISO 400 photos vs how they would have came out at ISO 200).

Click to expand...

Are you saying that DR is not important for a vast vast vast majority of photos ?? Too many "vast" imho. I would simply say an important majority.

I have APS-C and the DR still remains a bit too low sometimes and ISO 400 with my Fuji removes 1ev more...

Click to expand...

You need a new camera. There hasn't been much of a difference in IQ between ISO 100 and 400 in over 15 years. Your machine must really be awful if you can glance at an image and say the DR at ISO 400 is noticeably different.

Why did the X-Pro3 added HDR in camera ??? Was DR really that enough ?. AE bracketing is also available for a reason.

It happens more than expected to shoot very contrasty scenes. When you try to recover shadows with a single shot, it is sometimes mot optimal. A smartphone with HDR can beat APS-C (single shot), a very bright sky can be very challenging. I went in vacations at Madeira, it is rainning and the moment after the sky comes back, I can tell you it can have very strong contrast. You have to find a compromise and the shadows when recovered are not optimal, really.

It is for a minority part of my pictures but not negligeable.

If I had shot with ISO400, would it have made a difference ? The answer is clearly YES, no doubts, loosing 1 stop DR is an important gap.

Besides, the Fuji has a dual gain sensor at ISO800, so ISO400 offers no advantage over ISO200, no improvements in read noise.

kiwi2 · Dec 1, 2019

Christof21 said:
It happens more than expected to shoot very contrasty scenes. When you try to recover shadows with a single shot, it is sometimes mot optimal. A smartphone with HDR can beat APS-C (single shot), a very bright sky can be very challenging. I went in vacations at Madeira, it is rainning and the moment after the sky comes back, I can tell you it can have very strong contrast. You have to find a compromise and the shadows when recovered are not optimal, really.

Then that is a case of not reading and dealing with the light appropriately in the first place.

Any camera from Sony or Canon or Nikon is going to have trouble exposing for large variations in light levels when working against the direction of light like that. The small DR difference between ISO 200 or 400 is neither here nor there.

Reading and understanding the light will make 100 times bigger difference to your outcomes.

ISO question

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Attachments

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Christof21

Guest

Forum Pro

Christof21

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Christof21

Guest

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts