willeica Posted Tuesday at 06:23 PM Share #81 Posted Tuesday at 06:23 PM Advertisement (gone after registration) How many of you have put a roll of modern 100 ISO 127 film into a VPK and then tried to mentally interpret the Kodak instructions for the 110 year old camera which were produced long before ISOs existed and make no reference to film speed whatsoever? I got to have great fun doing this. Over 100 years ago they were probably using the equivalent of 5-8 iSO in modern terms, most people did not have a way of expressing this. It took a long time for universal standardisation to set in. This table dates from 1952. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The point I am trying to make is that today's photographers are spoilt with a standard ISO system and auto every 'which way' combinations and electronics etc. Yet, back in the day, when things were a lot less clear or predetermined people still produced great pictures. William Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The point I am trying to make is that today's photographers are spoilt with a standard ISO system and auto every 'which way' combinations and electronics etc. Yet, back in the day, when things were a lot less clear or predetermined people still produced great pictures. William ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/425534-exposure-and-iso/?do=findComment&comment=5901635'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted Tuesday at 06:23 PM Posted Tuesday at 06:23 PM Hi willeica, Take a look here Exposure and ISO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SrMi Posted Tuesday at 06:35 PM Share #82 Posted Tuesday at 06:35 PM 45 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: Are we going to get into an in depth discussion about pedantry? Facts are facts. There’s a start for you! When someone specifies exposure as shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, I would not object or comment on it. Doing otherwise would be pedantry. On the other hand, if someone insists in a technical discussion that changing ISO changes the sensor's sensitivity, I would react. I do not consider that pedantry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted Tuesday at 06:46 PM Share #83 Posted Tuesday at 06:46 PM I’m very happy for you, Srdjan. I don’t share your concern as, for me, it serves no purpose. I have learnt from this thread (after filtering the usual chaff), but your distinction has no impact on my photography. I’d rather retain the core point that, on things that matter, we agree. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted Tuesday at 06:50 PM Share #84 Posted Tuesday at 06:50 PM 1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said: The reality is that adjusting ISO does affect the exposure of the final image, and if you adjust your ISO within the range of “analogue amplification”, ie before digital amplification kicks in, then there are clear benefits that post processing doesn’t and can’t achieve. But, we’re dancing on the head of an ISO invariant pin. I never change the ISO on my M9 from its base of 160. The 'clear benefits' aren't actually visible so ..... That said I will allow my Sony's and Nikon to use slightly higher ISOs because they aren't quite the same, but again I limit the ISO I am prepared to set and rely on post processing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted Tuesday at 06:53 PM Share #85 Posted Tuesday at 06:53 PM Just now, pgk said: I never change the ISO on my M9 from its base of 160. The 'clear benefits' aren't actually visible so ..... That said I will allow my Sony's and Nikon to use slightly higher ISOs because they aren't quite the same, but again I limit the ISO I am prepared to set and rely on post processing. I have my Monochrom on Auto ISO, but only in manual settings. Treating ISO in this context to manage difficult exposure settings is less of an issue as the noise is more like film grain. Hold onto your hats! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evikne Posted Tuesday at 06:57 PM Share #86 Posted Tuesday at 06:57 PM Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Here is my very simple approach to exposure, always fully manual. There are only two parameters to juggle, as I don't consider ISO to be a true participant. So I usually only use the base ISO all the time (one less thing to worry about), which for my camera is approximately 200. As it gets darker, I gradually extend the exposure time and open the aperture until I can’t or won’t go any further (for the usual reasons). If it gets even darker, I just keep the same settings, which results in the image being underexposed. This lack of exposure I correct in Lightroom, possibly together with some noise reduction (which the camera and Lightroom would have used automatically at a higher ISO anyway). The table is just an example and can of course be varied if I want a greater depth of field or a different exposure time. 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Here is my very simple approach to exposure, always fully manual. There are only two parameters to juggle, as I don't consider ISO to be a true participant. So I usually only use the base ISO all the time (one less thing to worry about), which for my camera is approximately 200. As it gets darker, I gradually extend the exposure time and open the aperture until I can’t or won’t go any further (for the usual reasons). If it gets even darker, I just keep the same settings, which results in the image being underexposed. This lack of exposure I correct in Lightroom, possibly together with some noise reduction (which the camera and Lightroom would have used automatically at a higher ISO anyway). The table is just an example and can of course be varied if I want a greater depth of field or a different exposure time. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/425534-exposure-and-iso/?do=findComment&comment=5901655'>More sharing options...
SrMi Posted Tuesday at 07:01 PM Share #87 Posted Tuesday at 07:01 PM Advertisement (gone after registration) 6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: I have my Monochrom on Auto ISO, but only in manual settings. Treating ISO in this context to manage difficult exposure settings is less of an issue as the noise is more like film grain. Hold onto your hats! Aaah, the other interesting topic: can digital noise be a replacement for film grain? Be not alarmed, I will start a new thread. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted Tuesday at 07:05 PM Share #88 Posted Tuesday at 07:05 PM 10 minutes ago, pgk said: I never change the ISO on my M9 from its base of 160. The 'clear benefits' aren't actually visible so ..... That said I will allow my Sony's and Nikon to use slightly higher ISOs because they aren't quite the same, but again I limit the ISO I am prepared to set and rely on post processing. That wouldn't work for me indoors with poor lighting. I can set Auto ISO and see what I am shooting in the EVF at ISO 12500. Or I could set ISO to 100, and I'd never see anything - unless I switched off exposure simulation - then I'd have no histogram or blinkies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted Tuesday at 07:17 PM Share #89 Posted Tuesday at 07:17 PM 6 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: That wouldn't work for me indoors with poor lighting. I can set Auto ISO and see what I am shooting in the EVF at ISO 12500. Or I could set ISO to 100, and I'd never see anything - unless I switched off exposure simulation - then I'd have no histogram or blinkies. With exposure simulation on and Auto ISO enabled, I often cannot see the scene because it becomes too dark when I adjust the settings to avoid highlight clipping. For that reason, I shoot my X2D camera exclusively without exposure simulation. Better to see the scene and guess the settings. Some Leica cameras have exposure simulation with a histogram or blinkies only when half-pressing the shutter. All hail Leica! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted Tuesday at 07:24 PM Share #90 Posted Tuesday at 07:24 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, willeica said: The point I am trying to make is that today's photographers are spoilt with a standard ISO system and auto every 'which way' combinations and electronics etc. Yet, back in the day, when things were a lot less clear or predetermined people still produced great pictures. The 'standard' ISO system that you refer to is the problem. When digital came along there was a choice: to retain an outmoded idea of 'fixed' sensitivities, or to rethink and use a customisable amplification factor. Of course the former prevailed and we now equate ISOs with those of film days, wheras we could have gone down another route altogether and that might have changed the way we think about sensor sensitivity and exposure altogether with some highly beneficial results. Think: the sensor's sensitivity never varies whilst film sensitivity depended on the film used. So digital ISO is all based on 'amplification' rather than being somewhat 'fixed' in camera. Edited Tuesday at 07:43 PM by pgk 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted Tuesday at 09:57 PM Share #91 Posted Tuesday at 09:57 PM 2 hours ago, pgk said: The 'standard' ISO system that you refer to is the problem. When digital came along there was a choice: to retain an outmoded idea of 'fixed' sensitivities, or to rethink and use a customisable amplification factor. Of course the former prevailed and we now equate ISOs with those of film days, wheras we could have gone down another route altogether and that might have changed the way we think about sensor sensitivity and exposure altogether with some highly beneficial results. Think: the sensor's sensitivity never varies whilst film sensitivity depended on the film used. So digital ISO is all based on 'amplification' rather than being somewhat 'fixed' in camera. We are where we are and we have what we have and it has always been the same with photography. The photographer just has to use his/her tools to produce what are , for them, the best possible images. We now have more options, but I agree that knowing what ISO a person used is a lot less interesting than knowing what film they used as film types have different characteristics, based on chemistry, whereas digital sensors even things out and the output can be given an infinite number of post processing options. For me ISO is just a number among others that are used to produce images. The arguments here bring to mind the monks and too hot/too cold porridge . Today, most sensible editors and curators don't judge on ISO or camera or lens, but on what is sent/handed to them. William 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted Tuesday at 10:27 PM Share #92 Posted Tuesday at 10:27 PM 28 minutes ago, willeica said: Today, most sensible editors and curators don't judge on ISO or camera or lens, but on what is sent/handed to them. And what is sent to them has to meet three criteria (among others, including composition and relevance) - (1) in focus; (2) properly exposed; and (3) adequate quality (ie, noise under control). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted Tuesday at 10:50 PM Share #93 Posted Tuesday at 10:50 PM 1 minute ago, IkarusJohn said: And what is sent to them has to meet three criteria (among others, including composition and relevance) - (1) in focus; (2) properly exposed; and (3) adequate quality (ie, noise under control). I know this, but my point is valid. We employ 3 curators here in Dublin and I know exactly what they primarily look for - they look for photos which tell stories and so do editors. Our curators are currently working on the new Irish version of the Taylor Wessing Prize which we are managing https://photomuseumireland.ie/taylorwessingirishphotoprize/ . The other factors you mention are usually of lesser importance to the content/story. Sometimes you can find an image which breaks all of the rules, but is also great. We certainly don't mark the entries which we receive as being the same as exam papers submitted by students. Camera club judging is an entirely different thing in most cases. There is an issue, though, as many camera club entries and winners tend to look quite similar, produced to satisfy a formula used by judges. 3 hours ago, pgk said: The 'standard' ISO system that you refer to is the problem It is unlikely to change as cameras and photography are built around it, There are other factors, but a lot of photography and photographic equipment are based on outmoded concepts, which are profitable for the manufacturers, eg. big bulky interchangeable lenses. William 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted Tuesday at 11:00 PM Share #94 Posted Tuesday at 11:00 PM 3 hours ago, pgk said: we now equate ISOs with those of film days "we"?? I don't. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted Wednesday at 08:55 AM Share #95 Posted Wednesday at 08:55 AM 10 hours ago, willeica said: I know this, but my point is valid. Content is everything at the end of the day. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted Wednesday at 03:11 PM Share #96 Posted Wednesday at 03:11 PM (edited) I might have exposure preview in my SL2-S, but I base my exposure on the light meter reading, like I do on my digital M. Base ISO usually doesn't work for me because I live in a very cloudy area, light during the day is often low. ISO 100 to 200, whatever the 'base' is, brings with it too many aperture and shutter speed compromises. In the film days I mostly shot ISO 400, and quite often pushed a stop (800). If I set my leica digital cameras to a static ISO it's usually 400. Edited Wednesday at 03:12 PM by Chris W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted Wednesday at 04:19 PM Share #97 Posted Wednesday at 04:19 PM 57 minutes ago, Chris W said: I might have exposure preview in my SL2-S, but I base my exposure on the light meter reading, like I do on my digital M. Base ISO usually doesn't work for me because I live in a very cloudy area, light during the day is often low. ISO 100 to 200, whatever the 'base' is, brings with it too many aperture and shutter speed compromises. In the film days I mostly shot ISO 400, and quite often pushed a stop (800). If I set my leica digital cameras to a static ISO it's usually 400. You are right to do that. The exposure you will see on your screen is in JPEG, but if you are shooting RAW you will get something different (usually darker) in Develop Mode in Lightroom, which is why many photographers use presets. Personally, I don't use presets, but I usually know what I am going to do anyway. As Ansel Adams said "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." William 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted Wednesday at 07:42 PM Author Share #98 Posted Wednesday at 07:42 PM Time to conclude? Some people use iso as an exposure factor, others not. Be they pedant, modest or otherwise, they can hardly teach others if they don't practice the same way. A colleague said above he never changed iso, while a guy like me has been doing it constantly for 20+ years. The way i use it, iso has always been and will remain an exposure factor, perhaps the more important one as auto iso M mode is my favorite exposure mode since my Nikon D70 in 2004 or something. Matter of taste, to each his own, etc. de gustibus, coloribus et isos non est disputandum 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now