Hey y'all. We made a mistake in this video with the b-roll on "ISO Invariance". So I made a quick video to demonstrate how it works. You can check it out here: ruclips.net/video/3yvNtmXB7Po/видео.html Thanks!
Yeah sure and I went through 6 yrs of aerospace engineering to learn that planes fly because they have wings… 🤦🏻♂️
День назад+8
Don't fall into the trap of manufacturers who try to make you believe that a camera that can go up to tens of thousands of ISO and more will make you a better photographer. I use a Canon 5D Mark ii that goes up to ISO 6400 max, and that's enough for me in the vast majority of cases.
Agreed but the fact that it can go up to 51200 levels probably means it can handle 6400 much better than one which has a max ISO of 6400. I like to think it’s like how a sports car can go at 130km/h much better than a small city car even though both can reach that speed
@@Photography-Explained What do you mean "replaced"? You mean clearly, your thesis was a fake and you didn't do a good enough job at hiding the evidence?
As an old time school photographer there is a rule which says ‘ The slower the film is the finer the grain the faster the film the bigger the grain’ so keeping up with what is the shooting situation is the best way to in my humble opinion, thanks to all.
You’re right. We were meant to replace that clip but I missed it in the final review of the video. Sorry about that. I was rushing to get this one out there.
There's nothing to disprove... You can test for yourself the instructions are literally in the video. I was going to add a clip that shows things more clearly. Not everything on the internet is a conspiracy theory dude haha.
An image of something incredible with some noise is much better than a technical perfect image of something boring. Take a look at the winners of the top photography competitions and you'll see a bunch of examples of photos that have exposure issues but are still remarkable.
Anyone who has an issue with shooting high ISO should give music photography a go (especially heavy music). Wide open, 1/125, 6400... and you still gotta bump it in post. It's amazing what you can recover and still get a quality image.
There’s something odd happening at 5:35. Normally, +6 EV boosted ISO 100 shouldn’t have less noise than ISO 6400. If that’s the case, doesn’t it mean your camera is more than just ISO-invariant?
After nearly 30 years shooting I’ve always been the type to follow ISO rules from film. Recently I’ve started using ISO to add a bit of dithering to images. I did a portrait shoot yesterday and use higher ISO even in studio with lights to the look I wanted. ISO 100 actually feels softer than 400 sometimes, if 400 is exposed properly you will get a better image.
Good Video, one question: why should I increase ISO other than focusing and evaluation reasons when using ISO invariant cameras - I can increase brightness in post processing only for those parts necessary. And using spot metering I can expose especially for the hopefully more illuminated subject?
Thanks for the video, I have been saying for years that shooting at higher ISO’s works. I shoot rodeos professionally and often have to be up at higher ISO’s to get the shots and am never disappointed with the results. I am an old film photographer and you are right and I have said it repeatedly that we always accepted grain as part of the process and results with film, why are we afraid of a little digital noise, especially when we can clean it up in post processing.
Sometimes, it surely becomes rather mandatory to raise the ISO well above 100 - But keep in mind that doing so will always degrade image quality with digital noise. It's not particularly objectionable or even noticeable until your ISO rises above ISO 800, or 1600, or thereabouts, depending on format size. Noise is worse with a smaller imaging sensor. It can be diminished with imaging software, but who wants to spend the time? But it's much less of a serious issue with larger format cameras. If you're picky, then the smallest format you'll want to use is the DX format.
Great video! I'm an amateur photographer, although a bit advanced. I use Auto Iso, and i've never had any issues with noice apart from when it was under exposed. I'm too much of a perfectionist. Do you have any advice against that? 😊
Yep, I used to be a perfectionist too. It'd make me procrastinate on everything from exams to hobbies. Caused me loads of pain growing up as I'd stress about everything and then complete it last minute. I got over it by increasing my own levels of self esteem. Once I did that I realized I don't really care what other people think and so why would I worry about everything being perfect all the time. Hope that helps.
To me, it's got the photo the way I want it (shutter/aperture first), then consider the ISO. The key is understanding ISO settings are signal amplification settings. So if there is little noise originally present in the signal, amplifying the signal is will not necessarily cause noise to be a problem. Also, if the signal to noise ratio is large enough, the noise, in principle, can be reduced in camera.
How about if I use a tripod and use ISO 100, and a longer shutter, would the noise still be identical? I need to try this. I feel like I was kind of duped by similar videos saying ISO doesn't matter, and I shot a project for school with high ISO on many of the indoor, low-light shots, and I found it impossible to lighten the shots and reduce the noise without losing too much sharpness. I don't know what else I could have tried except maybe a tripod and a lower ISO. But I think I did try that, too, and still had a lot of noise. Which I guess you're saying is the inherent noise due to low light.
A longer shutter will allow more light to hit the sensor and so that would solve the issue. Depending on the length of the shutter you’d likely have to use a tripod. Otherwise a brighter aperture would also allow more light to hit the sensor, again reducing noise.
@@Photography-Explained I think part of my issue was I was trying to take pictures of shadows and low, diffuse light in my home. I started to realize you can't really capture what the eye sees in shadows and extremely low light, because light is what makes the picture, you can't really take a picture of shadow, it's only the absence of light. And our eyes are a lot more sensitive than the camera sensor. If I had a longer shutter the picture was too bright. So I guess I'm coming to the conclusion there wasn't much else I could do, which makes me feel better because I felt I had bad pictures for the project because they were so noisy even thought I tried to reduce the noise.
Quick aside. Digital cinema cameras are native 800 ISO, so shooting above noise floor makes AMAZING images. I worked on Horizon and the DP shot a couple stops above noise floor and even dark shots were clean and beautiful.
1980s Canon A1 ISO 6-12800 1.2 SSC later 1.8NFD nowadays , ISO 100 rarer 64, kit lenses F4 , 5.6-6.3. Most film was asa32 to 400. Nowadays we can set ISO for the needed value to get proper shutter speed and resultant depth of field and lighting. So what it may have some noise film had grain sometimes a lot of grain. Now we have post processing. We just have a lot more control and settings to achieve success.
How is post exposure amplification (which is rather "amp when reading the sensor data") different from "making something more sensitive"? In the handling it's the same as in analog cameras - you shorten exposure, and the s/n ("grain") rate gets worse dialing the sensitivity / ISO up. Three thoughts to noise / ISO: 1) with higher ISO you not only produce more noise, but you also limit the dynamic range of you camera - a lot. Often really noticabel in post - you are much more limited to raise lights in shadows and so on. If you shoot JPG only, this might not affect you much, but for RAW photography I prefer to control ISO as good as possible. But I would never not go to avoid high ISO and lose an interesting shot. 2) Noise is, as you said, not really a problem, especially when your goal are prints. Noise is mostly bad in 100% (or even 200%) pixel peeping, in Prints it almost does not matter in Detail and Picture Quality, also it does not matter much if you export a scaled down photo for web-use. Scaling down was an olden and golden way to reduce noise without losing too much detail (while softening never was a good method - only AI changed noise reduction in a big way). 3) Noise is not only better handled by modern sensors and camera processors, but also in post KI-Noise reduction (e.g. Lightroom, DxO). You will lose a bit of detail, but with the modern denoisers this is hardly noticable. So: You are right - don't hesitate to dial up your ISO if your shot requires it. Better a shot in High ISO than a blurred one in low ISO you can not use. But also: dial ISO only as high as you need it. I still try to get along wit ISO100 if the lighting and object in question admit it.
I am not a very skilled photographer, but that was exactly what I did when I took a picture from fishes in one these underwater parks. I couldn't use flash and not ISO 100 because it was to slow. The pictures ended up blurt. So I went for a higher ISO and shorter exposure time. With animals often there is no second chance.
Yep we made a mistake here. The footage was meant to be replaced but I missed it in the final review of the video. I do have eyes. You literally just watched a video of me where I have eyes. Do you have eyes?
If you can’t increase the aperture or keep the shutter open longer then you’ll have to increase ISO. 50,000 is feasible if it’s the only way to get the shot. A nosey image of something spectacular is still potentially an incredible photo.
Love the way you make difficult photography settings simple to understand. Today, I took some photos of birds sitting. In UK, it’s winter, dull, cold, low light and rainy. So, I cranked up the ISO to 8,000, on my R6, got some reasonable photos with quite a few likes on fb, then without a thought saw some grey Herons and Cormorants in flight, I keep shooting, suddenly realised my ISO was too high for the birds in flight. Yes! Well overexposed. However, managed to save one or two in Lightroom. Moral of the story, Watch those settings😢
I’ve never used Nikon cameras but by “modern” anything that was produced in the last 5-10 years. Obviously talented photographers were still creating amazing images before then and so camera tech usually isn’t the barrier.
On my Fuji xh2, I just set to to almost the entire native range and let my iso do whatever - because I can rarely tell a meaningful difference between 125 and 6400 (unless I REALLY start playing with the image) I rather have my aperture and shutter speed set to exactly what I want. I only set an ISO if I need a little extra control and the lighting is consistent. I’ve even taken a few photos at 128000 that look amazing. Nothing a little AI cannot fix
Very good explaination, just missing a discussion of Dual ISO which is a thing to know about. With those it can be advantages in the right situation to set the iso level to or above the second native iso.
Just check the Dynamic Range/ISO graph of your camera. (photonstophotos webpage for example) the dual ISO is that the sensor has 2 amplifiers set at diferent parameters so you can have a jump in Dynamic range when the second is used.
Using ISO100 is from the 00's when cameras went to ISO1600 and after about 400 it was unusable and there was no good software to fix it. So we original DSLR shooters created this urban legend. Now? Who cares! I will use low ISO basically only if I have a f1.2 or faster lens and I want to use it wide open in sunlight. Otherwise use up to ISO 3200 without fear.
I have a new camera with recognized good ISO performance, I use ISO 3200 I only use in emergencies when the dynamic range gets worse and the noise is clearly prominent. You don't get anywhere near as clean images at is0 3200 as ISO 100, that's a fact. But some people don't seem to care and publish pictures with clear noise that looks terrible.
Noise isn't so bad though. Since AI noise reduction I had initially started to remove it completely and my photos look ridiculously bad. Like without the noise it looks like stuff has no texture.
I've never seen a camera that is even close to having usable images at ISO 51,200,my camera is one of the most best ISO performance, pictures taken at ISO 51,200 look terrible, and absulut nothing I would use. Then you can't have many demands on quality.
@@MatsPhoto the photos arent printed and are used on a website. so, yes if pixel peeping, i wouldnt use them for my portfolio, but for a local rugby club, they are happy. it all depends how the photos will be used.
ISO absolutely does matter, even on modern cameras. Whisper and rain analogies are silly. The fact is, when you can't adjust the other settings (shutter, aperture) any more and you need to jack up the ISO to get the right exposure, it produces noise in the image. Your graphs and stories don't change that fact.
You missed the point while proving the point. If you can't adjust your other settings any more, then your only choice to get the shot is to change the ISO. Would you rather not have the shot or get the shot with noise? If you would rather get the shot, then ISO really doesn't matter. That is the point
If you are a professional photographer and you understand how to get a proper exposure in the first place then no ISO does not matter. If you are an amateur, then, I guess it does matter.
You're bean counting. It is okay to say that ISO makes noise and increases the sensor sensibility. Capture the same scene with ISO3200 and 1/1000 and ISO100 and 1/2 second exposure, and you see the difference. In the end you admit that and add "who cares about a little bit of noise".
I've seen the past week at a wedding event regarding this information taught to us ,,, iso I've cranked up 1600 and saw a clear image of little noise evident ,this sir is teaching good stuff...I just love what U said and gave insight and the challenge to up the noise❤
Its not a villian people don't understand it.... If it were a raido it would be the volume knob, which would amplify the interference in the signal.......
Good video... but it is surprising that you have so many things so clear and so important things totally misguided. 1.- ISO MATTERS A LOT: the higher the ISO the less the dynamic range (just check any Dynamic Range/ISO graphic). 2.- Extended ISO (on lower ISOs not in higher), usually doesn't reduce DR or quality. (See any of these DR/ISO) graaphs. I insist... if you have to crank the ISO to 800 for example, you loose a serious amount of DR... Anyway... subscribed!! It was quite good
There is literally an image that shows ISO going up and DR going down... Dynamic range in modern cameras is overblown. There are plenty of photographers using M4/3 sensors with less dynamic range than a FF camera taking incredible images. With my A7R4 the difference between high ISO and ISO 100 DR is basically unmeasureable in the real world. Anything that actually does require high DR like a sunset is going to get bracketed anyway.
@@Photography-Explained I am myself a M43 shooter (landscape photographer), and I can confirm that what you say about smaller sensors is true. But... I have to admit that I use LiveND (computational feature) in most of my images that expands my DR over any FF in the market nowadays Said so, I just wanted to point that ISO DOES MATTER, if you need DR... if dynamic range is not important at all in your scene, then yes, you can increase it without much problems.
ISO matters but there is a trend these days making videos that start with "You have been told ...". Of course I understand that things are evolving and we shouldn't hold on to archaic or dogmatic principles but ISO really matters and we should be telling things as it is. But I am guessing the world of youtube tutorial making runs on other principles.
“Unless they’re a photographer they really don’t care. I would say they would care even less. As both a photographer and VFX artist for major feature films and television…I stopped caring about the technicals decades ago. If I look at a photo I see the subject. If I watch a movie I watch the people. If something really stands out as bad it will annoy me but I’ll give it a pass if the story/intent is solid. I think the longer you do something the more the technical aspects fall away to reveal the intention of the subject matter since that’s really all that matters.
You're an actual artist though. Most "photographers" are gear nerds who never actually take any photos. That's why noise doesn't bother you but the nerds look out for it. Some of my favorite films are absolutely covered in either film grain or digital noise. They're still incredible films.
Why are people so weird about noise? Properly exposed high iso looks better than low ISO. Noise looks ugly when underexposed. When properly exposed, higher ISO noise looks very pleasing and dithers the image allowing for more texture and character, yes, even for portraits.
ISO is just another thing for the "experts" to gatekeep. I see grossly underexposed pictures posted to SM everyday that are "good" because they were taken at ISO 100. I think at least a couple of my submissions to the contest were 50k + ISO.
100% bullshit. Pictures taken at ISO 51,200 very rarely look good. And what kind of concert do you shoot where you need such a high ISO? I've shot hundreds of concerts and never above 3200 ISO, and still won a lot of awards. ISO makes a big difference to how the image is presented. Too high ISO looks terrible.
Dude the comparison at 5:33 clearly shows your claims are complete BS. You self-sabotaged your own video. I see in your comment replies that you apparently "forgot to remove it". Yeah, you forgot to remove (hide) the evidence that disproves your own BS claims. My friend, you see how you've been working at this RUclips channel for nearly a year yet you only have 21k subscribers? If you want subscribers, you have to release videos that are not BS. You're never going to get successful crapping out this clickbait trash.
Fair play, I checked out your channel and you are crushing it. I’m always open to advice from people who are much further ahead than me. We forgot to replace the footage with b-roll that shows things more clearly. I’m not sure ISO invariance is the conspiracy theory you’re hoping it is. Test it out for yourself and report back :).
100% bullshit, ISP has a big impact on quality. I happened to shoot a car hit with ISO 1600 on my Nikon Z6, it makes a big difference. You don't get nearly as fine details. I want as clean details as possible. If you only shoot nature, the difference is a little smaller as nature already contains a lot of AC texture. But strangely enough, you only use nature photography when you want to show differences in ISO, it becomes misleading. ISO IS of great importance, everything else is a lie, based on my own experience as a photographer.
Did you watch the video? Your ISO 1600 setting didn't cause a lack of detail. A lack of light caused the issue. I'm a landscape photographer so my examples will mostly be of landscapes.
Although what you say may be partly true and innovative for a beginner, as well as relieving the guilt and de-dramatizing the sacrosanct technique. I agree with you that taking a good photo or video doesn't depend on a choice of isos, but to say that you can use any isos and that it doesn't affect image quality is at best poorly digested and at worst misleading. The fact that you only scratch the surface of the dynamic range of an image and how isos can affect it is an example of the poverty of your teaching. The principle of popularization is not to explain simplify things and leave out the details, but on the contrary to explain complicated things and their details in a simple way. I encourage anyone who wants to know more to look elsewhere.I don't think this video is fundamentally dishonest, but it's far too incomplete not to be misleading.
To asnwer your "Nice to see someone who actually takes images comment here." when it goes in your way : I'm DIT an use/study ISOs settings on a dayli basis, for commercials or fiction.
@Photography-Explained You don't have to be sorry. We don't have to agree on everything, but I'm convinced that you can do better and get more views. Don't blame it on people's attention or expectations. "Every Frame a Painting" or "Willem Verbeeck" or "Branch Education" or "Computerphile" are some excellent youtube channel that broadcast under 20min technically accurate popularisation vidéos that people watch by millions.
Completely incorrect that iso doesn’t matter… it ultimately reduces the dynamic range of the image… harming the tonality in the image… most of this video is nonsense!
There are 1,000 entries and the fee is $10 per entry? Ok, I see you've done the math to make this free for yourself. This isn't a prize you're giving out. It's nothing but a lottery funded by the contestants' own money.
@@BeaverTerror it's not a lottery as the best photo will win. But yes, this is how photo competitions work. Apart from there is usually 10x the entrants and so the competition makes a 90% cut. Plus there is usually sponsors that pay the competition for another income stream. I'm not running a charity but I'm trying to maximize the prize money for the winner. Hopefully that makes sense.
Yes, even massive amount of KG does not make YOU heavy. Could you please make some diagrams on that too? That too would help many people feel stupid. (Since they do not know how to eat KG jet feel heavy). BTW : Driving very fast is also quite intelligent and much underated . You shorten the time exosed to possible accidents, AND get to desination earlier AND pollute the air for a shorter time,
"pollute the air for shorter time" That's like walking into a room, leaving a big nasty smelling fart, exiting and then saying it wasn't an issue because you were only briefly in the room. 🤦♂️
Hey y'all. We made a mistake in this video with the b-roll on "ISO Invariance".
So I made a quick video to demonstrate how it works. You can check it out here:
ruclips.net/video/3yvNtmXB7Po/видео.html
Thanks!
After 12 minutes and 10 seconds this guy told us in another way that when you increase the iso you will have higher noise levels.
What a waste of RUclips's server space. Let me click that "do not recommend channel" button.
Thanks for the feedback.
😆👍
Yeah sure and I went through 6 yrs of aerospace engineering to learn that planes fly because they have wings… 🤦🏻♂️
Don't fall into the trap of manufacturers who try to make you believe that a camera that can go up to tens of thousands of ISO and more will make you a better photographer. I use a Canon 5D Mark ii that goes up to ISO 6400 max, and that's enough for me in the vast majority of cases.
Agreed but the fact that it can go up to 51200 levels probably means it can handle 6400 much better than one which has a max ISO of 6400. I like to think it’s like how a sports car can go at 130km/h much better than a small city car even though both can reach that speed
5:33 Your Sony "ISO invariant" comparison looks very different. Look below the desk, noise is very noticeable in ISO 6400, but not in the ISO 100.
Yep, we made a mistake. That footage was meant to be replaced but I missed it in my final review of the video.
Sorry about that.
@@Photography-Explained What do you mean "replaced"? You mean clearly, your thesis was a fake and you didn't do a good enough job at hiding the evidence?
As an old time school photographer there is a rule which says ‘ The slower the film is the finer the grain the faster the film the bigger the grain’ so keeping up with what is the shooting situation is the best way to in my humble opinion, thanks to all.
On that comparison photo there is a ton more noise under the desk when you used the High ISO setting.
You’re right. We were meant to replace that clip but I missed it in the final review of the video.
Sorry about that. I was rushing to get this one out there.
@@Photography-Explained???????
@@Photography-ExplainedSo you wanted to remove the clip that disproves what you claim?
@@MatsPhoto BOOM! Roasted!
There's nothing to disprove... You can test for yourself the instructions are literally in the video.
I was going to add a clip that shows things more clearly.
Not everything on the internet is a conspiracy theory dude haha.
Excellent video ! As an older (senior) retired hobby photographer, my motto has become "Quality photo, not quality image".
Well said!
Can you explain that a bit?
An image of something incredible with some noise is much better than a technical perfect image of something boring.
Take a look at the winners of the top photography competitions and you'll see a bunch of examples of photos that have exposure issues but are still remarkable.
Anyone who has an issue with shooting high ISO should give music photography a go (especially heavy music). Wide open, 1/125, 6400... and you still gotta bump it in post. It's amazing what you can recover and still get a quality image.
Off topic, but are those frames in the background digital? Looks like a power cable to each? If so what brand and do you recommend?
Nope real frames. They’re held up with some string that I had laying around :D.
There’s something odd happening at 5:35. Normally, +6 EV boosted ISO 100 shouldn’t have less noise than ISO 6400. If that’s the case, doesn’t it mean your camera is more than just ISO-invariant?
We screwed this b-roll up. It should have been replaced but I missed it in my finals review of the video.
So why don't you fix the video?@@Photography-Explained
After nearly 30 years shooting I’ve always been the type to follow ISO rules from film. Recently I’ve started using ISO to add a bit of dithering to images. I did a portrait shoot yesterday and use higher ISO even in studio with lights to the look I wanted. ISO 100 actually feels softer than 400 sometimes, if 400 is exposed properly you will get a better image.
Good Video, one question: why should I increase ISO other than focusing and evaluation reasons when using ISO invariant cameras - I can increase brightness in post processing only for those parts necessary. And using spot metering I can expose especially for the hopefully more illuminated subject?
Thanks for the video, I have been saying for years that shooting at higher ISO’s works. I shoot rodeos professionally and often have to be up at higher ISO’s to get the shots and am never disappointed with the results. I am an old film photographer and you are right and I have said it repeatedly that we always accepted grain as part of the process and results with film, why are we afraid of a little digital noise, especially when we can clean it up in post processing.
Nice to see someone who actually takes images comment here. I really appreciate your insights from the field.
And if I have a camera from 13 years ago, what can I do about the noise when I raise the ISO?
Add more light or use AI Denise tools.
@Photography-Explained ok, I do wildlife photography so i cant add more light, i will try AI denoise
Sometimes, it surely becomes rather mandatory to raise the ISO well above 100 -
But keep in mind that doing so will always degrade image quality with digital noise.
It's not particularly objectionable or even noticeable until your ISO rises above ISO 800,
or 1600, or thereabouts, depending on format size. Noise is worse with a smaller imaging sensor. It can be diminished with imaging software, but who wants to spend the time?
But it's much less of a serious issue with larger format cameras. If you're picky, then the smallest format you'll want to use is the DX format.
Great video! I'm an amateur photographer, although a bit advanced. I use Auto Iso, and i've never had any issues with noice apart from when it was under exposed. I'm too much of a perfectionist. Do you have any advice against that? 😊
Yep, I used to be a perfectionist too. It'd make me procrastinate on everything from exams to hobbies. Caused me loads of pain growing up as I'd stress about everything and then complete it last minute.
I got over it by increasing my own levels of self esteem. Once I did that I realized I don't really care what other people think and so why would I worry about everything being perfect all the time.
Hope that helps.
My LUMIX S5 can do as low as ISO 50 if you set one particular option on in the settings.
To me, it's got the photo the way I want it (shutter/aperture first), then consider the ISO. The key is understanding ISO settings are signal amplification settings. So if there is little noise originally present in the signal, amplifying the signal is will not necessarily cause noise to be a problem. Also, if the signal to noise ratio is large enough, the noise, in principle, can be reduced in camera.
How about if I use a tripod and use ISO 100, and a longer shutter, would the noise still be identical? I need to try this. I feel like I was kind of duped by similar videos saying ISO doesn't matter, and I shot a project for school with high ISO on many of the indoor, low-light shots, and I found it impossible to lighten the shots and reduce the noise without losing too much sharpness. I don't know what else I could have tried except maybe a tripod and a lower ISO. But I think I did try that, too, and still had a lot of noise. Which I guess you're saying is the inherent noise due to low light.
A longer shutter will allow more light to hit the sensor and so that would solve the issue. Depending on the length of the shutter you’d likely have to use a tripod.
Otherwise a brighter aperture would also allow more light to hit the sensor, again reducing noise.
@@Photography-Explained I think part of my issue was I was trying to take pictures of shadows and low, diffuse light in my home. I started to realize you can't really capture what the eye sees in shadows and extremely low light, because light is what makes the picture, you can't really take a picture of shadow, it's only the absence of light. And our eyes are a lot more sensitive than the camera sensor. If I had a longer shutter the picture was too bright. So I guess I'm coming to the conclusion there wasn't much else I could do, which makes me feel better because I felt I had bad pictures for the project because they were so noisy even thought I tried to reduce the noise.
Quick aside. Digital cinema cameras are native 800 ISO, so shooting above noise floor makes AMAZING images. I worked on Horizon and the DP shot a couple stops above noise floor and even dark shots were clean and beautiful.
1980s Canon A1 ISO 6-12800 1.2 SSC later 1.8NFD nowadays , ISO 100 rarer 64, kit lenses F4 , 5.6-6.3. Most film was asa32 to 400. Nowadays we can set ISO for the needed value to get proper shutter speed and resultant depth of field and lighting. So what it may have some noise film had grain sometimes a lot of grain. Now we have post processing. We just have a lot more control and settings to achieve success.
How is post exposure amplification (which is rather "amp when reading the sensor data") different from "making something more sensitive"? In the handling it's the same as in analog cameras - you shorten exposure, and the s/n ("grain") rate gets worse dialing the sensitivity / ISO up.
Three thoughts to noise / ISO:
1) with higher ISO you not only produce more noise, but you also limit the dynamic range of you camera - a lot. Often really noticabel in post - you are much more limited to raise lights in shadows and so on. If you shoot JPG only, this might not affect you much, but for RAW photography I prefer to control ISO as good as possible. But I would never not go to avoid high ISO and lose an interesting shot.
2) Noise is, as you said, not really a problem, especially when your goal are prints. Noise is mostly bad in 100% (or even 200%) pixel peeping, in Prints it almost does not matter in Detail and Picture Quality, also it does not matter much if you export a scaled down photo for web-use. Scaling down was an olden and golden way to reduce noise without losing too much detail (while softening never was a good method - only AI changed noise reduction in a big way).
3) Noise is not only better handled by modern sensors and camera processors, but also in post KI-Noise reduction (e.g. Lightroom, DxO). You will lose a bit of detail, but with the modern denoisers this is hardly noticable.
So: You are right - don't hesitate to dial up your ISO if your shot requires it. Better a shot in High ISO than a blurred one in low ISO you can not use.
But also: dial ISO only as high as you need it. I still try to get along wit ISO100 if the lighting and object in question admit it.
Bigger bucket vs stronger magnifying glass to look at what's inside the bucket.
I am not a very skilled photographer, but that was exactly what I did when I took a picture from fishes in one these underwater parks. I couldn't use flash and not ISO 100 because it was to slow. The pictures ended up blurt. So I went for a higher ISO and shorter exposure time. With animals often there is no second chance.
5:32 Almost identical? Do You have eyes? right one in unusable while the left on is ok
Yep we made a mistake here. The footage was meant to be replaced but I missed it in the final review of the video.
I do have eyes. You literally just watched a video of me where I have eyes.
Do you have eyes?
@@Photography-Explained you can reupload the fixed video. or for years you will get those comments
I only check them for the first 24 hours. Best of luck!
When to shoot at iso 6400 and above ?
Is using 50000 iso feasible?
If you can’t increase the aperture or keep the shutter open longer then you’ll have to increase ISO.
50,000 is feasible if it’s the only way to get the shot.
A nosey image of something spectacular is still potentially an incredible photo.
Love the way you make difficult photography settings simple to understand. Today, I took some photos of birds sitting. In UK, it’s winter, dull, cold, low light and rainy. So, I cranked up the ISO to 8,000, on my R6, got some reasonable photos with quite a few likes on fb, then without a thought saw some grey Herons and Cormorants in flight, I keep shooting, suddenly realised my ISO was too high for the birds in flight. Yes! Well overexposed. However, managed to save one or two in Lightroom. Moral of the story, Watch those settings😢
Or go with Auto-ISO in shutter priority, or even auto-iso in manual if you really wanna control both shutter and aperture.
I was out yesterday too and was at 640 literally pointing into what sun we had going on lol.
When you say modern dslr or mirror less, what year range are you referring? Are my Nikon D4 and D610 "modern"? Nice sweater!
I’ve never used Nikon cameras but by “modern” anything that was produced in the last 5-10 years.
Obviously talented photographers were still creating amazing images before then and so camera tech usually isn’t the barrier.
On my Fuji xh2, I just set to to almost the entire native range and let my iso do whatever - because I can rarely tell a meaningful difference between 125 and 6400 (unless I REALLY start playing with the image)
I rather have my aperture and shutter speed set to exactly what I want.
I only set an ISO if I need a little extra control and the lighting is consistent.
I’ve even taken a few photos at 128000 that look amazing. Nothing a little AI cannot fix
Very good explaination, just missing a discussion of Dual ISO which is a thing to know about. With those it can be advantages in the right situation to set the iso level to or above the second native iso.
Just check the Dynamic Range/ISO graph of your camera. (photonstophotos webpage for example)
the dual ISO is that the sensor has 2 amplifiers set at diferent parameters so you can have a jump in Dynamic range when the second is used.
great videos as always! You never fail to dissapoint, just keep up the good work!❤
Thank you so much!!
Using ISO100 is from the 00's when cameras went to ISO1600 and after about 400 it was unusable and there was no good software to fix it. So we original DSLR shooters created this urban legend. Now? Who cares! I will use low ISO basically only if I have a f1.2 or faster lens and I want to use it wide open in sunlight. Otherwise use up to ISO 3200 without fear.
ISO 400 and more = too much grain, even in todays cameras (in reasonably price tag)
I have a new camera with recognized good ISO performance, I use ISO 3200 I only use in emergencies when the dynamic range gets worse and the noise is clearly prominent. You don't get anywhere near as clean images at is0 3200 as ISO 100, that's a fact. But some people don't seem to care and publish pictures with clear noise that looks terrible.
Noise isn't so bad though. Since AI noise reduction I had initially started to remove it completely and my photos look ridiculously bad. Like without the noise it looks like stuff has no texture.
Great video! new sub! i often shoot night time rugby games at 51,200 1/2000- completely useable photos after a bit of lightroom denoise.
I've never seen a camera that is even close to having usable images at ISO 51,200,my camera is one of the most best ISO performance, pictures taken at ISO 51,200 look terrible, and absulut nothing I would use. Then you can't have many demands on quality.
@@MatsPhoto the photos arent printed and are used on a website. so, yes if pixel peeping, i wouldnt use them for my portfolio, but for a local rugby club, they are happy. it all depends how the photos will be used.
ISO absolutely does matter, even on modern cameras. Whisper and rain analogies are silly. The fact is, when you can't adjust the other settings (shutter, aperture) any more and you need to jack up the ISO to get the right exposure, it produces noise in the image. Your graphs and stories don't change that fact.
You missed the point while proving the point. If you can't adjust your other settings any more, then your only choice to get the shot is to change the ISO. Would you rather not have the shot or get the shot with noise? If you would rather get the shot, then ISO really doesn't matter. That is the point
Then signal-noise ratio isn't real are you trying to say? 💀
If you are a professional photographer and you understand how to get a proper exposure in the first place then no ISO does not matter. If you are an amateur, then, I guess it does matter.
I think you just literally summarised the video.
@@darenaubiephotography8570 correct. If I can't get a good, clean photo, there is no need to take it because I won't use it.
On my old Canon 500D (Rebel), to me the max iso was 800, now I take great pics at Iso 8000 with my R6 ! I wonder how I ever got good pics in 2008 !
ISO doesn't create the noise but it indicates the amount of light required to get a good exposure. Therefore it does matter.
The amount of light matters.
You're bean counting. It is okay to say that ISO makes noise and increases the sensor sensibility. Capture the same scene with ISO3200 and 1/1000 and ISO100 and 1/2 second exposure, and you see the difference. In the end you admit that and add "who cares about a little bit of noise".
Take pictures at nativ ISO with right exposure so you don't need to boost it !
I've seen the past week at a wedding event regarding this information taught to us ,,, iso I've cranked up 1600 and saw a clear image of little noise evident ,this sir is teaching good stuff...I just love what U said and gave insight and the challenge to up the noise❤
Glad it was helpful!
The higher the iso the lower the dynamic range. The higher the noise.
Its not a villian people don't understand it.... If it were a raido it would be the volume knob, which would amplify the interference in the signal.......
Good video... but it is surprising that you have so many things so clear and so important things totally misguided. 1.- ISO MATTERS A LOT: the higher the ISO the less the dynamic range (just check any Dynamic Range/ISO graphic). 2.- Extended ISO (on lower ISOs not in higher), usually doesn't reduce DR or quality. (See any of these DR/ISO) graaphs.
I insist... if you have to crank the ISO to 800 for example, you loose a serious amount of DR...
Anyway... subscribed!! It was quite good
There is literally an image that shows ISO going up and DR going down...
Dynamic range in modern cameras is overblown. There are plenty of photographers using M4/3 sensors with less dynamic range than a FF camera taking incredible images.
With my A7R4 the difference between high ISO and ISO 100 DR is basically unmeasureable in the real world.
Anything that actually does require high DR like a sunset is going to get bracketed anyway.
@@Photography-Explained I am myself a M43 shooter (landscape photographer), and I can confirm that what you say about smaller sensors is true. But... I have to admit that I use LiveND (computational feature) in most of my images that expands my DR over any FF in the market nowadays
Said so, I just wanted to point that ISO DOES MATTER, if you need DR... if dynamic range is not important at all in your scene, then yes, you can increase it without much problems.
I think you answered your own question.
@@Photography-Explained actually I didn't have any question. I was just pointing that "ISO doesn't matter" statement is plainly wrong
I think you answered your own question, again.
ISO matters but there is a trend these days making videos that start with "You have been told ...". Of course I understand that things are evolving and we shouldn't hold on to archaic or dogmatic principles but ISO really matters and we should be telling things as it is. But I am guessing the world of youtube tutorial making runs on other principles.
“Unless they’re a photographer they really don’t care. I would say they would care even less. As both a photographer and VFX artist for major feature films and television…I stopped caring about the technicals decades ago. If I look at a photo I see the subject. If I watch a movie I watch the people. If something really stands out as bad it will annoy me but I’ll give it a pass if the story/intent is solid. I think the longer you do something the more the technical aspects fall away to reveal the intention of the subject matter since that’s really all that matters.
You're an actual artist though. Most "photographers" are gear nerds who never actually take any photos. That's why noise doesn't bother you but the nerds look out for it.
Some of my favorite films are absolutely covered in either film grain or digital noise. They're still incredible films.
oh it matters alright, on an r6ii @ 6400, its crap
Tbh I think the best setting is auto iso limited to maybe 6400
great video
Glad you enjoyed it
"Today's camera" , you're welcome
Sorry, what?
I'd rather have a pixelated picture than a blurry, out of focus...thats just me.
Absolutely!!
Same noise at ISO 100 as at 400 in apsc
Not sure that is true. Too many variables.
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it
Why are people so weird about noise? Properly exposed high iso looks better than low ISO. Noise looks ugly when underexposed. When properly exposed, higher ISO noise looks very pleasing and dithers the image allowing for more texture and character, yes, even for portraits.
ISO is just another thing for the "experts" to gatekeep. I see grossly underexposed pictures posted to SM everyday that are "good" because they were taken at ISO 100. I think at least a couple of my submissions to the contest were 50k + ISO.
Yeah. The average viewer doesn’t care if an image has noise if it’s an interesting image.
100% bullshit. Pictures taken at ISO 51,200 very rarely look good. And what kind of concert do you shoot where you need such a high ISO? I've shot hundreds of concerts and never above 3200 ISO, and still won a lot of awards. ISO makes a big difference to how the image is presented. Too high ISO looks terrible.
If you've won lots of awards, why are you watching RUclips videos for beginner photographers?
Something doesn't add up...
Thanks so much.
South Africa in the room ❤
You’re welcome Allen.
High iso kills detail end of discussion
Dude the comparison at 5:33 clearly shows your claims are complete BS. You self-sabotaged your own video. I see in your comment replies that you apparently "forgot to remove it". Yeah, you forgot to remove (hide) the evidence that disproves your own BS claims. My friend, you see how you've been working at this RUclips channel for nearly a year yet you only have 21k subscribers? If you want subscribers, you have to release videos that are not BS. You're never going to get successful crapping out this clickbait trash.
Fair play, I checked out your channel and you are crushing it. I’m always open to advice from people who are much further ahead than me.
We forgot to replace the footage with b-roll that shows things more clearly.
I’m not sure ISO invariance is the conspiracy theory you’re hoping it is.
Test it out for yourself and report back :).
Bro literally contradicting himself in the video and comments. Hilarious.
100% bullshit, ISP has a big impact on quality. I happened to shoot a car hit with ISO 1600 on my Nikon Z6, it makes a big difference. You don't get nearly as fine details. I want as clean details as possible. If you only shoot nature, the difference is a little smaller as nature already contains a lot of AC texture. But strangely enough, you only use nature photography when you want to show differences in ISO, it becomes misleading. ISO IS of great importance, everything else is a lie, based on my own experience as a photographer.
Did you watch the video?
Your ISO 1600 setting didn't cause a lack of detail. A lack of light caused the issue.
I'm a landscape photographer so my examples will mostly be of landscapes.
Although what you say may be partly true and innovative for a beginner, as well as relieving the guilt and de-dramatizing the sacrosanct technique. I agree with you that taking a good photo or video doesn't depend on a choice of isos, but to say that you can use any isos and that it doesn't affect image quality is at best poorly digested and at worst misleading. The fact that you only scratch the surface of the dynamic range of an image and how isos can affect it is an example of the poverty of your teaching. The principle of popularization is not to explain simplify things and leave out the details, but on the contrary to explain complicated things and their details in a simple way.
I encourage anyone who wants to know more to look elsewhere.I don't think this video is fundamentally dishonest, but it's far too incomplete not to be misleading.
To asnwer your "Nice to see someone who actually takes images comment here." when it goes in your way : I'm DIT an use/study ISOs settings on a dayli basis, for commercials or fiction.
Can only fit so much in a video that people will actually watch. Sorry you didn’t like the video.
@Photography-Explained You don't have to be sorry. We don't have to agree on everything, but I'm convinced that you can do better and get more views. Don't blame it on people's attention or expectations. "Every Frame a Painting" or "Willem Verbeeck" or "Branch Education" or "Computerphile" are some excellent youtube channel that broadcast under 20min technically accurate popularisation vidéos that people watch by millions.
Click bait!! Of course ISO matter.
Did you watch the video? ISO doesn’t matter. Not enough light matters.
Completely incorrect that iso doesn’t matter… it ultimately reduces the dynamic range of the image… harming the tonality in the image… most of this video is nonsense!
There's literally a diagram in the video that shows this.
Rubbish ISO matters lower the better.
Did you watch the video?
ISO doesn't matter. A lack of light matters.
Dump adobe you’ll😊 be Kay
I’ve tried and keep coming back like a crack head.
💰Want to win $10,000? Enter the Photography Explained Awards here: 👉 PhotographyExplained.com/Awards
There are 1,000 entries and the fee is $10 per entry? Ok, I see you've done the math to make this free for yourself. This isn't a prize you're giving out. It's nothing but a lottery funded by the contestants' own money.
@@BeaverTerror it's not a lottery as the best photo will win.
But yes, this is how photo competitions work. Apart from there is usually 10x the entrants and so the competition makes a 90% cut. Plus there is usually sponsors that pay the competition for another income stream.
I'm not running a charity but I'm trying to maximize the prize money for the winner.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Yes, even massive amount of KG does not make YOU heavy. Could you please make some diagrams on that too? That too would help many people feel stupid.
(Since they do not know how to eat KG jet feel heavy).
BTW : Driving very fast is also quite intelligent and much underated . You shorten the time exosed to possible accidents, AND get to desination earlier AND pollute the air for a shorter time,
"pollute the air for shorter time"
That's like walking into a room, leaving a big nasty smelling fart, exiting and then saying it wasn't an issue because you were only briefly in the room. 🤦♂️
@@maggnet4829
(Above : My arguments are sarcastic. From A to Z.)
@@AR-vf7vg I see.
❤❤❤❤