Dear Simon, just so you know, I changed my ISO to AUTO today after watching your video last night. And I went for a large public event. I have never taken such beautiful pictures. You changed my life! Thank you.
@@zetaphotography6548 I am using the Fuji X-S20 (APS-C). But I have come to realise my pictures are a little dark with Auto. Now I guess it would depend of the software of the camera too. I am using version 2.0. It works most of the time and it is true my pictures have improved in quality, and it is easy to bring some exposure post processing, but sometimes you do have to increase or decrease the ISO manually. Which is not big deal.
How have I never been taught this before! 🤯 I was always told the high ISO created the noise, and that it was better to brighten in post. This is a real game changer. You are such a gifted teacher, Simon. Thank you 🙏
It does and doesnt, alot of the noise is created at high iso is interference in the sensor and body, most cameras today are fine to 3200 for stills and 800 for video, its more about understanding dynmaic range, 0 to 255 values true black and true white.
Yeah high ISO really only ruins low light shots. Those shots were it’s dark and you want deep shadows. I realized this once when I turned my ISO all the way up, aperture to F16 and shutter speed fast and noticed it took a normal picture 😆
On top of adding noise, high ISO also noticeably reduces the dynamic range. That's part of why you should learn how your camera behaves and set it up accordingly to produce the best result for any given scenario. Carelessly bumping up ISO will not always give you the best results, but neither will keeping your ISO too low. (Also, speaking of shooting at F/16, don't forget the effects of diffraction at higher apertures, making your images softer than they could be.)
@clyde220 He was a well know painter/artist that had his own PBS schannel show that sowed people how to create beautiful landscapes until retired and died some years back.
Good video. The basic message, which I've believed for years: far more photos are ruined by out-of-focus subjects (resulting from insufficient depth of field) or motion blur than were ever ruined by excessive noise. Most viewers will notice out-of-focus and blur instantly; few will complain about noise. And as Simon pointed out, noise is now pretty easy to fix.
Ya I think most of the ppl that are irritated by the post don't necessarily disagree as much as they disrespect a mf using click bait titles and power words...u instantly can't trust a person who uses these deceptive practices to get views. So there should b no surprise that a bunch of ppl are hating on/blocking this dkwad. "THE TRUTH" ya left out a shocking there clickbaiter
If I’m permitted some dissent, some of the higher ISO shots here are noticeably paler in colour but most importantly (to me) are all unnaturally frozen. With all the advances in digital cameras, we’ve been left with talented, knowledgeable photographers with thousand of dollars of equipment shooting photos of taxidermied looking animals 😅 because now any motion is deemed as bad! Same happens with live shows of bands, etc.
What crasy ISO numbers !!!! I used to photograph with Kodachrome 64 (only 64 ISO) or Fuji Provia 400F or 400X (400 ISO). For mooving subjects in bad lighting, I had to turn to B&W with Ilford Delta 1000 (pushed to 3200 and developped in XTol, even then it was quite grainy)... You should really hold the camera stady with Kodachrome 64 if not using a tripod, and it was either no depth of field or not enough shutter speed, often both lacking (but what a great film non the less)... but... I could have never gotten this soaring howl picture with those low ISO ! 📷
Wanted to comment that I only recently broke my shackles of low ISO. Seeing this video has now given me confidence to continue this sensation of freedom! Thanks! Subscribed
I have found no other photographer on YT who is this well spoken while also being charming, knowledgeable, humble and perhaps most importantly, not boring. An excellent teacher.
One of my old lecturers, Mark Galer would give Simon a run for his money. We used to joke you could fall asleep to his voice, ruclips.net/video/PVdwKiTcJNs/видео.html
I moved to auto ISO for most handheld shooting years ago. I was reticent to use auto anything but I realised I was missing potentially great shots all over the place in my quest for low ISO, super detailed images. Now I stick with auto ISO unless it’s a landscape shot on a tripod. A sharp shot with ISO 800 is better than a blur at ISO 100 every single time.
Similar here: When using manual flashes, I use a fixed ISO. Otherwise I use the custom settings for quickly switching between the "people" setting with a shutter speed not slower than a 1/200th of a second and whatever ISO necessary and other frequent use cases. It doesn't help the foto if it's virtually noise free but OTOH the person in the image suffers from motion blur.
For fast shots... found my camera does 100-25600 with acceptable grain/noise, so have auto-ISO set to do it. Did an entire convention without touching my flash at all without much issue. One less thing to have to deal with when taking photos. Also use Aperture priority, and back button AF, with Continuous auto-focus mode, and works well.
@@wolphin732 I’ve used back button focus for the last 7 years. Would never go back to focusing with the shutter. I keep mine in manual mostly and select the aperture and shutter speed I want and let the auto ISO deal with the rest. If the ISO is creeping up a bit more than I want for the occasional shot, I open the aperture a bit and use a slightly slower shutter to compensate.
I never used auto ISO until recently. Vast improvement! For general hand held shots I mostly use auto ISO, stop down one stop and, if appropriate, bracket exposures. Manual ISO is just for specific cases.
This video is proof that even the nature of RUclips can't quash all authentic, informative, and interesting content. This is a sample of quality. Thanks for the tips, Simon.
@@emetahava No. I just think that when you see quality in a swamp of mediocrity, it should be pointed out. Let's encourage those who are producing concise, clear, and worthwhile information. I guess you haven't been there when I've roundly criticized a lot of the junk out there. :)
@@christocan4710 I've been in photography a long time. I even developed my own black-and-white film with those old metal film reels back in the day. Oh, do I appreciate digital cameras. :) But I'm not too old to learn something. I think Simon provides that. I see no reason to denigrate him.
RUclips and Instagram videos scared me into always keeping ISO low/controlling ISO manually, which made it so much harder to just go take some photos outside. Auto-ISO is a blessing, thank you.
I must tell you something: This is the first time I've heard this advice and I really understood perfectly how the signal-to-noise ratio applied to sensors works (since I'm an electronics graduate as well as a photographer). Everything became logical after your explanation. In addition, the new denoise function in Lightroom had already prompted me to increase the ISO in my photos, with amazing results. I, who had even forgotten about the automatic ISO function on my Nikon, went and started using it in conjunction with the manual exposure controls. I really liked the results and I didn't see any photos where denoise was essential. This post of yours deserves to be printed out and put up on my wall. A big hug and sincere thanks.
However I feel your explanation is introducing the misconception that gain/iso balances exposure and one can trade one for the other easily. However, ideally, just talking about a satisfactory SNR (not taking artistic factors into acount, e.g. minimizing exposure time), exposure and gain reach a minimum below which higher gain levels cannot compensate low exposure. Which is, because signal increases linearly with exposure but noise only with square root. Whereas shifting signal+noise levels with gain are both linearly proportional to each other. Or did I get that wrong (I just know from my time working with detectors for electron radiation, we needed to consider just that)
I'm a wedding photographer and I used to shoot at ridiculously low ISO settings because I was so afraid of getting a noisy image but then the images always turned out to be noisy anyway because I was shooting at such low ISOs. The more that I comfortable I got with shooting at higher ISOs, the better my images looked.
Except the images didn't turn out to be noisy anyways because you were shooting at low ISOs, it was because you didn't know how to properly light for that ISO.
@@hankkingsley9183 in time, you will learn that you don't always have the ability, or even the permission, tu use studio lights and flashes everywhere :) I cover live events and concerts, flashes are strictly forbidden and i don't have a say in the light show, high ISO capabiliy is THE deciding factor when choosing a new camera body No two fields of photography are equal and your views and experience don't always translate to universal truths
The day I lost fear of high ISO was when I watched your video on manual with auto ISO. I started shooting not worrying about ISO and when I uploaded the files to my pc I was amazed at how many of those photos were taken at ISO 1600 and you couldn't really notice. Truly eye-opening.
Forums are the worst, you always get people giving the most absolutist style statements, things like: “I NEVER shoot photos over 125 Iso, if you do you don’t know how to use a camera”
@@Perceptence One kind of camera snob that I know about, by being one, is the belief that only full-frame cameras with fast glass are "professional", because you can get more extreme bokeh with them. You CAN get better bokeh from a full-frame camera with fast glass, but maximum bokeh is not always necessary, or even desirable. I still like my full-frame and fast 85mm for portraiture, but lots of "lesser" cameras can take fine portraits.
ISO number is a concept from analog photography. It made sense in those times, because sensitivity came with the price of granularity. In digital photography it’s all about S/N.
I just started photography and was following the "keep ISO as low as possible" rule. I kept getting angry because my photos were blurry. I have shaky hands and my shutter speed was very low. I'm glad that you've taught me to not be scared of higher ISO's and realise that they go that high for a reason!
A good approach is to choose the widest lens aperture (smallest f-number) that delivers an adequate depth of field and the slowest shutter speed that will freeze movement to your liking without blowing out important highlights. Those settings not only control two important creative elements of a photo, they also determine exposure and the amount of light used to make the photo. From there, choose an ISO - or delegate that choice to the camera through auto ISO - that delivers an image having a pleasing lightness. The more attention given to those creative settings of f-stop and shutter speed, the higher the likelihood you'll make pleasing photos...at any ISO.
Hope you have shake reduction. I think mine adds about 3 stops or so. Experiment to see what shutter speeds you can reliably shoot and then up the ISO when needed.
Most helpful thing for me, "The noise was already there, the ISO just reveled that it was there." That is exactly what I needed to know. "Noise comes from not enough light, not from high ISO." Thanks!
And this is ladies and gentleman how you speak. When you know something, you don't need to scream at peoples faces and be argumentative, this gentleman explained whatever he needed with soft voice and without too much emotions even tho he's talking about subject people are very wrong about. And guess what, he for sure changed some of the smartasses point of view on this topic. Thank you man!
This was something I learned about a few years ago, going on a trip with a friend of mine who is a highly regarded dog photographer and me, being a landscape photographer. She instantly was amazed by the low ISO I was always trying to use. She tought me that having the right shutter speed was all I needed... Let the 'ISO fear' go... Since that moment, I've been so relieved!!! Using high ISO's all the time to get the crisp images I need...
It took me few years to learn and stop being ISO purist and I can't show how much happy I'm to see the same train of thoughts from the professional like you! Bravo to you for this! 👋💪
To be honest, old cameras were very noisy back in the day. Before 2010, there were many cameras which were noisy as hell even at ISO800 and 1600 was the limit. There werent so much auto settings for ISO and minimal shutter speed, so its not only about learning the lesson of ISO. I learned to shoot at very high ISO through birding because you have f/5,6 - 6,3 apertures and need 1/1000 or higher and have to accept what the camera tells you and you cant and wont buy a 600mm f4 lens for a hobby to get around this a little bit. Most pictures look noisy because of wrong focus or wrong shutter speed.
You have taught me not to be afraid of getting out of "Auto" mode on my camera, and to experiment with ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. My photos have greatly improved because of it. I am going to Scotland this fall - I am expecting better photos than I have previously taken.
I'm the opposite, afraid of using auto modes, such as for iso. I need to work on being more flexible in certain situations. Especially since we now have the denoise feature in Lightroom Classic.
@@L.Spencer Understand your feelings. Experiment with it. Try limiting how far the camera can adjust the ISO. And try printing as well. It's unlikely you'll even see minor noise. The experience will be the best way to get over any concerns, and learn your personal limits on how far you let auto ISO adjust. Happy experimenting!
I understood ISO with 35mm film. After two DSLRs and now considering a mirrorless purchase, I finally understand ISO in the digital world as the ‘amplifier’ corollary to the film’s sensitivity! And auto-ISO in manual: like automatically selecting the right film for the subject and DOF. Fantastic, Simon, thank you.
This is BY FAR the best explanation and reasoning I've ever heard in a video. Very clear terminology with visual demonstrations and use of examples. A child might be able to understand everything you're saying here. Exceptional job!
I grew up in photography. My father was a great photographer. I became a lab manager for other photographers. Back then we used film and if you used anything over 400 ASA the photos would have a lot of grain or noise in them. So everyone would try to shoot with 100 , 64 or 25 ASA. ASA changed to ISO in 1974. People think that ASA was for film and ISO was for digital, but this isn't the case. If you have a film that is ASA 400 or 400 ISO, they have the exact same light sensitivity as one another. But you probably already new this. Everyone thought that digital would never be as good as film. I'm guilty of this. Since I started shooting wildlife I quickly found out that auto ISO is the way to go! The information you provide is priceless! I look forward to your videos, they have taught me a lot. Thank you!
I shot lots of 400 and some 1000 film back in the day. Yes, they were grainy. The best thing about digital is you can EXPERIMENT. Try every ISO and see what it does. Not quite an option for film
@@jack002tuberI started to learn analog but started shouting with the Canon 20D at work and my learning jumped because of the instant feedback. Now 30 years later I’m getting back into film.
@@simon_dentremont It's true - you have the gift of simplifying complex subjects so that everyone can understand. When I took early retirement a year ago and was finally able to spend time on photography, yours was one of the first channels I discovered and subscribed to. I've learned a huge amount already from your videos (your earlier video on using Manual + Auto ISO was an important one!). Many, many thanks!
I got a R6 almost a year ago now and was running it on Auto ISO in Manual mode after finding out how well this camera performs at high ISOs. Ended up shooting a sunset panorama at ISO 6400 and you can't even tell. It preserved all of my highlights so well.
I was stuck in the "ISO 100" mindset for a long time, because the only camera I had was a Lumix from about 2005 with a max ISO of 400. After getting a more modern camera, it took a while for me to realize that I could get some really clean looking shots at higher ISO, especially indoors.
I figured out a long time ago I'd rather be able to run a faster shutter speed to capture action (which doesn't have to be something as crazy as sports, it can be a laugh, or quick smile, or a sideways glance) and if it had a little noise but was otherwise clean I was almost always happier.
The real trick is taking the time to learn the limits of your camera in terms of ISO performance. It is important to know where the tipping point of a camera is in acceptable high ISO noise. Once you know the upper limit, you can set the ISO range for using auto ISO. In terms of cropping there is an old adage that states " if you think you are close enough, get closer".
His point is that there is no limit where you’re better off just underexposing the shot. If you can create more light by adjusting the shutter speed or aperture, that is sometimes preferable. If you cannot, then you must raise the ISO as much as needed.
The upper limit comes from what the image is for. If you’re just shooting for your own enjoyment, there is no limit but when you work for a client, you have to know what the requirements for a usable image are. Sometimes it can be flexible, other times there’s a hard limit and you have to plan your gear accordingly.
@@stickgarrote8582 That sounds like situations where the lighting is too poor to produce a professional image, not situations where underexposing the shot is better than raising the ISO. That’s the lighting exceeding a limit, not the ISO.
The simple truth is every camera absolutely *does* have an upper limit where raising ISO *will* produce worse results and as such this point should only really be crossed as a last resort and certainly not without consideration, and that many cameras *do* use auto ISO in a way that raises the ISO way too much way too quickly for the intended result, increasing the noise and decreasing dynamic range as a result while gaining nothing. So as always in photography, if you want to get the best results, learn to use your camera to its maximum potential and know its strengths and weaknesses inside out so you can take advantage of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses. Which is photography 101, really, and applies to any camera you'll ever use, be it a simple point-and-shoot (or camera phone) or an expensive full-frame DSLR with lenses that cost a small fortune.
@@Case_ So you’re saying it is better to underexpose and brighten in post-processing than raise the ISO beyond the alleged limit? The point of the video is that if those are your only two options, raising the ISO is less problematic. Obviously we’re talking about situations with no other options (e.g., slower shutter will produce motion blur and aperture is already wide open).
This video was shared by a friend because I had some fear shooting photos with ISO over 100, same as the myth you comment, and you did a hell of a job explaining this topic in an easy, comprehensible way. Thank you very much!
The sensor dynamic range decreases at higher ISO, it's not just the noise and SNR ratio. Having said that, a lot of full frame cameras retain more than satisfactory dynamic range until ISO 2000, even ISO 3200. This is more important for landscapes. In regards to noise, what you say is completely accurate.
here is an example for the sony A7 III in color depth reduction cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CS_Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-vs-Nikon-D850-vs-Sony-A7-III-1024x468.png
Sensors have a 'native' ISO so setting below that also reduces dynamic range. As a cinematographer I work to the camera's native ISO as much as possible.
Do some tests. Shoot with plenty of light at 100 iso, and then 800 iso. You will see a marked difference in grain/noise. What you determine is "satisfactory" is entirely subjective.
Basically, the ISO from a flim camera and from a digital camera is not the same and not comparable. My mindset was stuck in the film era, where we would prefer to shoot 100 ISO and below as 800 ISO film was just too grainy. We have come a long way in digital photography. Thank you for this video.
@@joel6376 Exactly. On my first two digitals I actually went to 50 and 60 as much as I could. I used tripod (sometimes as monopod) A LOT. IIRC early dSLR's could go ISO 400 MAX. At resolution of 3 Mpix. Before Nikon D300 you could pretty much forget about clean nightime shots, because even with tripod and bulb mode, sensors ran hot and therefore noisy. And unfortunately digital noise exists also, maybe even more, in colour, while film grains is only in luminance. Yeah, today I can shoot ISO 3200 with my phone, no problem. And of course you need to understand exposure time and your subject, because shooting landscapes, or even more waterscapes and infrastructure, is totally different from shooting wildlife or sports. In the first case you sometimes use ND filters to make exposure longer on purpose.
I’ve been working in the outdoor industry for over 10 years, but only recently took the dive into telephoto glass for wildlife images. I was nervous about shooting high ISOs until the photographers I was working with shared their knowledge. Your videos are great confirmation of practices and feature great ideas. I really appreciate what you’re doing! Cheers, from BC and SE Alaska!
I specialize in portraits, weddings and product photos. Now I am interested in learning better Landscape and Wildlife photos. Your channel is the perfect one to learn this area. Thanks for all the great videos. Binge watching lately to learn more! Amazing information along with your great photo samples.
I have watched several videos from you now, and all of them say not to stick to iso 100. After trying it out myself, I had no luck at getting sharp images, even at 3200. After consistently raising the iso and adjusting the other settings accordingly, I'm now more comfortable shooting higher iso and can get sharp images with it. Thank you for being such a great teacher and balancing knowledge and information with examples and fun. You're one of my go to guys with questions now, and I greatly appreciate the knowledge. Thank you
When I started photography (60 years ago) it was all about film, and the standard film was 100 ASA (which became ISO). It was based on normal lighting in the middle of the day for shooting at f8 and 100th second. The only other option was 400 ASA film for sports, or if you were using transparency film (which was the best by far) you could get 32 ASA film that was great for anything where your subject was static. Digital changed everything.
I started photography 30 years ago, just before digital entered the world of photography. I was always using film 100, but that limitation helped me to fall in love with my aperture settings. I actually think those who learned on film have a technical and artistic advantage over those who grew up 100% digital.
I learned and "grew up" using a DSLR but could not stand the auto or "creative" settings, so I'd always just shoot on manual. I recently got into film and not much is different other than the fact I have to manually focus everything and am locked into a specific ISO until I am done the roll of film.@@Ric9hardify Exposing for the shadows instead of the highlights was the hardest thing to get used to.
@@davidgreus3041 In the late 90's, I used to use Kodak Ektar 25 to shoot candid portraits and things not moving. I loved the color saturation more than any other film I ever tried. The enlargements were also some of the best I ever had. I usually carried two bodies because the one with the 25 in it was unusable so much of the time because of it not being bright enough to shoot without a tripod. It's nice now not having to go through 24 or 36 exposures to finish off a roll of film before you can change the ISO.
Simon has really changed my photography. It's rare to hear these type of scary myths discussed. I love using auto ISO. I have caught so many amazing shots because of it. I used to think auto ISO was icky. I've learned so much more from this channel than most. My shots are more consistent. Better exposed. Sharper, better. It isn't just talk. This channel has taught me so much. Keep up the great work Simon!
I wish, from the bottom of my heart, that every teacher, educator, and professor I had learned how to teach from you. You have a gift. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Only go to the lowest ISO "IF" you have enough lighting to do so. Most important is getting the shot with the lighting you have. Your information is absolutely correct. Thank you for bringing the subject for newer photographers.
Eye opener Vlog for me Simon! Yep ... for my generation, who learned photography on negative and reversal films were available. I am 72 now, for me age is just a number and there is no age limit to learning! Creative people never retire! I served in advertising and headed the creative teams of leading advertising agencies in Pakistan. Whenever we were outdoors for a shoot, my favorite film was Kodak Ektachrome, 50 ASA. No noise and ultra sharp images with vivid colors even using images for posters through process printing. Now I am a consultant and brand developer, do photography myself with strobes. My most favorite areas are food, products, portraits and street photography. All the very best Simon! Rgds. ♥
Same, I totally knew about thinking of more light as more "information" for the sensor and that signal:noise is the problem... Yet this video made me realize I was in a bit of an ISO prison myself anyways haha
I absolutely have to say thank you for you making this video. I have taken six photography classes, at my local college. I have been shooting for almost 2 years part time. And I did not understand ISO until this video. I am so very grateful. Thank you.❤
@@jelly.1899I guess most of supposedly “experts” just know that ISO represents the sensitivity of the sensor (as written in many photography books), and they didn’t investigate the topic any more…
My Nikon CoolPix P900 shoots between 100-6400 ISO, I never really had any lessons until after the first year, so I was always shooting over ISO 1000, because I didn't quite understand shutter speed and aperture. Fast forward a few years later, now I shoot between 200-800 for normal photos and don't edit my results anymore. I still use +1000 ISO for astro photography, but mostly for the moon and very few planets. I was never, nor am I currently afraid of high ISO, so when I learned that most RUclips channels tell you to stay between 100-400, I thought they were crazy. This is a refreshing change of pace, and definitely the reason I stick to your channel for inspiration and insight.
I’m just getting back into photography after over a decade away from it and I have not at all been happy with my work. This video just explained exactly what I’ve been doing wrong. Thank you so much!!
Been shooting for a few months now and had great scenery shots at ISO 400-800, therefore never understanding the ‘why’ of ‘Always shoot 100’. Having the ISO explained like this has made me understand this mechanism so much more. Thank you!
I do a lot of stage photography. My default iso ranges from 5000-8000. My shutter pretty much stays at 500 because performers move so fast. I still deal with a bit of noise, but Topaz helps a lot. I have been able to get so many wonderful photos out of these settings.
Same here, my mentor (a Nashville stage photographer) favors a lower ISO (maybe 1600) but I set the 5DIV to a cap of 12,800 on auto and set the lens to wide open. I use On1 NoNoise in batch mode on the export directory from Lightroom to clean up the noise.
I learned not to worry too much about ISO back in the film era! In my country (and possibly elsewhere too?) the newspapers stopped using film and went fully digital all at the same time. (I don't remember what year it was). This meant that the camera stores had a big surplus of 800 ISO films that they could no longer sell to the press photographers. So these films suddenly became cheaper than the 200 ISO films that we amateurs usually bought. And I got great results with ISO 800! Noise was much less of a problem than I had anticipated. It took me some time to fully understand why this was so, but using higher ISO was a good lesson.
I'm old enough to remember the term ASA (film speed). The camera's I used had the ASA dial setting on the top of the camera. I used quite a bit of Kodacolor Gold , ASA's 100, 200 & 400. different times but similar techniques.
@@jimbruton9482 I started shooting on film when I was a kid (I'm 32 now) because my dad always loved photography. I used to get ASA 400 film and it felt like I was ready for everything lol like strapping your fastest shoes
During the film days, my brother and I did wildlife and landscape photography in the Rockies. He always used the lowest ISO (ASA?) possible while I was overjoyed when ISO 400 appeared. While my brother kept changing his film based on the subject, I exclusively used 400. That's when he gave me the nickname, "Old 400", and I've used that moniker ever since. Thanks for this fine training, Simon.
Wow 🤯🤯🤯 this is exactly what I needed to see. As a beginner I literally developed a fear of using anything other than the lowest iso setting because every single video always says do not use any iso, and I do handheld stuff a lot since I’m just learning and walking around, so this video helps a lot. Not to mention The signal to noise ratio is an unbelievably amazing analogy. As an audio engineer this really hit home for me. We deal with the same thing when it comes to gain staging. Why do I hear so much noise? It’s because you don’t have enough input on your interface so you’re just turning up the low level noise!
It's really interesting, I'm an engineer who studied sensors (mostly acoustic ones) for 5 years and you're definitely right. Playing with gain / ISO is a good way to get the most signal and information. Of course you'll get more noise but it is easier to crop noise than to create additional information in the signal. I must try higher ISO.
I actually really like luma noise in printed photos and typically just remove the chroma noise. Creates a nice organic textured look in my opinion. We shouldn’t fear noise as much. It’s the chroma noise that looks digital and cheap. The luma noise can be very pleasant.
Me being a fan of unprofessional looking, capture of the moment photographs, I think even chroma noise has a feel to it, like the look of a cheap point and shoot film camera.
@@alvareo92 I'm saying chroma noise gives a feeling similar to that of the look of a cheap film camera, not that cheap film cameras create chroma noise.
I'm a hobby photographer for years and I know about the concept explained in this video. But I have never seen a video explaining it so well and to the point, backed up with examples and tips. The video is neither too short nor too long. Bravo. That earned you a thumbs up and a new subscriber!!
Great stuff. I'm a wildlife/landscape photographer and can confirm I've gotten some great shots at crazy high ISO. I once shot a barn own in the middle of a snow storm an hour after dark at 12,800. That was years ago before the huge improvements in noise reduction that have improved it a lot. Now I don't generally go too much over 3200, I heavily prioritize shutter speed and aperture on most shots. One thing that was very helpful to me in the beginning was guessing the correct exposure settings - then seeing how off I am based on the camera auto-settings, then also really understanding metering and range pictograph. It all really comes back down to understanding light then applying that to how a digital camera captures it. If you've never dived into how camera sensors work - it is very helpful. I will say video is less forgiving - but as far as photography goes, use that ISO! :)
I'm 17 and I've been photographing on my phone for about 2 years, but im about to get my first dedicated camera and lens. This channel has helped me to understand what I'll be dealing with and the expanded capabilities of real photography - Your advice has made me even more excited to experiment and learn, so thank you!
@@johannvantassel4604 That's great! Looking forward to the first real camera! :-) This channel will definitely help you a lot! I've been watching a lot of camera videos lately and @Simon d'Entremont is really the best!
Great advice Simon. I’ve been shooting in manual with auto ISO for years and love it. And, as a bonus, my camera, the Fujifilm X-T4, always chooses the lowest ISO, depending on the lighting quality. Camera manufacturers know what they’re doing when they design their latest cameras; we should trust them and not just listen to the advice of well meaning, but misinformed, other photographers. Great channel Simon. Keep the good advice coming!
This piece of advice completely and utterly changed the way I shoot. This was probably the single most useful piece of advice I've received in my photography career, bar the absolute basics I learned years ago.
Why no one told me about this before! I went through the whole season of northern lights, underexposing (still at like 1250 ISO) and getting crazy noise. I just made a quick test in dark room, and can confirm bumping up the ISO does work. Thank you very much for your advice!
Great information Simon. I shoot with Olympus (Micro 4/3) and regularly shoot at high ISO. Yes, images can be noisy but Topaz does a wonderful job of correcting the issue. Thanks for your advice.
It's amazing how big the difference is between a RUclipsr and a real photographer! Flawless video, congratulations! As I leave the studio, i set aperture priority, auto-ISO and auto-shutter speed with manually selected minimum value. The latter eliminates motion blur (e.g. I don't let it go below 1/500 in auto-mode), but if suddenly "too much" light hits the sensor (light levels are constantly changing in an event shoot), the camera can instantly increase this value for the correct exposure.
I have to say, after watching countless hours of photography content on RUclips, even though I knew about most of the stuff you put out here, I am very impressed about how clearly you deliver the message, you are very confident and experienced in what you do, and it shows, great job.
Was expecting a really hot take from the title, but this video delivered way beyond expectations. I love how you emphasize on the fact that getting the shot is much more important than micromanaging all the settings to get a technically ISO sound image, and missing the shot or ruining it with the other two parts of the exposure triangle not being at the right settings for the scene. Great to see a rep for auto ISO too, learn how to use metering and your shots with auto ISO will come out perfect. Every photographer needs to see this video!
I realized years ago that motion blur is usually much worse than noise, so I turn up ISO as much as I need to to keep exposure times short enough. Especially with modern 16-24MP sensors... even older 12MP cameras. If you're asking these questions you're most likely not printing or displaying any of your photos big enough to see the noise.
2 Things I appreciate from this video : 1. The advices overall, great. 2 : Asking for a like at the end of the video, since it's only when you've seen it that you can leave an actual like.
Best explanation for ISO Simon. When i started i came from landscape photography and ISO was hard grained to be 100. But these days, the noise removal apps, having more control of shutter speed to nail the shot and seeing the difference of not having the good speed for action has shown me proof that i had to let it go awhile ago, so happy i did. Excellent example of the seascape and landscape action shots.
I work in networking fulltime (so im very familiar with the concept of SNR and it made ISO make sense to me almost imediately) but Im a photography and DP on the side. It blows my mind how widespread the misconception of ISO is. Its always refreshing watching your videos keep up the good work.
Studying cinematography really deepened my knowledge on ISO as well. In the cinema world, lower ISO shots have the dynamic range allocated toward the shadows while higher iso shots allocate the dynamic range to the highlights. So for low light scenes it’s actually MUCH better to shoot at lower ISO’s many times, because there will be significantly more detail in the dark shadows. This does mean you need to light accordingly though. Still the same principle applies, you can’t starve the sensor of light. as long as there’s lighting hitting the subject and you’re not trying to make a black hole visible, higher iso settings aren’t the end of the world
ummm... no.. this is backwards. lower iso increases the dynamic range in the highlights, and the shadows get crushed because of lack of light. higher iso will over expose the hilights reducing their dynamic range and bring out more dynamic range in the shadow, which can be pushed back down in editing. cinematography requires you to keep you shutter at half the speed of your frame rate to maintain 180 degree motion blur, so lowering your iso in a dark environment will always make you footage darker in the shadows and introduce more compression artifacts and lose you dynamic range in the shadows.
@@homewardboundphotos That is completely wrong, and @mikemarch416 said it right. When shooting video, you get more detailed highlights at higher ISO values because the camera "sacrifices" the dynamic range of the shadow areas to preserve highlights by "elevating" the dynamic range window (making the shadow areas noisier). You can see this in action in this video, along with charts: ruclips.net/video/eyiVjTrEEbw/видео.html It's no coincidence that, for example, S-LOG starts at ISO 800, you can't set it any lower than that.
@@erikpeterffy7552 uhh what, this video you linked has exactly nothing to do with whats being talked about and is irrelevant.. you need to think about this. why would increasing the iso, and pushing the highlights closer to clipping preserve them? you're pushing them closer to the end of the dynamic range of the camera. making the image darker (lowering iso) preserves detail in the hilights. making the image brighter (raising iso) preserves detail in the shadows. log starts at 800 because it's a reverse s curve and since shadow detail is harder to retain than hilight detail, the curve favours higher iso. that's the reason. The camera doesn't "sacrifice" detail in the shadows at high iso. it just makes the shadows brighter, which is the exact opposite of sacrificing detail in the, which is exactly the point of slogs reverse s curve, because the mp4 codec it records is lossy and throws out data closer to the blacks and whites. don't even start man, i make 6 figures, have 50k worth of gear, and a 5 series bmw because the photo and video works that i do. I know what i'm talking about.
@@homewardboundphotos You are completely misunderstanding the concept of dynamic range. Increasing ISO doesn't make anything necessarily brighter, as you can achieve the same exposure at ISO100 and ISO6400 by simply using a faster shutter speed, narrower aperture or ND filter, so you don't push anything toward clipping. In the linked video you see exactly that, and the uploader literally talks about why you have more stops of dynamic range toward the brighter part of the image at higher ISO (he even encircles it for you in the diagram). Study the figure carefully at 1.34. There it is in big red and blue lettering what I am talking about. 6EV vs 8EV. As for the second half of your comment, well that gave me a good laugh. Anyone who's been shooting amateur video for at least 2-3 years knows you have no clue about video and thus the concept of the "exposure triangle". Anyway, I have 51k in gear and a 6 series BMW, so I know better. 🙃
@@erikpeterffy7552 omg your video actually validated everything I'm actually saying, you just don't understand the video XD both footages were shot AT ISO 800. He put an ND filter on it to make the image DARKER, therefore RETAINING DETAILS IN THE HIGHLIGHTS. The reason he's not just lowering the ISO in the camera is because 800 is as low as slog 3 will let you record. Record the image DARKER, retain detail in the HIGHLIGHTS. Same ISO, lower brightness (because of ND) = more detail in the highs. And guess what dumbass? The same works in the darks. Record the image BRIGHTER by increasing the ISO, and retain more detail in the shadows. Absolutely hilarious when morons share examples that actually prove them wrong, but they don't realize because they don't understand what's happening on the screen LMFAO! what an absolute joke.
From what I learned you prioritize aperture and shutter speed according to the subject and adjust ISO accordingly as long as the noise level is still acceptable. Aperture = to get the target depth of field and hyperfocal distance. Shutter speed = to get the proper speed to capture. still, slow. or fast moving subjects. There is a limit where you just have to stop increasing the ISO because of the noise amplification and artifacts it produces and you just have to with slightly change/compromise the ideal shutter speed or aperture to get a balanced result.
It took me a while to understand that if I actually over-expose with a higher iso, then bring down the exposure in post, I get a better shot because it reduces the noise! It took me a while to get over raising my ISO, but once I did, I got more shots and was able to become a better photographer because of it. It really is disappointing when you hear photographers say not to raise your ISO too much - it scared me for years and I can't imagine all the shots I *could have gotten unlearning that. Thanks, Simon!
I’ve been shooting pro wrestling for the past few years. Understanding ISO has been integral in getting perfectly exposed action shots in challenging lighting conditions. This video is a great explainer for those who might be scared off bumping it up or relying on auto ISO, it’s really useful!
I learned this working with PROs in the industry instead of listening to "PRO RUclips PHOTOGRAPHERS" (im glad there ARE RUclipsrs that know what they're talking about)
When I first started shooting, I really messed up because I would use an extremely high iso and ruined my whole trips worth of pics. I learned my lesson and now I’m a professional, it’s been 3 years since then.
A note; the organization that invented 'ISO' is not the International Standards Organization. It is the International Organization for Standardization and 'ISO' is the Greek word for equal. The idea being that an ISO standard is applied in the same way across an industry. In our case, it is the light sensitivity of the sensor on any camera. Before digital, it was the sensitivity of the film one used. Your SIM card in your phone is an ISO standard, as are the size and layout of your credit cards. The number of ISO standards goes on and on. Just thought you might be interested.
I used to control my ISO manually a bunch but honestly it was too distracting! Auto ISO absolutely is the way to go for most situations. What a great video!
I really appreciate this video, Simon! As a "hobby photographer", I was definitely in the category of "shoot everything at ISO 100 if you can". After watching your video just now, I'm now a changed man. 😎👍 Thank you!
As a weeding photographer i was trained to use low ISO when im outside. and we always shoot with flash. however recently i have been leaving my flashes in the car and shoot natural light when im outside. i hade to start shooting in iso 400 and above to expose correctly. and the photos came out just as goos as the low iso photos. and shooting natural light is fun!!
I got into this conversation with another RUclips photographer the other day. They were talking about "common mistakes new users make" or something along those lines. I told them that they (community, not just them specifically) needed to start rewording or rethinking what they were teaching others. High ISO isn't inherently bad and it's more to do with their usage of available or artificial lighting that was definitely important. But...not everyone, including myself, get everything right based off experience, but on what they're been told. I learned a lot of my skills the hard way lol
When I was a beginner at photography, it was drilled into me to always shoot as low as possible. Now that I have been taking photos for about 10 years and I am on a pro body, the most loved feature that is not available on a lot of cameras, is to have ONLY the ISO be auto and have it on a limited scale. It helped so so much with my photography. I can adjust the limits throughout the day and do not have to care about it "in the moment". I love bird photography and it is so lovely that I can just set the limit to 3200 for day shooting, 12800 for early day shooting where conditions are poor - and I can just shoot away. Sure, it sometimes tries to over shoot, but as mentioned in the vid - a photo is much better than no photo at all.
Is it really not standard at this point to have a user programmable max for auto ISO? My T7i can, and I thought my T5 was able to do it as well, 5D MK II doesn't seem to be able to though
@@BilboSwagginsTheThird it looks like it. I think the feature is a rarity and most manufacturers do not even list if this is available or not. Best feature though :D
Thanks, Simon. My photography journey began with film and decades ago. I mostly used Kodachrome (ISO 25) but at times went with Ektachrome (ISO 64). Using ISO400 was only done on rare occasions. This mindset conditioned my approach to digital photography where I always used as low an ISO as possible. Fortunately and because of advice from people like you, I began to increase my ISO but only cautiously so. After all, old habits die hard. My HaHa moment occurred when I was doing some macro photography of a drone fly on a flower in the shade. As is most often the case, the ISO setting on my camera was set to Auto. I was pleased with the shot - it was in focus and well exposed. It was only in post processing that I discovered that my ISO was 3200, and this on a MFT camera. That’s all it took for ISO to no longer be a holy grail!
Photography has been my passion for a couple years now however, im finally getting my first actual camera tomorrow and im stoked ive just been using my phone and ive gotten some good shots but nothing amazing so ive been binge watching your videos and for a beginner they are fantastic they break down everything amazing and give reasons with evidence on why thats the case whereas other channels just say this is what to do without any major explanation. Thank you!
Absolutely. Some other channels just babble about gear and read the specs off the box. Simon is one of the few truly educational photography youtubers. Congratulations on getting your first camera, it's an amazing feeling when you first listen to the shutter :)
I just started using a camera and I shoot manually because I like the freedom. Gives me a more personal experience with the camera and the environment. Anyway, I was outside shooting on a bright day and I realized that my photos came out better in a higher ISO because of all the moving parts. This video was extremely helpful in telling me I'm not crazy.
I just started photography and im so glad i started watching your videos. The way you deliver the information really helps me understand not just how to do something but why. So thank you
I just started 2 months ago and yes, so much this. People have been telling me certain things like “turn your ISO to this” or “make sure your aperture is this” and I’ve been screaming “W H Y ?” for the entire two months. This has been beyond helpful.
Thanks to you I now shoot in manual with auto ISO, but I'm using vintage manual lenses, so aperture and focusing is controlled directly on the lens and shutter speed with the camera I've really been enjoying my vintage lenses thanks to this tip, I only concentrate on the artistic part of photography and leave the ISO to the camera
I am forever thankful to you for teaching me this. I was clueless because I was alway taught to keep that ISO low. I set my camera in Manual with ISO in automatic and boom everything changed.
I have never had any formal training on ISO / Shutter Speed / Aperture, and just recently I finally bought a camera and started taking my hobby more seriously. So I've never been told about shooting in 100 ISO. I just played with the camera a lot in the manual mode attempting to figure it out and found that I more the less could get decent shots but had absolutely no idea what I was doing wrong. This video has helped correct a few ignorant mistakes and makes me feel a lot better about my wild life / nature shots
Manual mode and auto ISO is also my preferred combination. I often get worse results when I mess with the ISO settings and try to optimize them versus aperture and exposure time.
@@GoldenKnight702 using what the technology has to offer, especially the right way, is no reason for shame and far from "cheating", but i get your point, you're not alone, you're not the only one. if that was cheating, someone should have given a talk to the guys coming up with priority modes as well.. ..not to mention bringing up lights in the woods.. umbrellas.. ..how about auto-focus.. focus assist / peaking.. i'll stop :) BTW: if you're still "new to photography", don't miss the fact that Auto ISO is supposed to be used with a mindfully chosen max shutter speed (time) setting, look it up in the menu. some students in art school are still brainwashed into learning and perfecting the archaic means of painting.. as if the greats of the past looked forward for using what was less than what their time had to offer...
Honestly your explanation on auto iso is right on point. I used to shoot full manual exclusively but you’d always get burners for either tests or if you’re shouting a quickly moving subject in a highly dynamic scene. Auto iso just completes your exposure within your given parameters. I know that if I’m using auto iso I will at least get an image that could be milked in processing to make a usable image. With that being said I am always keeping an eye on my iso to make sure that my shutter speed and aperture are not hindering the cameras ability to capture the scene at an acceptable iso. You do need to understand a proper exposure to make youse of auto iso
I used to be afraid of using higher ISO values, so I often kept my ISO at 100. This led to many of my photos being underexposed, and when I tried to brighten them afterward, it often resulted in more noise than if I had used a higher ISO from the start. Now, I either set the ISO manually or use auto ISO with a limit. You are so right about this
The gain knob analogy is absolutely spot-on. In audio recordings, it works EXACTLY like that. Every room has noise, but bringing the gain knob higher, you make it more evident if there's no clear signal being sent to the microphone to increase the signal to noise ratio.
It depends if you talk about post or pre gain. The pre gain or "gain staging" as it is called does not raise the noise floor, only the input signal, thus creating a larger signal to noise ratio. Changing the post gain or volume however affect both the input signal and the noise floor, making the noise louder if turn up the gain for the entire recorded track.
It also seems that you are confusing the noise floor with the room noise. The noise floor comes from the electric circuits inside of the recording equipment and is not affected by altering the pre gain, the room noise does.
Nope. Never mentioned noise floor. Only talked about SNR. And it is precisely what I described. You raise the gain, you get more audible noise if there's poor signal to noise ratio. That's exactly what I said. The room noise can be more apparent if you raise the pre-gain. The noise floor wasn't even being mentioned since it's related to circuits. It's as simples as that, you get poor SNR if that's no clear signal to be received by the microphone. Just the same with the camera. If the landscape is too dark/poorly lit, you have low "volume" signal entering the sensor, therefore, you get noisier images. The noise is always, and I mean always (not "often"), more apparent if you don't have a clear signal entering the microphone. You can test it. Raise only the pre-gain to as high as you can and don't emit any sound. You will hear the noise become more apparent as you turn the pre-gain knob to a higher. position. You are talking about entirely different things than what I described and making assumptions out of thin air. I said precisely what I said and not what you assumed I meant to say.
@@Cayoalbuquerque My bad then. I misunderstood your comment because we often refer to the noise floor when we talk about SNR, although you are correct that you can still use the term SNR when talking about background noise, but it's not as common. I am sorry if my comment made you upset.
Excellent! ISO also comes from the Greek word "isos". As a film director, my dad taught me the original ISA standard as well as ISO's. The myth of ISO 100 actually stems from the film era which was a challenge for young reconnaissance photographers in WWII, like him. He and Charles Scripps served together and were very aware of film's temperature/chemical properties. With the advent of charge coupled devices (CCD), which all modern digital cameras are based, everything changed in the ISO world, as sensors work on a Nyquist fourier transform method when it comes to noise. As Honeywell, and later Sony, improved these devices, ISO settings expanded greatly. Whether filming at treetop at 275 mph in a P-38 Lightning, or high up in a heavy bomber, it was a real balancing act to obtain usable still/film footage. If you want to know more about the latest digital sensors, I suggest checking out Pawel Achtel, ACS, and his new 9:7 format digital based equipment.
One thing that was missed was that you can balance ISO with a flash. In a dark environment you light a subject with the flash but also expose the environment using a higher ISO where the flash won’t reach
Ive noticed this late but I cant agree more, I shoot a old camera, Nikon D3100 yet it takes perfectly compareable pictures to other DSLR's. I rarely touch low ISO's because ive always experimented no matter how clowned i was by my friends, i still experiment upon what idea i have in my mind, ISO's are nothing to fear. Be brave and get used to it.
Only just recently learned that a properly exposed image has less noise then under exposed at the same ISO, i admit I was one of those people scared to go over 1600 ISO wheres now I just expose my image properly and can barely notice the noise. Also I have matured into photography and I actually like a little noise in the image, depending on the situation it can add character and make it more pleasing to the eye then a smooth image.
Dear Simon, just so you know, I changed my ISO to AUTO today after watching your video last night. And I went for a large public event. I have never taken such beautiful pictures. You changed my life! Thank you.
I long for the days when 400 and 800 ASA film was the norm. Those were the days my friend..... (JK).
What was the camera used?
@@zetaphotography6548 I am using the Fuji X-S20 (APS-C). But I have come to realise my pictures are a little dark with Auto. Now I guess it would depend of the software of the camera too. I am using version 2.0. It works most of the time and it is true my pictures have improved in quality, and it is easy to bring some exposure post processing, but sometimes you do have to increase or decrease the ISO manually. Which is not big deal.
Haha me too with the auto ISO in manual I was sick of pressing the ISO button and rotating the dial to change it all the time
The only downside is that it's hard to detect when you're overtly underexposing the shot (camera choosing extreme high ISO).
This has to be the most I have learned from a RUclips video this year.
The most misinformation.
Exactly this :D
@@practicalphotography1235 elaborate?
@@practicalphotography1235 what are you on about
Great stuff
How have I never been taught this before! 🤯 I was always told the high ISO created the noise, and that it was better to brighten in post. This is a real game changer.
You are such a gifted teacher, Simon. Thank you 🙏
It does and doesnt, alot of the noise is created at high iso is interference in the sensor and body, most cameras today are fine to 3200 for stills and 800 for video, its more about understanding dynmaic range, 0 to 255 values true black and true white.
Yeah high ISO really only ruins low light shots. Those shots were it’s dark and you want deep shadows.
I realized this once when I turned my ISO all the way up, aperture to F16 and shutter speed fast and noticed it took a normal picture 😆
High ISO does creates the noise.
You were taught right. This guy is posting counter culture for view counts
On top of adding noise, high ISO also noticeably reduces the dynamic range. That's part of why you should learn how your camera behaves and set it up accordingly to produce the best result for any given scenario. Carelessly bumping up ISO will not always give you the best results, but neither will keeping your ISO too low.
(Also, speaking of shooting at F/16, don't forget the effects of diffraction at higher apertures, making your images softer than they could be.)
Your explanations have the clarity, simplicity, and elegance that only come with true expertise. So glad I found your channel!
Did I just find the Bob Ross of photography?
Yes you did
Finally!
Might thoughts as well.
Who's Bob Ross
@clyde220 He was a well know painter/artist that had his own PBS schannel show that sowed people how to create beautiful landscapes until retired and died some years back.
I primarily work with audio. You stating that the issue is noise to signal ratio was all I needed to hear to make it all click. My hero.
same but for RF ❤️
Same here, I do a lot of pro audio work, and this really hit home for me
Good video. The basic message, which I've believed for years: far more photos are ruined by out-of-focus subjects (resulting from insufficient depth of field) or motion blur than were ever ruined by excessive noise. Most viewers will notice out-of-focus and blur instantly; few will complain about noise. And as Simon pointed out, noise is now pretty easy to fix.
100 pct
Ya I think most of the ppl that are irritated by the post don't necessarily disagree as much as they disrespect a mf using click bait titles and power words...u instantly can't trust a person who uses these deceptive practices to get views. So there should b no surprise that a bunch of ppl are hating on/blocking this dkwad. "THE TRUTH" ya left out a shocking there clickbaiter
And THAT was always true.
If I’m permitted some dissent, some of the higher ISO shots here are noticeably paler in colour but most importantly (to me) are all unnaturally frozen. With all the advances in digital cameras, we’ve been left with talented, knowledgeable photographers with thousand of dollars of equipment shooting photos of taxidermied looking animals 😅 because now any motion is deemed as bad! Same happens with live shows of bands, etc.
What crasy ISO numbers !!!!
I used to photograph with Kodachrome 64 (only 64 ISO) or Fuji Provia 400F or 400X (400 ISO). For mooving subjects in bad lighting, I had to turn to B&W with Ilford Delta 1000 (pushed to 3200 and developped in XTol, even then it was quite grainy)...
You should really hold the camera stady with Kodachrome 64 if not using a tripod, and it was either no depth of field or not enough shutter speed, often both lacking (but what a great film non the less)... but... I could have never gotten this soaring howl picture with those low ISO ! 📷
Wanted to comment that I only recently broke my shackles of low ISO. Seeing this video has now given me confidence to continue this sensation of freedom! Thanks! Subscribed
I have found no other photographer on YT who is this well spoken while also being charming, knowledgeable, humble and perhaps most importantly, not boring. An excellent teacher.
Yeah..and he's good to.
Too kind!
One of my old lecturers, Mark Galer would give Simon a run for his money. We used to joke you could fall asleep to his voice, ruclips.net/video/PVdwKiTcJNs/видео.html
Fact!
I moved to auto ISO for most handheld shooting years ago. I was reticent to use auto anything but I realised I was missing potentially great shots all over the place in my quest for low ISO, super detailed images. Now I stick with auto ISO unless it’s a landscape shot on a tripod. A sharp shot with ISO 800 is better than a blur at ISO 100 every single time.
Similar here: When using manual flashes, I use a fixed ISO. Otherwise I use the custom settings for quickly switching between the "people" setting with a shutter speed not slower than a 1/200th of a second and whatever ISO necessary and other frequent use cases. It doesn't help the foto if it's virtually noise free but OTOH the person in the image suffers from motion blur.
For fast shots... found my camera does 100-25600 with acceptable grain/noise, so have auto-ISO set to do it. Did an entire convention without touching my flash at all without much issue. One less thing to have to deal with when taking photos. Also use Aperture priority, and back button AF, with Continuous auto-focus mode, and works well.
@@wolphin732 I’ve used back button focus for the last 7 years. Would never go back to focusing with the shutter. I keep mine in manual mostly and select the aperture and shutter speed I want and let the auto ISO deal with the rest. If the ISO is creeping up a bit more than I want for the occasional shot, I open the aperture a bit and use a slightly slower shutter to compensate.
I never used auto ISO until recently. Vast improvement! For general hand held shots I mostly use auto ISO, stop down one stop and, if appropriate, bracket exposures. Manual ISO is just for specific cases.
Same. Manual Mode with Auto ISO, and then if I want I can limit how high the Auto ISO can go. I'm just a neophyte, but it's worked well for me so far.
This video is proof that even the nature of RUclips can't quash all authentic, informative, and interesting content. This is a sample of quality. Thanks for the tips, Simon.
Appreciate that
brownnosing there Brad....
@@emetahava No. I just think that when you see quality in a swamp of mediocrity, it should be pointed out. Let's encourage those who are producing concise, clear, and worthwhile information. I guess you haven't been there when I've roundly criticized a lot of the junk out there. :)
Wow. Absolutely not. - This video is terrible misinformation. Just clickbait. Don‘t watch it. The guy doesn’t know anything about photography.
@@christocan4710 I've been in photography a long time. I even developed my own black-and-white film with those old metal film reels back in the day. Oh, do I appreciate digital cameras. :) But I'm not too old to learn something. I think Simon provides that. I see no reason to denigrate him.
RUclips and Instagram videos scared me into always keeping ISO low/controlling ISO manually, which made it so much harder to just go take some photos outside. Auto-ISO is a blessing, thank you.
Instagram has a problem with ruining images that where shot with high iso, If I upload the same image to fb it looks clean...
I must tell you something: This is the first time I've heard this advice and I really understood perfectly how the signal-to-noise ratio applied to sensors works (since I'm an electronics graduate as well as a photographer). Everything became logical after your explanation. In addition, the new denoise function in Lightroom had already prompted me to increase the ISO in my photos, with amazing results. I, who had even forgotten about the automatic ISO function on my Nikon, went and started using it in conjunction with the manual exposure controls. I really liked the results and I didn't see any photos where denoise was essential.
This post of yours deserves to be printed out and put up on my wall. A big hug and sincere thanks.
Welcome!
Right on. First time watching this channel. The advice in this video is gold. And your comment is helpful. Thank you. 🙏🏽
Yeah as soon as he said it's like a gain knob that was the aha moment.
@@PokerGuts On my astrophotography cameras there is no ISO, just a slider called « Gain ».
However I feel your explanation is introducing the misconception that gain/iso balances exposure and one can trade one for the other easily. However, ideally, just talking about a satisfactory SNR (not taking artistic factors into acount, e.g. minimizing exposure time), exposure and gain reach a minimum below which higher gain levels cannot compensate low exposure. Which is, because signal increases linearly with exposure but noise only with square root. Whereas shifting signal+noise levels with gain are both linearly proportional to each other. Or did I get that wrong (I just know from my time working with detectors for electron radiation, we needed to consider just that)
I'm a wedding photographer and I used to shoot at ridiculously low ISO settings because I was so afraid of getting a noisy image but then the images always turned out to be noisy anyway because I was shooting at such low ISOs. The more that I comfortable I got with shooting at higher ISOs, the better my images looked.
Or just use a set of flashes like most pro photographers use. Most of the time there’s no reason to use a crazy high iso
@@matthoffman6962you completely missed the point. Congratulations
@@maxbtl lol thanks for the comment
Except the images didn't turn out to be noisy anyways because you were shooting at low ISOs, it was because you didn't know how to properly light for that ISO.
@@hankkingsley9183 in time, you will learn that you don't always have the ability, or even the permission, tu use studio lights and flashes everywhere :)
I cover live events and concerts, flashes are strictly forbidden and i don't have a say in the light show, high ISO capabiliy is THE deciding factor when choosing a new camera body
No two fields of photography are equal and your views and experience don't always translate to universal truths
The day I lost fear of high ISO was when I watched your video on manual with auto ISO. I started shooting not worrying about ISO and when I uploaded the files to my pc I was amazed at how many of those photos were taken at ISO 1600 and you couldn't really notice. Truly eye-opening.
Forums are the worst, you always get people giving the most absolutist style statements, things like: “I NEVER shoot photos over 125 Iso, if you do you don’t know how to use a camera”
You can almost hear the collective gasps of the iso snobs. 😂 THANK YOU for dispelling these decades-long myths, Simon!
99% of photographers are snobs lmao
@@Perceptence One kind of camera snob that I know about, by being one, is the belief that only full-frame cameras with fast glass are "professional", because you can get more extreme bokeh with them. You CAN get better bokeh from a full-frame camera with fast glass, but maximum bokeh is not always necessary, or even desirable. I still like my full-frame and fast 85mm for portraiture, but lots of "lesser" cameras can take fine portraits.
The gasp is echoing.
ISO number is a concept from analog photography. It made sense in those times, because sensitivity came with the price of granularity. In digital photography it’s all about S/N.
Been shooting full time 10 years and never heard this at all but I'm a cinematographer and almost never film without additional lighting 😅
I just started photography and was following the "keep ISO as low as possible" rule. I kept getting angry because my photos were blurry. I have shaky hands and my shutter speed was very low. I'm glad that you've taught me to not be scared of higher ISO's and realise that they go that high for a reason!
A good approach is to choose the widest lens aperture (smallest f-number) that delivers an adequate depth of field and the slowest shutter speed that will freeze movement to your liking without blowing out important highlights. Those settings not only control two important creative elements of a photo, they also determine exposure and the amount of light used to make the photo. From there, choose an ISO - or delegate that choice to the camera through auto ISO - that delivers an image having a pleasing lightness. The more attention given to those creative settings of f-stop and shutter speed, the higher the likelihood you'll make pleasing photos...at any ISO.
Hope you have shake reduction. I think mine adds about 3 stops or so. Experiment to see what shutter speeds you can reliably shoot and then up the ISO when needed.
Use a heavy tripod the 3rd most important gear besides, in order, your brain, your camera, your tripod...
I have shaky hands to it sucks.
@@Not_So_Weird_in_Austin Agreed. Least loved most essential gear
Most helpful thing for me,
"The noise was already there, the ISO just reveled that it was there."
That is exactly what I needed to know. "Noise comes from not enough light, not from high ISO."
Thanks!
Glad it helped!
Noise comes from having to raise the ISO rating because there is not enough light. There is little to no noise. UNTIL you raise the ISO speed.
And this is ladies and gentleman how you speak.
When you know something, you don't need to scream at peoples faces and be argumentative, this gentleman explained whatever he needed with soft voice and without too much emotions even tho he's talking about subject people are very wrong about.
And guess what, he for sure changed some of the smartasses point of view on this topic.
Thank you man!
This was something I learned about a few years ago, going on a trip with a friend of mine who is a highly regarded dog photographer and me, being a landscape photographer. She instantly was amazed by the low ISO I was always trying to use. She tought me that having the right shutter speed was all I needed... Let the 'ISO fear' go... Since that moment, I've been so relieved!!! Using high ISO's all the time to get the crisp images I need...
It took me few years to learn and stop being ISO purist and I can't show how much happy I'm to see the same train of thoughts from the professional like you! Bravo to you for this! 👋💪
To be honest, old cameras were very noisy back in the day. Before 2010, there were many cameras which were noisy as hell even at ISO800 and 1600 was the limit. There werent so much auto settings for ISO and minimal shutter speed, so its not only about learning the lesson of ISO.
I learned to shoot at very high ISO through birding because you have f/5,6 - 6,3 apertures and need 1/1000 or higher and have to accept what the camera tells you and you cant and wont buy a 600mm f4 lens for a hobby to get around this a little bit.
Most pictures look noisy because of wrong focus or wrong shutter speed.
You have taught me not to be afraid of getting out of "Auto" mode on my camera, and to experiment with ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. My photos have greatly improved because of it. I am going to Scotland this fall - I am expecting better photos than I have previously taken.
I'm the opposite, afraid of using auto modes, such as for iso. I need to work on being more flexible in certain situations. Especially since we now have the denoise feature in Lightroom Classic.
@@L.Spencer Understand your feelings. Experiment with it. Try limiting how far the camera can adjust the ISO. And try printing as well. It's unlikely you'll even see minor noise. The experience will be the best way to get over any concerns, and learn your personal limits on how far you let auto ISO adjust. Happy experimenting!
I understood ISO with 35mm film. After two DSLRs and now considering a mirrorless purchase, I finally understand ISO in the digital world as the ‘amplifier’ corollary to the film’s sensitivity! And auto-ISO in manual: like automatically selecting the right film for the subject and DOF. Fantastic, Simon, thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
@@simon_dentremont YES! Thank you. I had the same misconception. amplifier!
This is BY FAR the best explanation and reasoning I've ever heard in a video. Very clear terminology with visual demonstrations and use of examples. A child might be able to understand everything you're saying here. Exceptional job!
I grew up in photography. My father was a great photographer. I became a lab manager for other photographers. Back then we used film and if you used anything over 400 ASA the photos would have a lot of grain or noise in them. So everyone would try to shoot with 100 , 64 or 25 ASA. ASA changed to ISO in 1974. People think that ASA was for film and ISO was for digital, but this isn't the case. If you have a film that is ASA 400 or 400 ISO, they have the exact same light sensitivity as one another. But you probably already new this. Everyone thought that digital would never be as good as film. I'm guilty of this. Since I started shooting wildlife I quickly found out that auto ISO is the way to go! The information you provide is priceless! I look forward to your videos, they have taught me a lot. Thank you!
I still have some 64 for slides on my freezer!!!!!!
I shot lots of 400 and some 1000 film back in the day. Yes, they were grainy. The best thing about digital is you can EXPERIMENT. Try every ISO and see what it does. Not quite an option for film
@@jack002tuberI started to learn analog but started shouting with the Canon 20D at work and my learning jumped because of the instant feedback. Now 30 years later I’m getting back into film.
Simon is a master at explaining things. Its always clean and easily digestible. Loving it!
Wow, thanks!
@@simon_dentremont It's true - you have the gift of simplifying complex subjects so that everyone can understand. When I took early retirement a year ago and was finally able to spend time on photography, yours was one of the first channels I discovered and subscribed to. I've learned a huge amount already from your videos (your earlier video on using Manual + Auto ISO was an important one!). Many, many thanks!
He is a good communicator and I wish I had a teacher like him in photography, no nonsense.
Your not wrong !
I have been shooting for 30 years. Never had ISO so clearly explained.
I got a R6 almost a year ago now and was running it on Auto ISO in Manual mode after finding out how well this camera performs at high ISOs. Ended up shooting a sunset panorama at ISO 6400 and you can't even tell. It preserved all of my highlights so well.
I absolutely agree and love this advice. Took me years to understand that having noise is way less of a problem than risking blurry photos.
Far as I know, you also lose dynamic range and color depth sensitivity going higher on ISO.
I was stuck in the "ISO 100" mindset for a long time, because the only camera I had was a Lumix from about 2005 with a max ISO of 400. After getting a more modern camera, it took a while for me to realize that I could get some really clean looking shots at higher ISO, especially indoors.
I figured out a long time ago I'd rather be able to run a faster shutter speed to capture action (which doesn't have to be something as crazy as sports, it can be a laugh, or quick smile, or a sideways glance) and if it had a little noise but was otherwise clean I was almost always happier.
It's not the rig, it's you pal
The real trick is taking the time to learn the limits of your camera in terms of ISO performance. It is important to know where the tipping point of a camera is in acceptable high ISO noise. Once you know the upper limit, you can set the ISO range for using auto ISO. In terms of cropping there is an old adage that states " if you think you are close enough, get closer".
His point is that there is no limit where you’re better off just underexposing the shot. If you can create more light by adjusting the shutter speed or aperture, that is sometimes preferable. If you cannot, then you must raise the ISO as much as needed.
The upper limit comes from what the image is for. If you’re just shooting for your own enjoyment, there is no limit but when you work for a client, you have to know what the requirements for a usable image are. Sometimes it can be flexible, other times there’s a hard limit and you have to plan your gear accordingly.
@@stickgarrote8582 That sounds like situations where the lighting is too poor to produce a professional image, not situations where underexposing the shot is better than raising the ISO. That’s the lighting exceeding a limit, not the ISO.
The simple truth is every camera absolutely *does* have an upper limit where raising ISO *will* produce worse results and as such this point should only really be crossed as a last resort and certainly not without consideration, and that many cameras *do* use auto ISO in a way that raises the ISO way too much way too quickly for the intended result, increasing the noise and decreasing dynamic range as a result while gaining nothing. So as always in photography, if you want to get the best results, learn to use your camera to its maximum potential and know its strengths and weaknesses inside out so you can take advantage of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses. Which is photography 101, really, and applies to any camera you'll ever use, be it a simple point-and-shoot (or camera phone) or an expensive full-frame DSLR with lenses that cost a small fortune.
@@Case_ So you’re saying it is better to underexpose and brighten in post-processing than raise the ISO beyond the alleged limit? The point of the video is that if those are your only two options, raising the ISO is less problematic. Obviously we’re talking about situations with no other options (e.g., slower shutter will produce motion blur and aperture is already wide open).
This video was shared by a friend because I had some fear shooting photos with ISO over 100, same as the myth you comment, and you did a hell of a job explaining this topic in an easy, comprehensible way. Thank you very much!
The sensor dynamic range decreases at higher ISO, it's not just the noise and SNR ratio. Having said that, a lot of full frame cameras retain more than satisfactory dynamic range until ISO 2000, even ISO 3200. This is more important for landscapes. In regards to noise, what you say is completely accurate.
In addition to that color depth is decreased in higher iso as well.
here is an example for the sony A7 III in color depth reduction cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CS_Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-vs-Nikon-D850-vs-Sony-A7-III-1024x468.png
Dynamic range may decrease at higher ISO, but an under exposed image with "high dynamic range" will still look worse than a properly exposed image.
Sensors have a 'native' ISO so setting below that also reduces dynamic range. As a cinematographer I work to the camera's native ISO as much as possible.
Do some tests. Shoot with plenty of light at 100 iso, and then 800 iso. You will see a marked difference in grain/noise. What you determine is "satisfactory" is entirely subjective.
Basically, the ISO from a flim camera and from a digital camera is not the same and not comparable. My mindset was stuck in the film era, where we would prefer to shoot 100 ISO and below as 800 ISO film was just too grainy. We have come a long way in digital photography. Thank you for this video.
But film at ASA 100 can also be grainy if shot in low light
Precisely. Film is why many think high ISO is bad. Good video, good comment.
@@puaspitonOld digital was worse than high ISO film.
@@joel6376 Exactly. On my first two digitals I actually went to 50 and 60 as much as I could. I used tripod (sometimes as monopod) A LOT. IIRC early dSLR's could go ISO 400 MAX. At resolution of 3 Mpix. Before Nikon D300 you could pretty much forget about clean nightime shots, because even with tripod and bulb mode, sensors ran hot and therefore noisy. And unfortunately digital noise exists also, maybe even more, in colour, while film grains is only in luminance.
Yeah, today I can shoot ISO 3200 with my phone, no problem. And of course you need to understand exposure time and your subject, because shooting landscapes, or even more waterscapes and infrastructure, is totally different from shooting wildlife or sports. In the first case you sometimes use ND filters to make exposure longer on purpose.
A lot of filmcameras have the perfect fit around iso 400...
I’ve been working in the outdoor industry for over 10 years, but only recently took the dive into telephoto glass for wildlife images. I was nervous about shooting high ISOs until the photographers I was working with shared their knowledge.
Your videos are great confirmation of practices and feature great ideas. I really appreciate what you’re doing! Cheers, from BC and SE Alaska!
I specialize in portraits, weddings and product photos. Now I am interested in learning better Landscape and Wildlife photos. Your channel is the perfect one to learn this area. Thanks for all the great videos. Binge watching lately to learn more! Amazing information along with your great photo samples.
Thanks! I hope you pick up some new tips for your landscape and wildlife work.
I have watched several videos from you now, and all of them say not to stick to iso 100. After trying it out myself, I had no luck at getting sharp images, even at 3200. After consistently raising the iso and adjusting the other settings accordingly, I'm now more comfortable shooting higher iso and can get sharp images with it. Thank you for being such a great teacher and balancing knowledge and information with examples and fun. You're one of my go to guys with questions now, and I greatly appreciate the knowledge. Thank you
When I started photography (60 years ago) it was all about film, and the standard film was 100 ASA (which became ISO). It was based on normal lighting in the middle of the day for shooting at f8 and 100th second. The only other option was 400 ASA film for sports, or if you were using transparency film (which was the best by far) you could get 32 ASA film that was great for anything where your subject was static. Digital changed everything.
32 sounds crazy cool!
I started photography 30 years ago, just before digital entered the world of photography. I was always using film 100, but that limitation helped me to fall in love with my aperture settings. I actually think those who learned on film have a technical and artistic advantage over those who grew up 100% digital.
I learned and "grew up" using a DSLR but could not stand the auto or "creative" settings, so I'd always just shoot on manual. I recently got into film and not much is different other than the fact I have to manually focus everything and am locked into a specific ISO until I am done the roll of film.@@Ric9hardify Exposing for the shadows instead of the highlights was the hardest thing to get used to.
I was shooting in low light a lot back then and was always pushing 400 asa to 800. I loved the way it looked.
@@davidgreus3041 In the late 90's, I used to use Kodak Ektar 25 to shoot candid portraits and things not moving. I loved the color saturation more than any other film I ever tried. The enlargements were also some of the best I ever had. I usually carried two bodies because the one with the 25 in it was unusable so much of the time because of it not being bright enough to shoot without a tripod. It's nice now not having to go through 24 or 36 exposures to finish off a roll of film before you can change the ISO.
Simon has really changed my photography. It's rare to hear these type of scary myths discussed. I love using auto ISO. I have caught so many amazing shots because of it. I used to think auto ISO was icky. I've learned so much more from this channel than most. My shots are more consistent. Better exposed. Sharper, better.
It isn't just talk. This channel has taught me so much. Keep up the great work Simon!
Great to hear!
I wish, from the bottom of my heart, that every teacher, educator, and professor I had learned how to teach from you. You have a gift. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Only go to the lowest ISO "IF" you have enough lighting to do so. Most important is getting the shot with the lighting you have. Your information is absolutely correct. Thank you for bringing the subject for newer photographers.
Eye opener Vlog for me Simon! Yep ... for my generation, who learned photography on negative and reversal films were available. I am 72 now, for me age is just a number and there is no age limit to learning! Creative people never retire!
I served in advertising and headed the creative teams of leading advertising agencies in Pakistan. Whenever we were outdoors for a shoot, my favorite film was Kodak Ektachrome, 50 ASA. No noise and ultra sharp images with vivid colors even using images for posters through process printing.
Now I am a consultant and brand developer, do photography myself with strobes. My most favorite areas are food, products, portraits and street photography.
All the very best Simon! Rgds. ♥
I'm always grateful for guys like Simon, who offer up their time & expertise.Thank you, you make photography so much easier to learn.
Glad you like them!
I knew this intuitively but the way he demonstrated everything was absolutely masterful. Wow.
Same, I totally knew about thinking of more light as more "information" for the sensor and that signal:noise is the problem... Yet this video made me realize I was in a bit of an ISO prison myself anyways haha
I absolutely have to say thank you for you making this video. I have taken six photography classes, at my local college. I have been shooting for almost 2 years part time. And I did not understand ISO until this video. I am so very grateful. Thank you.❤
What on earth did they teach at the 6 college classes? Not basics?
I am a film major and I feel this same thing! I can’t wait to experiment with this new info.
@@arabwaluigi5248 you STUDY film and NOONE told you about ISO before????????
@@jelly.1899 they told me about ISO but never explained it this well
@@jelly.1899I guess most of supposedly “experts” just know that ISO represents the sensitivity of the sensor (as written in many photography books), and they didn’t investigate the topic any more…
My Nikon CoolPix P900 shoots between 100-6400 ISO, I never really had any lessons until after the first year, so I was always shooting over ISO 1000, because I didn't quite understand shutter speed and aperture. Fast forward a few years later, now I shoot between 200-800 for normal photos and don't edit my results anymore. I still use +1000 ISO for astro photography, but mostly for the moon and very few planets. I was never, nor am I currently afraid of high ISO, so when I learned that most RUclips channels tell you to stay between 100-400, I thought they were crazy. This is a refreshing change of pace, and definitely the reason I stick to your channel for inspiration and insight.
I’m just getting back into photography after over a decade away from it and I have not at all been happy with my work. This video just explained exactly what I’ve been doing wrong. Thank you so much!!
Been shooting for a few months now and had great scenery shots at ISO 400-800, therefore never understanding the ‘why’ of ‘Always shoot 100’. Having the ISO explained like this has made me understand this mechanism so much more. Thank you!
I do a lot of stage photography. My default iso ranges from 5000-8000. My shutter pretty much stays at 500 because performers move so fast. I still deal with a bit of noise, but Topaz helps a lot. I have been able to get so many wonderful photos out of these settings.
Same here, my mentor (a Nashville stage photographer) favors a lower ISO (maybe 1600) but I set the 5DIV to a cap of 12,800 on auto and set the lens to wide open. I use On1 NoNoise in batch mode on the export directory from Lightroom to clean up the noise.
I learned not to worry too much about ISO back in the film era!
In my country (and possibly elsewhere too?) the newspapers stopped using film and went fully digital all at the same time. (I don't remember what year it was). This meant that the camera stores had a big surplus of 800 ISO films that they could no longer sell to the press photographers. So these films suddenly became cheaper than the 200 ISO films that we amateurs usually bought. And I got great results with ISO 800! Noise was much less of a problem than I had anticipated. It took me some time to fully understand why this was so, but using higher ISO was a good lesson.
I'm old enough to remember the term ASA (film speed). The camera's I used had the ASA dial setting on the top of the camera. I used quite a bit of Kodacolor Gold , ASA's 100, 200 & 400. different times but similar techniques.
@@jimbruton9482 I started shooting on film when I was a kid (I'm 32 now) because my dad always loved photography. I used to get ASA 400 film and it felt like I was ready for everything lol like strapping your fastest shoes
During the film days, my brother and I did wildlife and landscape photography in the Rockies. He always used the lowest ISO (ASA?) possible while I was overjoyed when ISO 400 appeared. While my brother kept changing his film based on the subject, I exclusively used 400. That's when he gave me the nickname, "Old 400", and I've used that moniker ever since. Thanks for this fine training, Simon.
I did likewise in Hawaii and Alaska, Kodachrome 25. But eventually settled on Kodachrome 64 since I needed a bit more speed for bird photography.
Love 400 color film.
Wow 🤯🤯🤯 this is exactly what I needed to see. As a beginner I literally developed a fear of using anything other than the lowest iso setting because every single video always says do not use any iso, and I do handheld stuff a lot since I’m just learning and walking around, so this video helps a lot. Not to mention The signal to noise ratio is an unbelievably amazing analogy. As an audio engineer this really hit home for me. We deal with the same thing when it comes to gain staging. Why do I hear so much noise? It’s because you don’t have enough input on your interface so you’re just turning up the low level noise!
It's really interesting, I'm an engineer who studied sensors (mostly acoustic ones) for 5 years and you're definitely right. Playing with gain / ISO is a good way to get the most signal and information. Of course you'll get more noise but it is easier to crop noise than to create additional information in the signal. I must try higher ISO.
I’ve been surprised at how much more ISO (gain) I need to create a proper exposure in the shadows that I got at lower ISO film rolls!
Seeing this video, I feel like I just got released from ISO prison
From ISOlation, you might say
Same. My photographer life so far has been a lie... and I am now free.
@RememberTheTrees 😂😂😂
I actually really like luma noise in printed photos and typically just remove the chroma noise. Creates a nice organic textured look in my opinion. We shouldn’t fear noise as much. It’s the chroma noise that looks digital and cheap. The luma noise can be very pleasant.
Me being a fan of unprofessional looking, capture of the moment photographs, I think even chroma noise has a feel to it, like the look of a cheap point and shoot film camera.
@@candle_eatistcolour film does not create chroma noise, that happens with digital sensors when scanning poorly exposed negatives
@@alvareo92 I'm saying chroma noise gives a feeling similar to that of the look of a cheap film camera, not that cheap film cameras create chroma noise.
I'm a hobby photographer for years and I know about the concept explained in this video.
But I have never seen a video explaining it so well and to the point, backed up with examples and tips.
The video is neither too short nor too long.
Bravo. That earned you a thumbs up and a new subscriber!!
Thanks for sharing!
Great stuff. I'm a wildlife/landscape photographer and can confirm I've gotten some great shots at crazy high ISO. I once shot a barn own in the middle of a snow storm an hour after dark at 12,800. That was years ago before the huge improvements in noise reduction that have improved it a lot. Now I don't generally go too much over 3200, I heavily prioritize shutter speed and aperture on most shots. One thing that was very helpful to me in the beginning was guessing the correct exposure settings - then seeing how off I am based on the camera auto-settings, then also really understanding metering and range pictograph. It all really comes back down to understanding light then applying that to how a digital camera captures it. If you've never dived into how camera sensors work - it is very helpful. I will say video is less forgiving - but as far as photography goes, use that ISO! :)
I'm 17 and I've been photographing on my phone for about 2 years, but im about to get my first dedicated camera and lens. This channel has helped me to understand what I'll be dealing with and the expanded capabilities of real photography - Your advice has made me even more excited to experiment and learn, so thank you!
what camera/lens are you thinking of getting
@@johannvantassel4604 That's great! Looking forward to the first real camera! :-) This channel will definitely help you a lot! I've been watching a lot of camera videos lately and @Simon d'Entremont is really the best!
@@johannvantassel4604is the xt-3 a good beginner camera?
Great advice Simon. I’ve been shooting in manual with auto ISO for years and love it. And, as a bonus, my camera, the Fujifilm X-T4, always chooses the lowest ISO, depending on the lighting quality. Camera manufacturers know what they’re doing when they design their latest cameras; we should trust them and not just listen to the advice of well meaning, but misinformed, other photographers. Great channel Simon. Keep the good advice coming!
This piece of advice completely and utterly changed the way I shoot. This was probably the single most useful piece of advice I've received in my photography career, bar the absolute basics I learned years ago.
Why no one told me about this before! I went through the whole season of northern lights, underexposing (still at like 1250 ISO) and getting crazy noise. I just made a quick test in dark room, and can confirm bumping up the ISO does work.
Thank you very much for your advice!
Glad I could help!
Are you trying to say that higher ISO ends up with less noise assuming both shots are taken in identical conditions?
Great information Simon. I shoot with Olympus (Micro 4/3) and regularly shoot at high ISO. Yes, images can be noisy but Topaz does a wonderful job of correcting the issue. Thanks for your advice.
I agree. I have taken my OM-5 to ISO 6400 and, for family photos, got great results. Yes, Topaz DeNoise is very important in this space.
It's amazing how big the difference is between a RUclipsr and a real photographer! Flawless video, congratulations! As I leave the studio, i set aperture priority, auto-ISO and auto-shutter speed with manually selected minimum value. The latter eliminates motion blur (e.g. I don't let it go below 1/500 in auto-mode), but if suddenly "too much" light hits the sensor (light levels are constantly changing in an event shoot), the camera can instantly increase this value for the correct exposure.
I have to say, after watching countless hours of photography content on RUclips, even though I knew about most of the stuff you put out here, I am very impressed about how clearly you deliver the message, you are very confident and experienced in what you do, and it shows, great job.
Wow, thanks!
Was expecting a really hot take from the title, but this video delivered way beyond expectations. I love how you emphasize on the fact that getting the shot is much more important than micromanaging all the settings to get a technically ISO sound image, and missing the shot or ruining it with the other two parts of the exposure triangle not being at the right settings for the scene. Great to see a rep for auto ISO too, learn how to use metering and your shots with auto ISO will come out perfect. Every photographer needs to see this video!
When ISO100 wasn't flexible enough for me, I learned to default myself at 400. From there I play around the shutter
I realized years ago that motion blur is usually much worse than noise, so I turn up ISO as much as I need to to keep exposure times short enough.
Especially with modern 16-24MP sensors... even older 12MP cameras. If you're asking these questions you're most likely not printing or displaying any of your photos big enough to see the noise.
2 Things I appreciate from this video : 1. The advices overall, great.
2 : Asking for a like at the end of the video, since it's only when you've seen it that you can leave an actual like.
Best explanation for ISO Simon. When i started i came from landscape photography and ISO was hard grained to be 100. But these days, the noise removal apps, having more control of shutter speed to nail the shot and seeing the difference of not having the good speed for action has shown me proof that i had to let it go awhile ago, so happy i did. Excellent example of the seascape and landscape action shots.
I work in networking fulltime (so im very familiar with the concept of SNR and it made ISO make sense to me almost imediately) but Im a photography and DP on the side. It blows my mind how widespread the misconception of ISO is. Its always refreshing watching your videos keep up the good work.
Studying cinematography really deepened my knowledge on ISO as well. In the cinema world, lower ISO shots have the dynamic range allocated toward the shadows while higher iso shots allocate the dynamic range to the highlights. So for low light scenes it’s actually MUCH better to shoot at lower ISO’s many times, because there will be significantly more detail in the dark shadows. This does mean you need to light accordingly though. Still the same principle applies, you can’t starve the sensor of light. as long as there’s lighting hitting the subject and you’re not trying to make a black hole visible, higher iso settings aren’t the end of the world
ummm... no.. this is backwards. lower iso increases the dynamic range in the highlights, and the shadows get crushed because of lack of light. higher iso will over expose the hilights reducing their dynamic range and bring out more dynamic range in the shadow, which can be pushed back down in editing. cinematography requires you to keep you shutter at half the speed of your frame rate to maintain 180 degree motion blur, so lowering your iso in a dark environment will always make you footage darker in the shadows and introduce more compression artifacts and lose you dynamic range in the shadows.
@@homewardboundphotos That is completely wrong, and @mikemarch416 said it right. When shooting video, you get more detailed highlights at higher ISO values because the camera "sacrifices" the dynamic range of the shadow areas to preserve highlights by "elevating" the dynamic range window (making the shadow areas noisier). You can see this in action in this video, along with charts:
ruclips.net/video/eyiVjTrEEbw/видео.html
It's no coincidence that, for example, S-LOG starts at ISO 800, you can't set it any lower than that.
@@erikpeterffy7552 uhh what, this video you linked has exactly nothing to do with whats being talked about and is irrelevant.. you need to think about this. why would increasing the iso, and pushing the highlights closer to clipping preserve them? you're pushing them closer to the end of the dynamic range of the camera. making the image darker (lowering iso) preserves detail in the hilights. making the image brighter (raising iso) preserves detail in the shadows. log starts at 800 because it's a reverse s curve and since shadow detail is harder to retain than hilight detail, the curve favours higher iso. that's the reason.
The camera doesn't "sacrifice" detail in the shadows at high iso. it just makes the shadows brighter, which is the exact opposite of sacrificing detail in the, which is exactly the point of slogs reverse s curve, because the mp4 codec it records is lossy and throws out data closer to the blacks and whites. don't even start man, i make 6 figures, have 50k worth of gear, and a 5 series bmw because the photo and video works that i do. I know what i'm talking about.
@@homewardboundphotos You are completely misunderstanding the concept of dynamic range. Increasing ISO doesn't make anything necessarily brighter, as you can achieve the same exposure at ISO100 and ISO6400 by simply using a faster shutter speed, narrower aperture or ND filter, so you don't push anything toward clipping. In the linked video you see exactly that, and the uploader literally talks about why you have more stops of dynamic range toward the brighter part of the image at higher ISO (he even encircles it for you in the diagram). Study the figure carefully at 1.34. There it is in big red and blue lettering what I am talking about. 6EV vs 8EV. As for the second half of your comment, well that gave me a good laugh. Anyone who's been shooting amateur video for at least 2-3 years knows you have no clue about video and thus the concept of the "exposure triangle". Anyway, I have 51k in gear and a 6 series BMW, so I know better. 🙃
@@erikpeterffy7552 omg your video actually validated everything I'm actually saying, you just don't understand the video XD both footages were shot AT ISO 800. He put an ND filter on it to make the image DARKER, therefore RETAINING DETAILS IN THE HIGHLIGHTS. The reason he's not just lowering the ISO in the camera is because 800 is as low as slog 3 will let you record. Record the image DARKER, retain detail in the HIGHLIGHTS. Same ISO, lower brightness (because of ND) = more detail in the highs. And guess what dumbass? The same works in the darks. Record the image BRIGHTER by increasing the ISO, and retain more detail in the shadows.
Absolutely hilarious when morons share examples that actually prove them wrong, but they don't realize because they don't understand what's happening on the screen LMFAO! what an absolute joke.
DAAAAAMNNN, this is a big revelation for me... I am so glad I found this channel
From what I learned you prioritize aperture and shutter speed according to the subject and adjust ISO accordingly as long as the noise level is still acceptable.
Aperture = to get the target depth of field and hyperfocal distance.
Shutter speed = to get the proper speed to capture. still, slow. or fast moving subjects.
There is a limit where you just have to stop increasing the ISO because of the noise amplification and artifacts it produces and you just have to with slightly change/compromise the ideal shutter speed or aperture to get a balanced result.
100000 % right!!!!
It took me a while to understand that if I actually over-expose with a higher iso, then bring down the exposure in post, I get a better shot because it reduces the noise! It took me a while to get over raising my ISO, but once I did, I got more shots and was able to become a better photographer because of it. It really is disappointing when you hear photographers say not to raise your ISO too much - it scared me for years and I can't imagine all the shots I *could have gotten unlearning that. Thanks, Simon!
That's great, until you blow your highlights...
@@eighteenfiftynine haha, not if you actually know what you're doing!
@@simonearora2300 if you're shooting raw you're not gaining anything with overexposing.
I’ve been shooting pro wrestling for the past few years. Understanding ISO has been integral in getting perfectly exposed action shots in challenging lighting conditions. This video is a great explainer for those who might be scared off bumping it up or relying on auto ISO, it’s really useful!
I learned this working with PROs in the industry instead of listening to "PRO RUclips PHOTOGRAPHERS" (im glad there ARE RUclipsrs that know what they're talking about)
When I first started shooting, I really messed up because I would use an extremely high iso and ruined my whole trips worth of pics. I learned my lesson and now I’m a professional, it’s been 3 years since then.
A note; the organization that invented 'ISO' is not the International Standards Organization. It is the International Organization for Standardization and 'ISO' is the Greek word for equal. The idea being that an ISO standard is applied in the same way across an industry. In our case, it is the light sensitivity of the sensor on any camera. Before digital, it was the sensitivity of the film one used. Your SIM card in your phone is an ISO standard, as are the size and layout of your credit cards. The number of ISO standards goes on and on. Just thought you might be interested.
Yeah he got that wrong as well
ISO is short for ISOS which is the greek work for equal
I knew this intuitively but the way he demonstrated everything was absolutely masterful. Wow.
I used to control my ISO manually a bunch but honestly it was too distracting! Auto ISO absolutely is the way to go for most situations. What a great video!
I really appreciate this video, Simon! As a "hobby photographer", I was definitely in the category of "shoot everything at ISO 100 if you can". After watching your video just now, I'm now a changed man. 😎👍 Thank you!
As a weeding photographer i was trained to use low ISO when im outside. and we always shoot with flash. however recently i have been leaving my flashes in the car and shoot natural light when im outside. i hade to start shooting in iso 400 and above to expose correctly. and the photos came out just as goos as the low iso photos. and shooting natural light is fun!!
I wish I was a weeding photographer
@@ichimichael111 Go for it!
I got into this conversation with another RUclips photographer the other day. They were talking about "common mistakes new users make" or something along those lines. I told them that they (community, not just them specifically) needed to start rewording or rethinking what they were teaching others. High ISO isn't inherently bad and it's more to do with their usage of available or artificial lighting that was definitely important. But...not everyone, including myself, get everything right based off experience, but on what they're been told. I learned a lot of my skills the hard way lol
You've helped me to find my AHA!! Thanks, Simon! As always - with much respect and admiration ... and lots of love from Atlanta.
When I was a beginner at photography, it was drilled into me to always shoot as low as possible. Now that I have been taking photos for about 10 years and I am on a pro body, the most loved feature that is not available on a lot of cameras, is to have ONLY the ISO be auto and have it on a limited scale. It helped so so much with my photography. I can adjust the limits throughout the day and do not have to care about it "in the moment". I love bird photography and it is so lovely that I can just set the limit to 3200 for day shooting, 12800 for early day shooting where conditions are poor - and I can just shoot away. Sure, it sometimes tries to over shoot, but as mentioned in the vid - a photo is much better than no photo at all.
Nice! Which pro camera body you use to apply the limit?
I also do the same, fortunately the feature is available on my Sony APSC body.
Is it really not standard at this point to have a user programmable max for auto ISO? My T7i can, and I thought my T5 was able to do it as well, 5D MK II doesn't seem to be able to though
@@BilboSwagginsTheThird it looks like it. I think the feature is a rarity and most manufacturers do not even list if this is available or not. Best feature though :D
Thanks, Simon. My photography journey began with film and decades ago. I mostly used Kodachrome (ISO 25) but at times went with Ektachrome (ISO 64). Using ISO400 was only done on rare occasions. This mindset conditioned my approach to digital photography where I always used as low an ISO as possible. Fortunately and because of advice from people like you, I began to increase my ISO but only cautiously so. After all, old habits die hard. My HaHa moment occurred when I was doing some macro photography of a drone fly on a flower in the shade. As is most often the case, the ISO setting on my camera was set to Auto. I was pleased with the shot - it was in focus and well exposed. It was only in post processing that I discovered that my ISO was 3200, and this on a MFT camera. That’s all it took for ISO to no longer be a holy grail!
Photography has been my passion for a couple years now however, im finally getting my first actual camera tomorrow and im stoked ive just been using my phone and ive gotten some good shots but nothing amazing so ive been binge watching your videos and for a beginner they are fantastic they break down everything amazing and give reasons with evidence on why thats the case whereas other channels just say this is what to do without any major explanation. Thank you!
That is awesome!
Absolutely. Some other channels just babble about gear and read the specs off the box. Simon is one of the few truly educational photography youtubers.
Congratulations on getting your first camera, it's an amazing feeling when you first listen to the shutter :)
I just started using a camera and I shoot manually because I like the freedom. Gives me a more personal experience with the camera and the environment. Anyway, I was outside shooting on a bright day and I realized that my photos came out better in a higher ISO because of all the moving parts. This video was extremely helpful in telling me I'm not crazy.
I just started photography and im so glad i started watching your videos. The way you deliver the information really helps me understand not just how to do something but why. So thank you
I just started 2 months ago and yes, so much this. People have been telling me certain things like “turn your ISO to this” or “make sure your aperture is this” and I’ve been screaming “W H Y ?” for the entire two months. This has been beyond helpful.
Thanks to you I now shoot in manual with auto ISO, but I'm using vintage manual lenses, so aperture and focusing is controlled directly on the lens and shutter speed with the camera
I've really been enjoying my vintage lenses thanks to this tip, I only concentrate on the artistic part of photography and leave the ISO to the camera
I am forever thankful to you for teaching me this. I was clueless because I was alway taught to keep that ISO low. I set my camera in Manual with ISO in automatic and boom everything changed.
I have never had any formal training on ISO / Shutter Speed / Aperture, and just recently I finally bought a camera and started taking my hobby more seriously.
So I've never been told about shooting in 100 ISO. I just played with the camera a lot in the manual mode attempting to figure it out and found that I more the less could get decent shots but had absolutely no idea what I was doing wrong.
This video has helped correct a few ignorant mistakes and makes me feel a lot better about my wild life / nature shots
Manual mode and auto ISO is also my preferred combination. I often get worse results when I mess with the ISO settings and try to optimize them versus aperture and exposure time.
I’m super new to photography and I stumbled into that same thing by accident 😊 I thought I was cheating, thanks for a little vote of confidence
@@GoldenKnight702 using what the technology has to offer, especially the right way, is no reason for shame and far from "cheating", but i get your point, you're not alone, you're not the only one. if that was cheating, someone should have given a talk to the guys coming up with priority modes as well.. ..not to mention bringing up lights in the woods.. umbrellas.. ..how about auto-focus.. focus assist / peaking.. i'll stop :)
BTW: if you're still "new to photography", don't miss the fact that Auto ISO is supposed to be used with a mindfully chosen max shutter speed (time) setting, look it up in the menu.
some students in art school are still brainwashed into learning and perfecting the archaic means of painting.. as if the greats of the past looked forward for using what was less than what their time had to offer...
Honestly your explanation on auto iso is right on point. I used to shoot full manual exclusively but you’d always get burners for either tests or if you’re shouting a quickly moving subject in a highly dynamic scene. Auto iso just completes your exposure within your given parameters. I know that if I’m using auto iso I will at least get an image that could be milked in processing to make a usable image. With that being said I am always keeping an eye on my iso to make sure that my shutter speed and aperture are not hindering the cameras ability to capture the scene at an acceptable iso. You do need to understand a proper exposure to make youse of auto iso
I used to be afraid of using higher ISO values, so I often kept my ISO at 100. This led to many of my photos being underexposed, and when I tried to brighten them afterward, it often resulted in more noise than if I had used a higher ISO from the start. Now, I either set the ISO manually or use auto ISO with a limit. You are so right about this
The gain knob analogy is absolutely spot-on. In audio recordings, it works EXACTLY like that. Every room has noise, but bringing the gain knob higher, you make it more evident if there's no clear signal being sent to the microphone to increase the signal to noise ratio.
It depends if you talk about post or pre gain. The pre gain or "gain staging" as it is called does not raise the noise floor, only the input signal, thus creating a larger signal to noise ratio. Changing the post gain or volume however affect both the input signal and the noise floor, making the noise louder if turn up the gain for the entire recorded track.
It also seems that you are confusing the noise floor with the room noise. The noise floor comes from the electric circuits inside of the recording equipment and is not affected by altering the pre gain, the room noise does.
Nope. Never mentioned noise floor. Only talked about SNR. And it is precisely what I described. You raise the gain, you get more audible noise if there's poor signal to noise ratio.
That's exactly what I said. The room noise can be more apparent if you raise the pre-gain. The noise floor wasn't even being mentioned since it's related to circuits.
It's as simples as that, you get poor SNR if that's no clear signal to be received by the microphone. Just the same with the camera. If the landscape is too dark/poorly lit, you have low "volume" signal entering the sensor, therefore, you get noisier images.
The noise is always, and I mean always (not "often"), more apparent if you don't have a clear signal entering the microphone. You can test it. Raise only the pre-gain to as high as you can and don't emit any sound. You will hear the noise become more apparent as you turn the pre-gain knob to a higher. position.
You are talking about entirely different things than what I described and making assumptions out of thin air.
I said precisely what I said and not what you assumed I meant to say.
@@Cayoalbuquerque My bad then. I misunderstood your comment because we often refer to the noise floor when we talk about SNR, although you are correct that you can still use the term SNR when talking about background noise, but it's not as common. I am sorry if my comment made you upset.
Excellent! ISO also comes from the Greek word "isos". As a film director, my dad taught me the original ISA standard as well as ISO's. The myth of ISO 100 actually stems from the film era which was a challenge for young reconnaissance photographers in WWII, like him. He and Charles Scripps served together and were very aware of film's temperature/chemical properties. With the advent of charge coupled devices (CCD), which all modern digital cameras are based, everything changed in the ISO world, as sensors work on a Nyquist fourier transform method when it comes to noise. As Honeywell, and later Sony, improved these devices, ISO settings expanded greatly. Whether filming at treetop at 275 mph in a P-38 Lightning, or high up in a heavy bomber, it was a real balancing act to obtain usable still/film footage. If you want to know more about the latest digital sensors, I suggest checking out Pawel Achtel, ACS, and his new 9:7 format digital based equipment.
One thing that was missed was that you can balance ISO with a flash. In a dark environment you light a subject with the flash but also expose the environment using a higher ISO where the flash won’t reach
Ive noticed this late but I cant agree more, I shoot a old camera, Nikon D3100 yet it takes perfectly compareable pictures to other DSLR's. I rarely touch low ISO's because ive always experimented no matter how clowned i was by my friends, i still experiment upon what idea i have in my mind, ISO's are nothing to fear. Be brave and get used to it.
Only just recently learned that a properly exposed image has less noise then under exposed at the same ISO, i admit I was one of those people scared to go over 1600 ISO wheres now I just expose my image properly and can barely notice the noise. Also I have matured into photography and I actually like a little noise in the image, depending on the situation it can add character and make it more pleasing to the eye then a smooth image.