DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Do the ISO number suppose to be low
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/21/2005 09:43:24 PM · #1
I see a lot photos with the ISO being set at 200 or less. What do photographers normally have the ISO set on?
 12/21/2005 09:44:52 PM · #2
For me, the lower the better.
 12/21/2005 09:46:45 PM · #3
Photographer's (generally) try to use a lower ISO when the light is available. A lower ISO means less noise or grain in the photo which is better for making large prints. However the lowest ISO is not always the optimal setting, because higher ISO's allow photographer's to gain a stop or two on their shutter speed in low-light situations.

I usually have mine 100-200.

Hope this helps,
Lee
 12/21/2005 09:46:53 PM · #4
As low as I can get away with, in my case 100. The lower the number the finer the noise is. Some cameras have a bottom of 50, and you can see it. If you use over 400, you better hit the thing with a noise reduction software a few times.
 12/21/2005 10:01:31 PM · #5
It really depends! the ISO is the film speed. Basically depends what your shooting. Example: sports with lots of fast action in a well lit place the higher ISO is faster at capturing 1600 iso and above. But the trade off is noise(Depending on the exposuretime and lighting conditions, aperature, and of course the camera)
 12/21/2005 10:03:22 PM · #6
For me, I always try to use the lowest ISO that I could get away with.
 12/21/2005 10:09:10 PM · #7
I usually keep mine around 400 to 800...I have no problem with the ISO being high. Here is a picture I took yesterday...the ISO is 800

12/21/2005 10:29:15 PM · #8
Could we see a 100% crop of that?
 12/21/2005 10:34:09 PM · #9
Originally posted by JoshuaM:
Could we see a 100% crop of that?


sure...right from the camera....there you go...

12/21/2005 10:34:49 PM · #10
I try to shoot at ISO100 unless I am forced to go high.

philup,
you have Canon 20D. Its very good even at ISO 800 :)
 12/21/2005 10:35:01 PM · #11
is that what you are talking about?

12/21/2005 10:36:14 PM · #12
Originally posted by gaurawa:
I try to shoot at ISO100 unless I am forced to go high.

philup,
you have Canon 20D. Its very good even at ISO 800 :)


Thanks, I think its the lens more than the camera..IMO

Message edited by author 2005-12-21 22:51:03.
 12/21/2005 10:49:25 PM · #13
Thanks guys being new to photography.. I didnt really know what the iso option was for... so thanks for informing me with my dodgy lil camera lol
 12/21/2005 11:07:26 PM · #14
Originally posted by philup:
Originally posted by JoshuaM:
Could we see a 100% crop of that?


sure...right from the camera....there you go...


100% crop is view the image at 100% and crop a smaller part to see each pixel coming out of camera
 12/21/2005 11:07:50 PM · #15
Originally posted by philup:
Originally posted by gaurawa:
I try to shoot at ISO100 unless I am forced to go high.

philup,
you have Canon 20D. Its very good even at ISO 800 :)


Thanks, I think its the lens more than the camera..IMO


Nawp. 20D and 350XT are MUCH better high-ISO performers than 10D and 300D.

R.
 12/21/2005 11:08:58 PM · #16
Originally posted by philup:
Originally posted by gaurawa:
I try to shoot at ISO100 unless I am forced to go high.

philup,
you have Canon 20D. Its very good even at ISO 800 :)


Thanks, I think its the lens more than the camera..IMO

Not really, as ISO and noise are related to camera, 20D performs way better than my 10D with the same lens
 12/21/2005 11:17:20 PM · #17
I think the aperture makes a huge difference on how noticable the noise is - with the 18-55mm lens at 3.5, ISO 800 had hardly any noise, but with the 50mm at 1.8, it made the picture almost unusable without post processing.
 12/21/2005 11:44:42 PM · #18
Originally posted by gaurawa:


Nawp. 20D and 350XT are MUCH better high-ISO performers than 10D and 300D.

R.


Wow, I didn't know that. Yet another reason I can't wait for my 350d.
 12/21/2005 11:50:13 PM · #19
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I think the aperture makes a huge difference on how noticable the noise is - with the 18-55mm lens at 3.5, ISO 800 had hardly any noise, but with the 50mm at 1.8, it made the picture almost unusable without post processing.


I think that's an ancillary effect; the aperture is more of a symptom than a cause. The more underexposed (or "dark") an area of the image is, the more it will show the noise. The longer the exposure, also, the more noise, generally speaking.

R.
 12/22/2005 12:13:31 AM · #20
Originally posted by bear_music:
The longer the exposure, also, the more noise, generally speaking.


and if you're unlucky like me, you get hot pixels too :(
 12/22/2005 01:08:04 AM · #21
The noise level at any particular ISO setting is also going to differ from camera to camera. On my Nikon Coolpix 995 a photo taken at ISO 400 would produce an image that looked like it came from a cell phone camera. However, with my D70s I can shoot at ISO 800 and barely notice the noise sometimes.
 12/22/2005 01:10:51 AM · #22
Originally posted by MQuinn:
It really depends! the ISO is the film speed. Basically depends what your shooting. Example: sports with lots of fast action in a well lit place the higher ISO is faster at capturing 1600 iso and above. But the trade off is noise(Depending on the exposuretime and lighting conditions, aperature, and of course the camera)


Is it actually faster because of the ISO, or is it because you can shoot at a faster shutter speed? The former wouldn't make sense to me if that were the case.
 12/22/2005 01:16:18 AM · #23
It is the same thing. The higher the ISO, the smaller the aperture/the faster the shutter speed you can use. Basically, to achieve a certain amount of light coming into the sensor, ISO, shutter speed, and the aperture define it.
ISO*shutterspeed/aperture=const. (more or less).
 12/22/2005 01:32:33 AM · #24
Originally posted by jpeters:
Is it actually faster because of the ISO, or is it because you can shoot at a faster shutter speed? The former wouldn't make sense to me if that were the case.


What my little brain knows is:
higher ISO means more sensitive the sensor is to light
lower ISO means less sensitive the sensor is to light

So, if I have high ISO (example, ISO1600) which is very sensitive to light, then I can AFFORD to use a very fast shutter speed and my output photo will still be bright enough. If I had used ISO100 (low ISO) with the same fast shutter, I would probably get a very dark photo, or maybe worse, entirely black image.

Hope you get the picture.
 12/22/2005 02:22:52 AM · #25
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by jpeters:
Is it actually faster because of the ISO, or is it because you can shoot at a faster shutter speed? The former wouldn't make sense to me if that were the case.


What my little brain knows is:
higher ISO means more sensitive the sensor is to light
lower ISO means less sensitive the sensor is to light

So, if I have high ISO (example, ISO1600) which is very sensitive to light, then I can AFFORD to use a very fast shutter speed and my output photo will still be bright enough. If I had used ISO100 (low ISO) with the same fast shutter, I would probably get a very dark photo, or maybe worse, entirely black image.

Hope you get the picture.


OK, that's what I thought. The way I read MQuinn's comment was that all other things equal, higher ISO meant faster capturing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:09:21 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:09:21 AM EDT.