ISO style

[kira_greene]

<p>Do you set your ISO and leave it or do you change it frequently? By frequently, I mean in between shots during the same photoshoot. The light isn't different, the pose is the same, etc. Yet, the ISO gets adjusted.<br /> Other than noise, what effect does ISO really play on the final image? - especially if you can use aperture to affect DOF without sacrificing image sharpness due to slower shutter speeds. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I'll set and leave; but, this is probably from the influence of using film. <br>

If all things are equal, and you don't count noise, it probably doesn't matter at all how you adjust it. Reciprocity will allow you to tinker with it and not have it matter. Trouble is, when you exclude noise from the question, well, you hit on the main point about the downside of sensitivity adjustments. </p>

<p>As long as you can land on an exposure solution that meets your needs, you're good.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I change it to suit the conditions. Low ISO for maximum quality whenever possible. Higher to a fixed ISO when lighting is dim but consistent.</p>

<p>And when necessary to get the shot in inconsistent lighting I've used auto ISO. School gyms can vary 1 EV or more between pools of light and shadow on the court, and I've been in some where there's a 2 EV difference in illumination between one basket and the other. Same with live theater. It's easier to manually select a shutter speed I can hold steadily and is fast enough to freeze action, set the widest aperture or nearly wide open, and let the camera adjust the ISO to suit conditions. I'll fix the noise later.</p>

<p>Downsides? Sure. Besides more noise at higher ISOs you may also loose dynamic range. And accurate exposure becomes necessary at higher ISOs. My D2H is old tech by contemporary standards and banding is a problem above ISO 1600 with underexposure. I can fix noise; I can't fix the banding. So as I increase the ISO I'll dial in a little positive exposure compensation to minimize the risk of underexposure. Sometimes I'll get blown highlights doing this but at least the banding doesn't interfere. At 3200 and 6400 it's about like Delta 3200 b&w film - very "grainy" noise, large, soft specks. Useful for emergencies when it's down to getting the shot or missing it altogether.</p>

<p>Some folks make a religion out of this subject, "always" this, "never" that, they'd rather skip the shot than compromise an iota, blah-blah-blah. I just choose the tool that works for the situation.</p>

[steve_lantz]

<p>I tend to treat ISO the same as I did when shooting film. I set it for the conditions and what I'm shooting and leave it, changing it only if the light changes or I need to boost the shutter speed.<br>

I don't do much indoor sports but tomorrow I plan on doing some shooting at a 3 on 3 hockey tournament. The event is in a rink that is used for youth and high school hockey, not the arena our pro team uses. After reading Lex's post I'll give the auto ISO a try. Thanks Lex.</p>

[ianmaleny]

<p>I change it to suit conditions. This was one of my main gripes with film, in the old days when ASA was fixed.</p>

[garydem]

<p>when arriving at the shooting scene i mentally note the fstop and shutter speed that i would want to use for the scene situation lighting and desires of the photog. then see what the dslr is giving me. if the settings are too low i adjust the iso up till i reach my desired settings and leave it till i am done shooting. at all times i use the lowest iso i can use and still be comforable with the fstop and shutter speed. this is almost always the base iso if there is any way possible to do that. i shoot 99.9% of my shots at base iso. i only go up in iso when it is just plain too dim.</p><div></div>

[ben_goren]

<p>“It depends”</p>

 

<p>My work tends to be very contemplative. I evaluate each scene as its own entity and set

whatever is appropriate for that one scene. If the next scene is similar, then the settings will be, too

— obviously.</p>

 

<p>I’ve just discovered <a href="http://planetneil.com/">planetneil.com</a>. I generally

don’t do that kind of photography, and I haven’t shot any events since I started

studying Neil’s site. But I <em>have</em> played around with the techniques he describes,

and they’re wonderful. Short version: set your shutter to max sync; set your aperture for

DOF; set ISO to underexpose the available light by a couple stops; and use bounced flash with TTL

metering. Use FEC to adjust overall exposure, and <em>adjust your ISO to change the ratio of

available light and flash.</em> It’s brilliant, and it works great.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>Depends on which camera I am using. With the D80, I stick to 100. With the D300, I change ISO frequently.</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Thank you for all the answers. :)</p>

<p>I asked because, recently I was talking with a group of wedding photographers (in my area, it is next to impossible to find people who shoot anything else) and they ALL said they changed their ISO frequently. Even in between shots, where the pose was the same, and the light was the same, they still said they changed their ISO, I asked them why, what effect did it have?<br>

They said to get different 'looks', and one said so that in some photos the background would be sharp, and in the same pose, different shot, changed the ISO, the background would be blurry. </p>

<p>I thought that sharpness/blurriness of background was controlled by aperture first and shutter speed second.</p>

<p>I had started thinking I was crazy - they made me feel like I know nothing about photography, and even though I shoot manually, I was forgetting the most important part of the exposure settings, and therefore I have no particular photography style. I have only changed it to suit conditions, particularly low light shots where you need to hand hold the camera. But I still find I keep it low, due to unwanted noise. <br>

I set mine and leave it, but I am shooting with a Nikon D80. While it is a great camera, it's noisy at higher ISOs. <br>

If I had a D300, or (drool) a D700, or even a D90 yeah, I'd probably do more ISO adjusting - because I could still get a no-low noise photo. As for now, I am working with what I have, and relying on a tripod, or table, or whatever for those low light shots. </p>

<p>@RL Potts, why do you change it frequently, what effect does chaging it have, other than using higher shutter speeds in low light? Do you change it when lighting conditions are the same? Why? Please don't think I am rude, I just really want to know why - does altering the ISO make better photographs? How? </p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

[garydem]

<p>kira g-i do not know why anyone woulod change the iso shot to shot. if the lighting is staying the same, and for weddings it is artifical so it should, just pick the shutter speed and fstop you wish to use(the fstop for the dof) then leave it till you change the lighting. once iso is set then it is a simple matter to get whatever fstop(dof) wanted simply by changing the adjustment wheel. then dso the next shot. <br>

in any event, and consider that i am a dedicated jpeg shooter, for weddings i would switch to raw just to have the ability to deal with all the mixed lighting and still get a very good wb. to do this carry a known white card ewith you and take test shots in EVERY lighting area, the later in the converter do the test shots first setting the white and wb then ALL THE PICS TAKEN IN THE SAME LIGHT. then another test shot then all that group of pics, etc.<br>

note that you should be shooting at the lowest iso you can use and still get usable shutter speeds and fstops. the lowest iso(usually the base iso) is where the best performance of the sensor is going to be be found. instead of changing the dials and buttons on the dslr for no purpose, you are going for the best IQ possible. this almost always means a given set of settings. yoiu owe it to your client to do just that. it does not do any good to try to impress someone with fiddleing with the settings when the result is less than optimum IQ. which could be gotten just by leaving the settings alone, and going with one set>the ones that give the best IQ. besides for a wedding -this means most(almost all) shots are going to be flash anyway, and that alone will tend toward a given set of settings. for my 2 dslrs, for example, f8.0 and 1/125 at iso 200 means that i am fully automatic to 39ft with flash. and about 22-24ft with my diffuser. i cannot think of a reason i would change that. if set portraits were shot then i would change the fstop to kill the dof and leave it there as long as i was taking portraits. when done go back to f8.0. or set one of dslrs with a portrait setup while the other was running the general use setup. i have 2 flashes and 2 dslrs.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>In response to the particular technique your “friends” were discussing…if

you maintain the same shutter speed and decrease the ISO, you’ll have to decrease the

aperture in order to keep the exposure the same. This will, in turn, give a greater depth of field,

resulting in a sharper background. The reverse is (obviously) also true.</p>

 

<p>The early digital cameras made it possible to change ISO on the fly, but only within a range of a

few stops. Useful, yes, but not game-changing.</p>

 

<p>The latest batch…well the 5D Mark II has a useable ISO range of 50-6400, depending on

your quality requirements, and an actual range of 50-25600. That’s a range of seven to nine

stops, and is comparable to having an f/1.4 lens that you stop down to f/16 without thinking much

about and that will still get you the shot at f/32. Sound familiar?</p>

 

<p>What it means in practice is that there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be as

flexible with the ISO as you are with the aperture. Where the thought process used to be “set

the aperture for depth of field and adjust the shutter to get the proper exposure” or

“set the shutter to stop / create motion / shake and adjust the aperture to get the proper

exposure,” it <em>now</em> should be, “set the aperture for depth of field, shutter for

motion / shake, and ISO to get the proper exposure.”</p>

 

<p>And, realistically, the high ISO performance of modern cameras is such that, when

you’re pushing their limits, you’re operating well outside of normal human vision, too.

Either the light is so dim that neither you nor the camera can focus without some assistance, or

you’re shooting at 1/8000 second to stop ultra-high-speed motion, or the like.</p>

 

<p>While I’m sure Canon and Nikon will continue to push the ISO capabilities of their

cameras, we’ve already passed a very significant watershed. Future improvements will

refine what we have, whereas the past generation or two have changed the game radically.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>I change it many times with each gig I do. Lots of varying conditions.</p>

<p>When I was film based I carried a large (could hold a couple of 24 packs) loaded with film. I also had several backs I could change as determined by the conditions. No more, thank goodness, with digital!</p>

<p>Best!</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>I keep the iso lowest as possible for the cleanest file, only changing up when I have to dial down to a shutter speed for which I can no longer hand hold, or freeze moving subject matter.</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>With digital ISO is a tool that I use as much as aperture or shutter speed.<br>

It's variable and available...so I use it when it serves my purpose...</p>