ISO and Picture Qualiyt Digital Cameras.

[Cyrano]

I'm still trying to get my head around some of the characteristics of digital cameras. I have trouble with the ISO thing, for example. I can vary the ISO on my camera from 50 to 23,000. I've taken pictures at both of thsoe readings and can't see any degradation in picture quaity with either high or low ISO. Does picture quality, like definition, contrast or saturation, degrade with the higher ISO? I can see why you'd like to use a higher ISO to provide steadiness with hand held pictures in low light situations. But on a tripod is there any reason to select either a high or low ISO? Why?

 

[LVSteve]

Are you viewing the pictures at 100%? I take it you have a camera with an 8 or 12 megapixel sensor. Is it an SLR? The photo viewing software you have is likely shrinking the picture to fit your screen. That will mask the differences. The difference is there, trust me.

 

[H Richard]

ISO used too high (they tell me) will cause "noise" in the image (the image breaking apart some). I still use my first digital camera sometimes and it is only a 5 MP, and I can show them on a 42" T V screen and the image isn't bad, not like high def though. My current 12 MP I just can 't see any difference, but I'm not blowing them up to billboard size. For practical use I just put my camera on "auto" and get fine images in nearly any light.

 

[Watchdog]

I'm still trying to get my head around some of the characteristics of digital cameras. I have trouble with the ISO thing, for example. I can vary the ISO on my camera from 50 to 23,000. I've taken pictures at both of thsoe readings and can't see any degradation in picture quaity with either high or low ISO. Does picture quality, like definition, contrast or saturation, degrade with the higher ISO? I can see why you'd like to use a higher ISO to provide steadiness with hand held pictures in low light situations. But on a tripod is there any reason to select either a high or low ISO? Why?

ISO equates with film speed.

Higher ISOs produce "grain", now referred to as digital noise. It's especially noticeable in low light. To me, at any rate.

For static outdoor shots, I try not to go over ISO 400. For action, I try to keep it around ISO 800, with appropriate shutter speeds. Everyone does it differently.

I really don't want to get into the whole ISO-aperture-shutter speed thing. Just as an aside, I always shoot in manual mode. I want the photograph to look like I want it to look, not have the photo be the result of an algorithm in the camera's software.

Even when shooting with my iPhone 7 Plus, I use an app that allows me to set the exposure manually, not depend on the phone camera's choice.

Bottom line (for me)...you'll get better photos using lower ISO settings.

 

[Ben_hutcherson]

One of the biggest advances in the last 10 years or so has been improving the signal to noise ratio at high ISOs.

Still, for a given camera, the higher the ISO, the more noise you have. If you aren't seeing noise, it's because the camera is using noise reduction algorithms and blurring details in doing so.

As a practical example, I have a Nikon D2X(c. 2004) and as great as the camera is I find it to be uncomfortably noisy above ~400 and useless at 1600. My D300(2007) is the same resolution(12mp) and the same sensor size(APS-C) but gives decent results at 1600 and usable results at 3200. My D800(2012) has a 36mp full-frame sensor with the equivalent pixel density of a ~16mp full frame sensor and I don't see much difference between 200 and 800 and am perfectly happy with what I get up to 6400 or so.

It's worth mentioning that for a given sensor size, a lower pixel count will generally result in less noise all else being equal. The reason for this is that the photosites can be physically larger and thus require less amplification to give a result. My D1H(2002, 2.5mp APS-C sensor) actually looks decent at ISO 800, and the 2004 D2H(4mp) was considered something of a high ISO king for a while.

All of that aside, my general practice is to use the lowest ISO that's practical for a given situation.

 

[DWalt]

Some 10-12 years or so ago, I was delegated the task of photographing speakers at a symposium and an award ceremony. Well and good, but I didn't anticipate just how dimly lit the conference hall was. Therefore, I had to turn the ISO up as far as it would go. The on-camera flash was basically worthless as I had to be positioned so far away from the subjects. The results documented the symposium, but the pictures were very noisy, even though they were OK (barely) for publication. Had my camera been of the quality of today's cameras, it would have probably produced better images under the same lighting conditions. I believe newer cameras have circuitry which filters out much of the noise produced at high ISO.

 

[richardw]

As you increase the ISO you incur more didgital noise, artifact that deteriorate image quality. The larger you display the prior print the image the more noticeable the artifacts become. Image quality comes at a price. For the most part it is not an issue in family snapshots, but when you get ploointo publication photography, as I did after I retired, it is a serous issue. The difference in resolution quality between a screen image and a printed image is startling.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

The answer is Yes - the image quality degrades as the ISO goes up.
High much depends on how high and the ability of your camera.
You usually want to use the lowest ISO that you can under the circumstances.
What Brand - Model camera do you have?

 

[Cyrano]

Thanks, people. That sheds a lot of light on the situation. I'm putting the pix in the computer and seeing them at full screen on the computer. Can't tell the difference between high and low ISO. My camera is a Sony a7 II. Must be well screened. I had a Leica V-Lux 2 that gave a lot of grain in low light shots. Still, for work on the copy stand, I think I'll stick to ISO about 200

 

[rwsmith]

In the days of film....

At first 'faster' film (around ISO 400) had course grains and you couldn't blow them up much without the grains getting bigger, too.


'Slower' films, like Kodachrome were like ISO 25 and did best in bright sunlight. The grains were finer so even a projected image was still fairly clear.

When dye technology came in a lot of that went out the window because it had low grain inherently, made from a solution rather than a suspension. Old black and white film used silver in the coatings, which until dye, inherently HAD grain.

The photo industry used to be the biggest user of silver in the world. It's considered an industrial metal. They used to just pour the solutions down the drain. When the price of silver went up (Thanks to the Hunt brothers), people started reclaim silver from the solutions.

 

[LVSteve]

I'm putting the pix in the computer and seeing them at full screen on the computer. Can't tell the difference between high and low ISO. My camera is a Sony a7 II. Must be well screened. I had a Leica V-Lux 2 that gave a lot of grain in low light shots. Still, for work on the copy stand, I think I'll stick to ISO about 200

Nice camera. It has a 24 megapixel sensor, that's a 6000 x 4000 pixel picture. Not all of that will fit pixel for pixel on your screen. It will be downsampled and hide any noise. If you view at 100% it will look like you have zoomed right in, and it will show the noise. I'll try and post a couple of shots as examples tomorrow.

 

[DWalt]

"The photo industry used to be the biggest user of silver in the world. It's considered an industrial metal. They used to just pour the solutions down the drain. When the price of silver went up (Thanks to the Hunt brothers), people started reclaim silver from the solutions."

Maybe some did, but not where I worked, long before the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the silver market. I was a jack-of-all-trades in a mid-size commercial photo processing lab back in the 1950s-60s. At that time we processed only B&W film, both roll film and movie film. One of my jobs was to test the fixing baths to see if they needed replenishment and to determine its silver content. I removed the dissolved silver by adding zinc dust which precipitated out the silver as a silver-zinc sludge. I would filter out the sludge and send it off to a refinery, I did that a couple of times per week. There are other precipitation methods (I know of one where the solution goes through steel wool, and the silver is chemically precipitated), and I also know that some labs used electrolysis (essentially plating out the silver on a cathode by passing electricity through it). Over a certain size, photo processing labs are required to perform such treatments before depleted photochemicals can be sent to a municipal waste water treatment plant, as they are considered categorical wastewaters requiring pre-treatment under EPA clean water act regulations.

 

[Cyrano]

For gun photography on the copy stand, I'll use ISO 200, however for general photography, I set the camera on full auto and let it do what it does best. It usually takes better pictures than I can. When I take it off full auto, I usually do OK but then I forget to set it back, and have some awful photos until I let it do its thing.

 

[rwsmith]

When that started up......

"The photo industry used to be the biggest user of silver in the world. It's considered an industrial metal. They used to just pour the solutions down the drain. When the price of silver went up (Thanks to the Hunt brothers), people started reclaim silver from the solutions."

Maybe some did, but not where I worked, long before the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the silver market. I was a jack-of-all-trades in a mid-size commercial photo processing lab back in the 1950s-60s. At that time we processed only B&W film, both roll film and movie film. One of my jobs was to test the fixing baths to see if they needed replenishment and to determine its silver content. I removed the dissolved silver by adding zinc dust which precipitated out the silver as a silver-zinc sludge. I would filter out the sludge and send it off to a refinery, I did that a couple of times per week. There are other precipitation methods (I know of one where the solution goes through steel wool, and the silver is chemically precipitated), and I also know that some labs used electrolysis (essentially plating out the silver on a cathode by passing electricity through it). Over a certain size, photo processing labs are required to perform such treatments before depleted photochemicals can be sent to a municipal waste water treatment plant, as they are considered categorical wastewaters requiring pre-treatment under EPA clean water act regulations.

When the price started going up even small and home labs obtained some sort of silver catcher. My brother in law showed us some silver bullion that they invested in. I suppose they sold it back at market price.

 

[rwsmith]

I had a friend who was really mad.....

He'd been into photography heavy for years and had all kinds of equipment, bought his wife a Canon 'Sureshot' one of the first really good automatics (point, shoot and take great pictures) and he was griping that it took better pictures than his.

I had a Nikon 'coolpix' that I dearly loved. It was full auto or fully adjustable and anything in between. And it was very small and portable to carry around. I took great pictures with it. Unfortunately, I pretty sure that it went to pawn shop to pay for some drugs.

 

[DWalt]

The Nikon Coolpix is a great little camera. I have two of them (both L30s). The only weakness is the fragility of the battery/SD card compartment cover. It locks closed on a very tiny plastic catch which will break, and there is no way to fix it. One of mine has a broken catch, I keep the cover closed with a heavy rubber band which is not very elegant but it works. I defy any other digital camera at any price to outperform it. I imagine at the present time there is very little conventional photographic film being processed. Some professionals still use film, but probably very few amateurs. Several years ago I sold/gave away/threw away all of my darkroom equipment and film cameras. If I need prints or enlargements, I just take a SD memory card to Sam's Club.

 

[Dennis The B]

Remember, also, that the sensors today, are far superior than those of even five years ago. Today's CMOS sensors are far better @ ISO 800, than were similar sensors @ ISO 400.

I'm shooting more @ ISO 800 with my D500 and D750 cameras, and getting better results that I could with my D200 @ ISO 400. I also spend far less time editing, since the cameras themselves are much better, faster, cheaper than those of 10 years back. The quality of the files in RAW is getting better all the time.

Lenses are another story though. Their performance is more subjective, assuming you buy a quality lens. I'm still a fan of older lenses such as the Nikon AI/AIs lenses, and the Pentax Super Multicoated Takumars. One of my favorites is a Pentax ES-II, and a SMC 100mm f4. It does great macro shots.

When I started shooting more film last year, I found that a lot of the older Nikon, Pentax, Canon, and Olympus lenses were scarce. Seems a lot of folks like them for the 4/3 format, and the adapters are fairly cheap.

 

[LVSteve]

When I started shooting more film last year, I found that a lot of the older Nikon, Pentax, Canon, and Olympus lenses were scarce. Seems a lot of folks like them for the 4/3 format, and the adapters are fairly cheap.

Guilty as charged. I have a Nikon mount Sigma 300mm F4 that I used to use on a N70, but it works well on my old Olympus E-500. Only trouble is the sensor in that body is dying. Trouble is nobody makes a 4/3 body anymore, they are all Micro 4/3 these days. I'll be forced to buy a body and the proper Olympus adapter.

 

[Ben_hutcherson]

. I'm still a fan of older lenses such as the Nikon AI/AIs lenses, and the Pentax Super Multicoated Takumars.

I have a pretty nice set of both pre-AI and AI/AI-s Nikkors.

Some of the pre-AI lenses are far from perfect but have interesting aspects that makes them fun to play with.

I kept my eyes open for a while for a 5.8cm f/1.4, which was the first f/1.4 SLR lens made by anyone. Although it's certainly not rare, it's one of the lower production 50mm lenses Nikon has made. I finally found a nice one on the 6.4 million(1962) Nikon F it was probably originally kitted with. The lens is certainly interesting in that wide open it's loaded with spherical abberation, coma, and low sharpness. These combine to give it an interesting "swirly" bokeh, although that effect disappears when stopped down even a little bit(the 50mm that replaced it is a lot better). Also, just to make this lens even more fun, the aperture ring is made in such a way that it will clear the AI tab on most late SLRs and on DSLRs so equipped.

Another fun one is the 45mm 2.8GN. This is a "pancake" type lens and is the second smallest lens Nikon has made(behind the more recent 45mm 2.8P that was introduced with the FM3a). It is a Tessar type lens(4 elements, 3 groups), which means that combined with Nikon's excellent coatings the contrast is quite high and distortion is low albeit at the cost of significant vignetting wide open. It was a lens made for flash photography, though, and has a built in guide number "computer" for use with bulbs or manual on-camera strobes. Basically, you can use a small "fork" on the side of the lens to select the guide number of your flash, and doing that couples the focusing ring and aperture ring together to adjust the aperture based on the distance from the subject. It works well and saves the mental number crunching or consulting the calculator dial on the flash when things are moving fast. Also, interestingly enough, because of the aperture coupling, the focus ring moves in the opposite direction from all other Nikkors.