Don't Make This ISO Mistake...

Подписаться 12 тыс.

Просмотров 2,6 тыс.

50% 1

I wanted to test a theory regarding expanded ISO on digital cameras. I took a ride on my motorcycle over the Humber Bridge to take a series of photographs at different ISO values and exposure levels, here are my results.
• Buy Me A Coffee:
www.buymeacoffee.com/chrispikz
• My Camera Gear:
www.amazon.co.uk/shop/chrisba...
•Follow Me On Instagram:
/ chrispikz
• Buy my PRESETS here:
www.etsy.com/uk/shop/ChrisBai...
• Buy My PRINTS here:
www.redbubble.com/people/chri...
•About me:
My name is Chris and I am a landscape photographer from East Yorkshire focussing on coastal long exposures using my micro four thirds Olympus cameras.
My music is provided my Audiio, sign up below and use code SAVE70 to earn 70% off of your first 12 month subscription:
audiio.com/partner?oid=1&affi...
#camera #photography

Опубликовано:

8 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 20

@tuuchen2990 28 дней назад

ISO expansion can be useful for controlling aperture and shutter speed. It's not always ideal, but it definitely has its moments where it comes in handy

@darrenkynoch6255 Месяц назад

Excellent explanation Chris, I have same, em1 mkii

@user-eh8jv2em2o Месяц назад

Sounds reasonable. If there's no real ISO 50 in cameras and it's just an internal transformation before writing to a file, you can apply it to a RAW picture yourself and it would be better because division and rounding to fit into bits result in precision loss. Regardless, in complex conditions when you really need a large aperture and can't increase the shutter speed any further, just use a good ND filter. For skies, a gradient filter might be an option. If you underexpose the whole picture to keep the skies, you will then have to pull the shadows up, which will introduce some noise. By underexposing the skies only, using a real physical gradient filter, you get more detail and less noise in the shadows.

@johnpark8297 29 дней назад

Great explanation Chris 👍

@simonatterbury 29 дней назад

Really useful.

@colinclayton4775 Месяц назад

Thanks for the explanation Chris. I have the em1 mkii and em10 mkii and have wondered what Low ISO actually means..how low is low? Never used it, never will. I always shoot raw + jpeg anyway to give myself all the options. I particularly like the wi-fi transfer to my android which is so convenient 😊

@WhoIsSerafin 29 дней назад

I use it quite often here in Florida so I can keep my shutter speed down when using a flash without high-speed sync. It helps create some great photos where I want my aperture as low as possible, but my shutter speed not over 250. I would hardly say marketing gimmick.

@kcphotogeek6207 29 дней назад

You’re right, low and high extended ISO is just marketing fluff, and I have a marketing degree so I know my fluff. I remember Pentax making a fuss about their KP camera shooting up to ISO 819200. For a jpeg shooter using a dynamic optimisation mode would work better than low extended ISO, Sony and Lumix do this quite well.

@ReadyMack-g 27 дней назад

solid... nice one mate

@ChrisBaitson 27 дней назад

Much appreciated

@ReadyMack-g 26 дней назад

@@ChrisBaitson i run the R3 and its crisp and clear but there is noise... earlier in ISO than my old 1DX had but there is no color shift in the noise of the R3 until you are past 20,000 iso, these days even light room has noise reduction so it may be moot. but this guidance is invaluable.

@bigrobotnewstoday1436 29 дней назад

It's not a con. I've used ISO expansion and if your in good light and need to keep your shutter speed up it's useable. I have photos even in my wedding portfolio.

@1194pa 9 дней назад

Good work I am from pakistan

@rudolffamiev2188 Месяц назад

Honestly - you do not cover all the reasons why somebody wants to lower ISO into lower extended range. I did it on my last trip shooting water flow in the stoned area. When I measured the camera settings - I saw that I am 1 stop more that I like to be, as I like to slow the shutter speed one stop without touching my aperture... I shoot RAW (I do not understand in general the call to shoot JPEG - but this is a different story), so I deliberately set camera ISO into extended lower one (native - 160, I set to 80). So I git my result as my shutter speed been lowered to intended value. The one can say that I can done it with just exposure compensation (as RAW file will be taking this in the post with no issue) - but I decided to go "proper" way... :) I do not believe that extended range gives "better" image - I just believe that this triangle (Aperture - shutter speed - ISO) shall be properly used in any situation. And in the end - thank you for this video as I did not come across any video that talks on what "lower ISO extension" really mean.

@user-eh8jv2em2o Месяц назад

I think he didn't mean to suggest shooting JPEG; he just meant that if you shoot RAW and use lower ISO expansion, you should stop using that lower ISO expansion (but not stop shooting RAW). Using lower ISO expansion with RAW doesn't increase dynamic range or provide more highlights. It also reduces precision, such as in gradation steps. This is simple math. It can be helpful for JPEG shooters to avoid later edits (to reduce apparent excessive brightness), but it is meaningless and harmful for RAW shooters.

@rudolffamiev2188 29 дней назад

@@user-eh8jv2em2o I guess "harmful" is a stretch here - it is not more harmful then choosing ISO one stop higher that the base one. Certainly base ISO is the best in terms of RAW quality - but one stop over or under does not change that dramatically. Sometimes you need to get that call. This is what I am trying to say.

@user-eh8jv2em2o 29 дней назад

@@rudolffamiev2188 Base ISO is not the best in terms of quality. Increasing the exposure by one stop is better than adding +1 EV in an editor later because of analog amplification, which is effective up to ISO 1600 or so (depending on the camera). There's noise introduced during the analog-to-digital conversion. Analog amplification boosts the signal before it is digitized, so if your base ISO is 100, you'll get a slightly better image at ISO 200 rather than underexposing at ISO 100 and then increasing it by one stop in an editor. Lower ISO expansion is equivalent to a base ISO shot with resulting values divided by 2. Here, it does not matter whether the division happens in digital or analog form because the result is written into bits (digits), which are discrete. This means that if you had, say, 1000 gradations in a base ISO shot, after converting it to a lower ISO (expanded, not real), you only get 500 possible gradations. That's why it is both pointless and harmful because some quality is lost and nothing is really gained. So there's no stretch in my previous comment.

@BobN54 23 дня назад

You're a bit mixed up about what ISO is and also what exposure is. First, exposure is the amount of light at the sensor (strictly per unit area) so once you've taken the shot it can't be changed. So your stuff about the camera processor changing the exposure, or you doing it in LR just makes no sense. Next, strictly ISO doesn't apply to raw. ISO the exposure required to get a specific value in a processed output file. A raw file isn't processed, so no decision has been taken about which exposures yield which tones in the final image. A by product of the ISO control is that it configures the electronics to be optimal at the expected exposure for that ISO. It's a myth that low extended ISO settings give less DR than 'base' ISO. Usually the electronics are configured exactly the same, so the DR is the same. All that is happening is that the meter is being programmed to give a stop more exposure and the in-camera processing set up to render a stop darker. When to use a low extended ISO? When the scene doesn't have bright highlights and you're trying to maximise exposure for best mage quality. BTW, your discussion of what ISO is is just wrong. ISO is not 'amplification' and 'ISO noise' is caused by the consequences of low exposure, not anything to do with amplification. I'd suggest getting that sorted before your upcoming video.

@ChrisBaitson 23 дня назад

Tanks for watching and commenting on the video Bob!

@BobN54 22 дня назад

@@ChrisBaitson I'd suggest starting out trying to understand what exposure actually is. Then you'll see that most of what you say doesn't make sense. A good source is the Manual of Photography. Very worthwhile for anyone trying to teach photography, because it gives you the basics right, unlike most You Tube videos and online material.