Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question on ISO settings

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:10:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I take quite a few digital images of still objects in a light box.
The box is illuminated with external incandescent lights.

Is there any reason to choose a particular ISO setting under these
conditions? I've been leaving it on 100, but wonder if there's a
reason to use a different setting.


--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL

More about : question iso settings

Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:10:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes:

> I take quite a few digital images of still objects in a light box.
> The box is illuminated with external incandescent lights.
>
> Is there any reason to choose a particular ISO setting under these
> conditions? I've been leaving it on 100, but wonder if there's a
> reason to use a different setting.

You always want the lowest ISO compatible with your available light.
This gives you the lowest noise levels. If you start needing extended
exposures, there's then a question as to whether you'd be better off
with a shorter exposure at a higher ISO. Testing is the only good way
to be sure for your exact equipment.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:10:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>>I take quite a few digital images of still objects in a light box.
>>The box is illuminated with external incandescent lights.
>>
>>Is there any reason to choose a particular ISO setting under these
>>conditions? I've been leaving it on 100, but wonder if there's a
>>reason to use a different setting.
>
>
> You always want the lowest ISO compatible with your available light.


Yep. If you can stabilize the camera and the subject isn't moving.



> This gives you the lowest noise levels. If you start needing extended
> exposures, there's then a question as to whether you'd be better off
> with a shorter exposure at a higher ISO. Testing is the only good way
> to be sure for your exact equipment.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Related resources
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:02:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Cooper wrote:

> I take quite a few digital images of still objects in a light box.
> The box is illuminated with external incandescent lights.
>
> Is there any reason to choose a particular ISO setting under these
> conditions? I've been leaving it on 100, but wonder if there's a
> reason to use a different setting.
>
>
If that is your best quality speed then that is the one to use.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 7:14:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <m2wtpaafxf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>You always want the lowest ISO compatible with your available light.

In general, but not always. If the lowest ISO will cause blooming of
specular highlights, you probably don't want to use it. Blooming is a
function of absolute exposure, and usually occurs somewhere above the
highest RAW value at the lowest ISO.

I think I know what you mean by "with your available light", but if the
gauge is whether or not you can use the f-stop and shutter speed you
need, you still may be under-exposing, and in general, under-exposing at
a lower ISO is worse than exposing well at a higher ISO.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 7:20:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d7rg5g$sru$2@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Neil Ellwood <car@benone.com> wrote:

>Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> I take quite a few digital images of still objects in a light box.
>> The box is illuminated with external incandescent lights.
>
>> Is there any reason to choose a particular ISO setting under these
>> conditions? I've been leaving it on 100, but wonder if there's a
>> reason to use a different setting.

>If that is your best quality speed then that is the one to use.

I would agree, if the camera is one that starts to get noticeably
noisier at ISO 200, but in my experience I have found that low-noise
cameras actually have very little benefit from using ISO 100. In fact,
you are more likely to experience blooming from specular highlights, and
posterization of the shadows may be more pronounced at the lowest ISO,
as a little bit of noise actually breaks up the posterization (too much,
however, makes the noise itself highly posterized and more emphatic).

Simple anecdotes are often wrong in real-world applications.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:17:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would appreciate additional comments on ISO settings. It seems to
me to be the first setting one should get correct on a particular
set-up. Anyone care to share their personal ISO setting practises?
Thanks!

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:10:41 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I take quite a few digital images of still objects in a light box.
>The box is illuminated with external incandescent lights.
>
>Is there any reason to choose a particular ISO setting under these
>conditions? I've been leaving it on 100, but wonder if there's a
>reason to use a different setting.
>
>
>--
>Tony Cooper
>Orlando FL
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 9:33:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42a1d374.21337281@cnews.newsguy.com>,
chebba@hbci.com wrote:

>I would appreciate additional comments on ISO settings. It seems to
>me to be the first setting one should get correct on a particular
>set-up.

That would seem to be true, based on all the common anecdotes, but it is
really not the first priority for quality imaging.

>Anyone care to share their personal ISO setting practises?

My practices are rather complex, and are adaptive. If it is a bright,
sunny day, and I am taking street, scenic, or architecture pictures with
a wide-angle lens, I will set my camera by default to ISO 200. If it is
a bit overcast, I will set the camera to ISO 400, and +1 EC.

If I am shootin wildlife with a telephoto, I usually set the camera to
ISO 800 and +2/3 EC to ISO 1600 and +2/3 EC, but if I am shooting a
bright white bird agaisnt a dark background, I will drop to 0 EC or
-1/3. This is shooting RAW with a Canon 20D. I often shoot under
conditions where I would need ISO 3200 to ISO 12800 for a decent
exposure, so I just set it to ISO 1600 +2/3 in Tv mode, and accept the
fact that the images may be noisier and more posterized because they are
under-exposed.

There are trade-offs between ISO vs f-stop, and ISO vs shutter speed,
and it takes a while to develop an intuition as to what is more
important.

If a scene is low-contrast, I will go to +2 EC or even higher, and I
will go to a higher ISO in that case to get the shutter speed and f-stop
I need. I have found that given the same f-stop and shutter speed, the
*highest* (yes, HIGHEST) ISO that can take the shot without clipping the
highlights gives the least noise and posterization.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 3:31:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you so much. Exactly what I was interested in. It does make
sense to me and confirms that I am journeying down the right path.
Very knd of you. I plan on checking out some of the conditions and
settings. Thanks! Ed

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:33:00 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <42a1d374.21337281@cnews.newsguy.com>,
>chebba@hbci.com wrote:
>
>>I would appreciate additional comments on ISO settings. It seems to
>>me to be the first setting one should get correct on a particular
>>set-up.
>
>That would seem to be true, based on all the common anecdotes, but it is
>really not the first priority for quality imaging.
>
>>Anyone care to share their personal ISO setting practises?
>
>My practices are rather complex, and are adaptive. If it is a bright,
>sunny day, and I am taking street, scenic, or architecture pictures with
>a wide-angle lens, I will set my camera by default to ISO 200. If it is
>a bit overcast, I will set the camera to ISO 400, and +1 EC.
>
>If I am shootin wildlife with a telephoto, I usually set the camera to
>ISO 800 and +2/3 EC to ISO 1600 and +2/3 EC, but if I am shooting a
>bright white bird agaisnt a dark background, I will drop to 0 EC or
>-1/3. This is shooting RAW with a Canon 20D. I often shoot under
>conditions where I would need ISO 3200 to ISO 12800 for a decent
>exposure, so I just set it to ISO 1600 +2/3 in Tv mode, and accept the
>fact that the images may be noisier and more posterized because they are
>under-exposed.
>
>There are trade-offs between ISO vs f-stop, and ISO vs shutter speed,
>and it takes a while to develop an intuition as to what is more
>important.
>
>If a scene is low-contrast, I will go to +2 EC or even higher, and I
>will go to a higher ISO in that case to get the shutter speed and f-stop
>I need. I have found that given the same f-stop and shutter speed, the
>*highest* (yes, HIGHEST) ISO that can take the shot without clipping the
>highlights gives the least noise and posterization.
>
>--
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!