What ISO is "normal" for you?

Jasvox · 04-27-2009, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Dom

100, 400 max if it's too noisy I can't sell it.

Then you have eliminated most newspapers and online news sources...the crap they publish is sometimes so noisy, it makes you wonder how anyone can brag about noise control at high ISO's. Some of the stuff in print and online is so grainy, it looks like it was shot in a snowstorm!

Jason

Ratmagiclady · 04-27-2009, 01:05 PM

I'm kind of odd in this, I suppose, I use a lot of the higher ISOs in general: I like the texture I get in monochrome that way... I haven't really developed a scheme on where which lower ISO is preferable, compared to other concerns, yet, and so far tend to go with similar to what film I'd choose or just crank it down all the way.

I'm very interested in impressions or information on this: I've seen Dpreview's static tests, but I'm more interested in subjective impressions: I'm often pretty sun-sensitive, so I mostly shoot in dimmer or flatter conditions when I can see better: (frankly, when it's very bright I'm usually kind of calculating where exposure ought to be rather than seeing it, leaving myself leeway, and hoping something good comes out of the digital wash) ... still don't have much of a sense of where the qualitative tradeoffs are.

Ratmagiclady · 04-27-2009, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Then you have eliminated most newspapers and online news sources...the crap they publish is sometimes so noisy, it makes you wonder how anyone can brag about noise control at high ISO's. Some of the stuff in print and online is so grainy, it looks like it was shot in a snowstorm!

Jason

Just so, too, Jasvox. I admit I kind of come through and am more-basically-inclined to journalism and documentary types of photography... as I was about film, I kind of am about digital, ..why put the emphasis on trying to *hide* the fact it's a *photograph,* as long as it looks *like* a photograph, not a failed imitation of one?

I mean, 'noise' just doesn't much bother me. Unacceptable noise is just the penalty for poor exposure, mostly. As long as it doesn't look like a *malfunction* of some kind, let it look like a digital photograph. Whatever that may be.

Squier · 04-27-2009, 01:42 PM

Pretty much as low as low down is possible, man

And in dull, grey, washed out Britain - thats about ISO 1600 even in summer.

Venturi · 04-27-2009, 01:43 PM

I don't mind "luminous" noise (digital grain as it were) so much, but I abhor color noise, especially in the shadows.

Then again back in the day when you had to fine-tune your TV reception it drove me nuts to get snow on the tube too and I've been guilty of missing a show because I was dickering with the pots on the back of the set...

Duplo · 04-27-2009, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by rickn

A couple of months back Pop Photo magazine had an article that suggested a few things to change to improve your photos. One was to up your "normal" ISO to 400. The logic was basically that modern sensors/processors do not loose much at this setting.

I've set my ISO at 400 since and enjoy the ability to use faster shutter speeds, especially when using a telephoto lens. If I need to shoot in low light I change back to ISO 100 or 200.

What is experience of some of the experts here on the Pentax Forums -- what ISO do you normally use?

Well I always stay as close to base ISO as I can get away with, regardless of camera used.

Unrelated I have a really hard time seeing the logic behind the suggestion that upping the ISO in general should improve your photos.

rickn · 04-27-2009, 02:31 PM

Duplo said "I have a really hard time seeing the logic behind the suggestion that upping the ISO in general should improve your photos." By using a higher ISO you can achieve either 1) a faster shutter speed, thus eliminating some blur from camera/lens movement, especially when using a long telephoto lens, or 2) the stop down the lens and get more depth of field into your photo.

The comments so far have been interesting -- easy to see that there is no simple, cover all answer.

Dom · 04-27-2009, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Then you have eliminated most newspapers and online news sources...the crap they publish is sometimes so noisy, it makes you wonder how anyone can brag about noise control at high ISO's. Some of the stuff in print and online is so grainy, it looks like it was shot in a snowstorm!

Jason

Most of the work I do at the moment is in my studio, so I've got the chose of ISO. If I'm out and about I'll have a pod with me. If I see a celebrity I leave them alone.

I do have some exceptional noise control software and algorithms. I don't see any point in making work for myself.

So yes the lower the better. When I use film it how low can I go.

Duplo · 04-27-2009, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by rickn

By using a higher ISO you can achieve either 1) a faster shutter speed, thus eliminating some blur from camera/lens movement, especially when using a long telephoto lens, or 2) the stop down the lens and get more depth of field into your photo.

Both are true for specific situations, but if you do it in general, you will have a fair amount of situations where you loose a bit of IQ rather than the opposite.

that was my point

OregonJim · 04-27-2009, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Venturi

Then again back in the day when you had to fine-tune your TV reception it drove me nuts to get snow on the tube too and I've been guilty of missing a show because I was dickering with the pots on the back of the set...

You and me both.

NTSC = Never Twice the Same Color

CSoars · 04-27-2009, 07:04 PM

I guess IS0 400 is my baseline, useable wide open indoors, and I don't top out the shutter speeds on sunny days. If I need speed, a 2 stop push to 1600 works way better than 800, even if it means I can't shoot outdoors for the rest of the roll.

I don't really shoot colour above ISO 160, though I had some good results recently with Portra 400 VC.

res3567 · 04-27-2009, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

What he said! Although I have been known to use auto-ISO at times.

Steve

Ditto Dat!

res3567 · 04-27-2009, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

On the other hand, I do a *ton* of shooting in dark environments - jazz clubs, etc. I basically jump right to 1600 there. Rarely do I see a point to settings between 400 and 1600 - in those setting, given the choice between a little less noise and a faster shutter speed, shutter speed wins virtually every time.

You dont use flash, I presume?

How are your images whan it comes to noise at iso1600?

huqedato · 04-27-2009, 11:32 PM

ISO100 on my K20D, ISO400 on my (new) D700
max ISO values I use: 500 on K20D, 1600 on D700.

Quite a difference, uh ?

simico · 04-28-2009, 02:06 AM

ISO 100 when using (external) flash indoors, otherwise it's auto ISO 100-800. Sometimes (when I can't use flash indoors, but need faster shutter) ISO 1000-1600.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron DI vs Pentax SMC vs "normal" coatings ??	Carniflex	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	08-26-2010 03:55 AM
"normal" primes with A setting ?	Steve Beswick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	08-08-2009 07:35 AM
Cheap "normal" lens for Pentax APS	montecarlo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-01-2009 09:08 PM
Definition of "Normal" according to Pentax Manual	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	37	12-12-2008 11:46 AM
And the best "normal" Pentax lens is...	FHPhotographer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	08-04-2008 04:17 PM

04-27-2009, 11:21 AM	#16
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by Dom 100, 400 max if it's too noisy I can't sell it. Then you have eliminated most newspapers and online news sources...the crap they publish is sometimes so noisy, it makes you wonder how anyone can brag about noise control at high ISO's. Some of the stuff in print and online is so grainy, it looks like it was shot in a snowstorm! Jason

04-27-2009, 01:05 PM	#17
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I'm kind of odd in this, I suppose, I use a lot of the higher ISOs in general: I like the texture I get in monochrome that way... I haven't really developed a scheme on where which lower ISO is preferable, compared to other concerns, yet, and so far tend to go with similar to what film I'd choose or just crank it down all the way. I'm very interested in impressions or information on this: I've seen Dpreview's static tests, but I'm more interested in subjective impressions: I'm often pretty sun-sensitive, so I mostly shoot in dimmer or flatter conditions when I can see better: (frankly, when it's very bright I'm usually kind of calculating where exposure ought to be rather than seeing it, leaving myself leeway, and hoping something good comes out of the digital wash) ... still don't have much of a sense of where the qualitative tradeoffs are.

04-27-2009, 01:11 PM	#18
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Jasvox Then you have eliminated most newspapers and online news sources...the crap they publish is sometimes so noisy, it makes you wonder how anyone can brag about noise control at high ISO's. Some of the stuff in print and online is so grainy, it looks like it was shot in a snowstorm! Jason Just so, too, Jasvox. I admit I kind of come through and am more-basically-inclined to journalism and documentary types of photography... as I was about film, I kind of am about digital, ..why put the emphasis on trying to hide the fact it's a photograph, as long as it looks like a photograph, not a failed imitation of one? I mean, 'noise' just doesn't much bother me. Unacceptable noise is just the penalty for poor exposure, mostly. As long as it doesn't look like a malfunction of some kind, let it look like a digital photograph. Whatever that may be.

04-27-2009, 01:42 PM	#19
Squier Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxfordshire UK Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Pretty much as low as low down is possible, man And in dull, grey, washed out Britain - thats about ISO 1600 even in summer.

04-27-2009, 01:43 PM	#20
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	I don't mind "luminous" noise (digital grain as it were) so much, but I abhor color noise, especially in the shadows. Then again back in the day when you had to fine-tune your TV reception it drove me nuts to get snow on the tube too and I've been guilty of missing a show because I was dickering with the pots on the back of the set...

04-27-2009, 01:56 PM	#21
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by rickn A couple of months back Pop Photo magazine had an article that suggested a few things to change to improve your photos. One was to up your "normal" ISO to 400. The logic was basically that modern sensors/processors do not loose much at this setting. I've set my ISO at 400 since and enjoy the ability to use faster shutter speeds, especially when using a telephoto lens. If I need to shoot in low light I change back to ISO 100 or 200. What is experience of some of the experts here on the Pentax Forums -- what ISO do you normally use? Well I always stay as close to base ISO as I can get away with, regardless of camera used. Unrelated I have a really hard time seeing the logic behind the suggestion that upping the ISO in general should improve your photos.

04-27-2009, 02:31 PM	#22
rickn Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Mechanicsburg, Pa, Dania, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 122 Original Poster	Duplo said "I have a really hard time seeing the logic behind the suggestion that upping the ISO in general should improve your photos." By using a higher ISO you can achieve either 1) a faster shutter speed, thus eliminating some blur from camera/lens movement, especially when using a long telephoto lens, or 2) the stop down the lens and get more depth of field into your photo. The comments so far have been interesting -- easy to see that there is no simple, cover all answer.

04-27-2009, 03:06 PM	#23
Dom Guest	Originally posted by Jasvox Then you have eliminated most newspapers and online news sources...the crap they publish is sometimes so noisy, it makes you wonder how anyone can brag about noise control at high ISO's. Some of the stuff in print and online is so grainy, it looks like it was shot in a snowstorm! Jason Most of the work I do at the moment is in my studio, so I've got the chose of ISO. If I'm out and about I'll have a pod with me. If I see a celebrity I leave them alone. I do have some exceptional noise control software and algorithms. I don't see any point in making work for myself. So yes the lower the better. When I use film it how low can I go.

04-27-2009, 03:58 PM	#24
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by rickn By using a higher ISO you can achieve either 1) a faster shutter speed, thus eliminating some blur from camera/lens movement, especially when using a long telephoto lens, or 2) the stop down the lens and get more depth of field into your photo. Both are true for specific situations, but if you do it in general, you will have a fair amount of situations where you loose a bit of IQ rather than the opposite. that was my point

04-27-2009, 04:56 PM	#25
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by Venturi Then again back in the day when you had to fine-tune your TV reception it drove me nuts to get snow on the tube too and I've been guilty of missing a show because I was dickering with the pots on the back of the set... You and me both. NTSC = Never Twice the Same Color

04-27-2009, 07:04 PM	#26
CSoars Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 322	I guess IS0 400 is my baseline, useable wide open indoors, and I don't top out the shutter speeds on sunny days. If I need speed, a 2 stop push to 1600 works way better than 800, even if it means I can't shoot outdoors for the rest of the roll. I don't really shoot colour above ISO 160, though I had some good results recently with Portra 400 VC.

04-27-2009, 11:17 PM	#27
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by stevebrot What he said! Although I have been known to use auto-ISO at times. Steve Ditto Dat!

04-27-2009, 11:22 PM	#28
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella On the other hand, I do a ton of shooting in dark environments - jazz clubs, etc. I basically jump right to 1600 there. Rarely do I see a point to settings between 400 and 1600 - in those setting, given the choice between a little less noise and a faster shutter speed, shutter speed wins virtually every time. You dont use flash, I presume? How are your images whan it comes to noise at iso1600?

04-27-2009, 11:32 PM	#29
huqedato Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: France, EU Posts: 97	ISO100 on my K20D, ISO400 on my (new) D700 max ISO values I use: 500 on K20D, 1600 on D700. Quite a difference, uh ?

04-28-2009, 02:06 AM	#30
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	ISO 100 when using (external) flash indoors, otherwise it's auto ISO 100-800. Sometimes (when I can't use flash indoors, but need faster shutter) ISO 1000-1600.