ISO settings

[crazydadguy]

So, to sum up, It takes all three (Iso, F-stop, and Shutter speed) to create a picture. It is a balanced equation in that once the equation between the three variables has been worked out, any change in one, must result in compensation by a change in the opposite direction on either of the remaining two. For example, if I have an ISO of 100, Shutter is 1/100, and f/8 and I want to change the depth of field to something shallower, I would then have to slow down the shutter speed by one stop. Is this correct?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

So, to sum up, It takes all three (Iso, F-stop, and Shutter speed) to create a picture. It is a balanced equation in that once the equation between the three variables has been worked out, any change in one, must result in compensation by a change in the opposite direction on either of the remaining two. For example, if I have an ISO of 100, Shutter is 1/100, and f/8 and I want to change the depth of field to something shallower, I would then have to slow down the shutter speed by one stop. Is this correct?

If you want shallower DOF, you need a wider aperture (lower f-stop number). When you open your aperture wider, let's say by one stop, you are now letting in more light. In that case, you must balance the exposure by either keeping the shutter open for a shorter period of time (higher shutter speed) or by making the sensor less senstive (lower ISO). So in your example of ISO 100, 1/100s, f/8...you would switch to f/5.6 and to either 1/200s or ISO 50.

Here are scales for common ranges of each of the three settings. If you move on any of the scales, your picture will get brighter. To maintain a consistent exposure, you must move down on one of the other scales. You do have one other alternative - you can also add or subtract light (using flashes, reflectors, shades, or moving your subject) to balance the exposure

f-stop
f/1.0
f/1.4
f/2.0
f/2.8
f/4.0
f/5.6
f/8.0
f/11
f/16
f/22
f/32

shutter speed
1 second
1/2 second
1/4 second
1/8 second
1/15 second
1/30 second
1/60 second
1/125 second
1/250 second
1/500 second
1/1000 second
1/2000 second
1/4000 second
1/8000 second

ISO
25
50
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
6400

 

[SharonLowe]

So, to sum up, It takes all three (Iso, F-stop, and Shutter speed) to create a picture. It is a balanced equation in that once the equation between the three variables has been worked out, any change in one, must result in compensation by a change in the opposite direction on either of the remaining two. For example, if I have an ISO of 100, Shutter is 1/100, and f/8 and I want to change the depth of field to something shallower, I would then have to slow down the shutter speed by one stop. Is this correct?

Mark corrected the shutter speed information but I just wanted to add that it takes more than just summing the right numbers to "create a picture." You as the photographer need to decide many things - do I need everything sharp or would I like the background to be blurry? Do I need a fast shutter speed to freeze the action or do I want to add some sense of motion and go with a slower shutter speed? Is it dark and I don't want to use flash (or can't use it) so I need to up my ISO to compensate (or use a tripod and a long exposure)? Is my shutter speed fast enough for my lens to keep from having a blurry photo? (rule of thumb - speed must be at least equivalent to the length of your lens so with a 200 mm lens, you would want a shutter speed of at least 1/200 second. IS/VR allows slower speeds.) Those are just a few of the things it takes to create rather than take a picture.

 

[boBQuincy]

And then, once you have all these variables set to give the "correct" exposure, comes the creative decision: is that the exposure I want for the scene?

Our camera's meters want to make everything a middle gray, that is what they are calibrated to. If we want the scene darker or lighter (and we often do) some manual compensation will be required. As an example, I was recently taking some photos of a steam locomotive, about as black as can be. The meter reading was off by about 2 stops from what I wanted, and would have given me a nice gray locomotive.

Welcome to photography! I recommend Ansel Adams books, "The Camera" and "The Negative".

 

[crazydadguy]

And then, once you have all these variables set to give the "correct" exposure, comes the creative decision: is that the exposure I want for the scene?

Our camera's meters want to make everything a middle gray, that is what they are calibrated to. If we want the scene darker or lighter (and we often do) some manual compensation will be required. As an example, I was recently taking some photos of a steam locomotive, about as black as can be. The meter reading was off by about 2 stops from what I wanted, and would have given me a nice gray locomotive.

Welcome to photography! I recommend Ansel Adams books, "The Camera" and "The Negative".

The meter reading being off by 2 stops, are you referring to f-stops? My current plan is trying to get the techinical down before I approach the artistic. I am currently reading Starting Photography 5th edition by Langford, and lurking here asking questions.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

it takes more than just summing the right numbers to "create a picture." You as the photographer need to decide many things - do I need everything sharp or would I like the background to be blurry? Do I need a fast shutter speed to freeze the action or do I want to add some sense of motion and go with a slower shutter speed? Is it dark and I don't want to use flash (or can't use it) so I need to up my ISO to compensate (or use a tripod and a long exposure)? Is my shutter speed fast enough for my lens to keep from having a blurry photo? (rule of thumb - speed must be at least equivalent to the length of your lens so with a 200 mm lens, you would want a shutter speed of at least 1/200 second. IS/VR allows slower speeds.) Those are just a few of the things it takes to create rather than take a picture.

And this, to me, is the difficult part.

 

[boBQuincy]

The meter reading being off by 2 stops, are you referring to f-stops? My current plan is trying to get the techinical down before I approach the artistic. I am currently reading Starting Photography 5th edition by Langford, and lurking here asking questions.

Yep, 2 stops.

Try this: place three pieces of paper next to each other: white, gray, and black. Meter each one with the camera (close up so only the piece of paper fills the viewfinder) and note the exposure settings. The exposure settings should be the same since the pieces of paper are all in the same light, but the exposure settings are actually very different.
This is because the camera wants to make them all gray, but we want them white, gray, and black. Some adjustments are required to get them to look as they really are and the camera will not make the adjustments, we have to..

 

[crazydadguy]

And this, to me, is the difficult part.

Amen. Anyone can point and shoot and get moderate results. The artistic aspect, I think, comes in when you combine the technical knowledge with a good eye, composition, and knowing how it should look before you ever take the picture.

 

[allie5]

6 months ago I couldnt get my head round any of this stuff either.

7000 clicks of the shutter later and Ive surprised myself in that all this technical jargon now makes perfect sense!

I found the easiest way to learn was to master Tv and Av modes first. Shutter speed is probably the easiest to master - look and see what aperture and ISO the camera sets whilst in this mode. The numbers soon begin to make sense. Once you have had some success with Tv, switch to Av. Again, look to see what the camera does to your shutter speed and ISO if you click up or down a few stops.

Rather than try and take in all the info at once, learn what one bit does first - you will soon be able to relate to how shutter speed affects aperture and ISO and then how aperture affects shutter speed etc etc. I found DOF a bit confusing when the numbers were thrust in front of me, but out in the field I can now quite confidently set a fully manual exposure to get the effect I want. It clicks into place very fast once you begin learning to use your camera. Its far more scary when you see the numbers written down - (well it si to someone who is, shall we say, quite mathematically challenged!!!).

If I can make sense of it, anyone can LOL!

 

[Gdad]

Finally got around to processing some of my shots from December- I was pleased with the ISO 6400 performance of the D300. I'm still getting aquainted with the camera but thought I would share.

 

[DVC Jen]

wow! did you any noise removal software with them? even if you did they are fantastic.

 

[Miss Kelly]

Wow!

 

[fitzperry]

Those look great!

So how do you think the high ISO performance compares to the D70? IIRC you thought the D70 was underrated in that respect, but do you find the D300 to be a significant improvement?

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

Nice work! Looks like the D300 retains detail well at ISO6400!

 

[Gdad]

wow! did you any noise removal software with them? even if you did they are fantastic.

Thanks- I did use slight NR in CS3 on the first and the fourth shots- but not much difference unless you look at full size files.

 

[Gdad]

Those look great!

So how do you think the high ISO performance compares to the D70? IIRC you thought the D70 was underrated in that respect, but do you find the D300 to be a significant improvement?

I would say from my non-scientific non-tested opinion would be the noise level on the D70 at ISO 1600 (Max) is comperable to the 6400 here. The D70 also tended to underexpose slightly- which can make the noise level worse.

By comparrison- the D300's ISO 1600 looks great in my opinion- like maybe 640-800 on the D70.

Here is one at 1600 w/o any pp aside from levels.

 

[YEKCIM]

Impressive stuff, Jeff. When are you going to try the ultimate WDW low-light test, Peter Pan?

(Let's see. I could sell the D50, the D80, a couple of lenses...)

~Ed

 

[NostalgicDad]

Nice shots Jeff. It doesn't help me quit thinking about upgrading from my D80 at all though.

On a side note.......I notice that I can see your EXIF data on these shots even though they are posted from your smugmug account. Apparently it's because they are linked to the original file rather than medium, large, x-large, etc. That's something I wasn't aware of since I, like most others, link to something besides the original. Were you aware of this? Maybe I didn't get the memo........

 

[orchjoe]

Wonderful as usual.

 

[fitzperry]

I would say from my non-scientific non-tested opinion would be the noise level on the D70 at ISO 1600 (Max) is comperable to the 6400 here. The D70 also tended to underexpose slightly- which can make the noise level worse.

By comparrison- the D300's ISO 1600 looks great in my opinion- like maybe 640-800 on the D70.

Here is one at 1600 w/o any pp aside from levels.

It's always seemed to me that, in addition to the noise, I lose a lot of color at higher ISO's. Maybe that's just underexposure again though. I need to remember to use ec when shooting at high ISO's. The colors look nice in your images.