Pro's Know this about ISO & Beginners Avoid It! (at least i did)

[@MarkDenneyPhoto]

🌟QUICK QUESTION: Do you say Eye-Soh or do you say Eye-S-Oh?

[@JKAdams]

Either

[@redeemerpresbyteriandesmoines]

Gosh, never thought of this before. I think I say it both ways.

[@Axonteer]

Iiiih so... im swiss (german speaker) ... i say it as a word not as I.S.O :D

[@MarkDenneyPhoto]

@@BetchelVisuals But, how do YOU say it?

[@tjsinva]

Both. 😎

[@account-pending-deletion]

Outside of portrait photography, I just use whatever ISO fits the shutter speed and aperture I need. I can't think of a single instance where I've taken a properly exposed photo and thought "this is unusable because of light noise" but I can think of PLENTY of times where I've had an unusable photo because my shutter speed was too low

[@veda9151]

When I begin to shoot stage performances, I learn to live with very noisy photos if it means I can actually capture the moment.

[@ajamudc]

I agree. I've started to use more manual shooting with Auto ISO for that exact reason. I can adjust the aperture and shutter speed for the creative effects and my ISO can adjust as needed. Like you, I would rather have a sharp photo with a bit of noise than a blurry photo.

[@alexzhang9318]

It works for most of the scenarios - aperture priority + auto ISO

[@InteractiveDNA]

There is the confusion many makes. In digital cameras you ONLY have two settings to proper exposure your photos ( Aperture and Shutter Speed) the ISO is a Gain Controller that increases the frequency after the photo is taken. Your goal is to use RAW and use a computer to control the amount of gain there, but there will many scenarios that you will need the Shutter Speed fast to freeze a moment and putting aside the ISO is key and even letting the camera choose it automatically so you concentrate on the exposure. See!!! There is only TWO settings on ALL cameras the you control light and everything else are processing power after the photo has been taken. Taking a photo with a super high ISO you will be processing the gain on camera and it will be worse than adjusting the gain on a more powerful computer. AI is changing everything

[@coltoncyr2283]

Try macro. You lose SO much light. That's why having a flash is a MUST or you're at iso 1000. With modern cameras iso 1000 actually isn't that bad!

[@kevins8575]

As a bird photographer, I lost my fear of high ISO a long time ago. Current noise correction software is now standard practice.

[@davehemprich-bennett9336]

Heh, yep. It’s kinda funny to hear landscape photographers getting twitchy about going above base ISO, while we’re using shutter speeds >2,000/second and leaving auto ISO to do what it has to do

[@christophergrove4876]

EXACTLY... I don't know how many bird shots I've lost because of motion blur. I now often set my ISO to Auto (with a minimum shutter speed).

[@jerrykita8767]

Exactly how I think about bird photography.

[@Bernard-ux2eb]

AI based denoising is a modern marvel.

[@jaybeckerich]

Agree. Doing wildlife- rather have shutter speed than a low iso.

[@draughonc]

Set Aperture to desired depth of field, then set Shutter to min. fastest to get sharp focus, then ISO to level needed to expose correctly. Remembering that as light dims, you don't need to stick at f11. Its okay to open it up.

[@Dustyphoto915]

Set auto ISO and you only have to perform the first two steps. Set your max ISO you are comfortable with for that shoot. And then let the computer brain worry about the gain. Love it.

[@DMurdock]

I find that noise is only really a problem when you make an image look brighter than it actually is. But outside of that, a lot of the time the grain actually looks aesthetically pleasing. The fear of noise is a learned behavior. Non-photographers either don't notice it, or they like how it looks.

[@AJ-em2rb]

funny because higher ISO (in digital cameras) is literally just telling the camera to make an image brighter than it is. but sometimes it's just a necessity

[@aprilthunder]

"IT DOESN'T MATTER" Not! It also depends on how large your camera sensors is. It's not good to assume that everyone has a large sensor in his/her camera, and can get away with the graininess in high ISO settings. What might look acceptable at ISO 3200 in a full-frame digital camera might not look good if your sensor is much smaller.

[@DMurdock]

@@aprilthunder I use a crop sensor

[@Whatsup_Abroad]

​@@aprilthunderViewers don't care no matter how bad the noise is. Ive sold, in the last year, 35mm film prints that were pushed 3 stops in processing. To put that in perspective, if any m43 camera could be pushed to 51200 iso, it would still have less noise than the film photos I sold. Nobody care. Only losers who stare at their pc whining about the pixel counts and 100% zooming all their images constantly care. Nobody will ever look at your images that way. It doesn't matter what camera it is. Nobody give a fuck about noise. Imbecile.

[@aedreezy]

I actually got over the whole "Never go above 100-200 ISO" when I got into Film photography. When I saw that Film "speeds" were actually the equivalent of ISO on digital cameras, I thought, "Oh - if people have been using up to 3200 ISO for years on film, then why should I care?" Now I set my camera to Aperture priority, which is something I never did my first 4 years of photography - and now I love shooting digital again, haha

[@tothesummit5864]

I started as a film photographer in the 80s and I resisted digital as long as I could in the early 2000s. I was never scared to play with ISO. I shot astrophotography and lightning/thunderstorms since the days of film. I was always experimenting with different films to get different results. Digital made it so much easier (and cheaper, not burning rolls of film) to experiment with all my settings. Still these days I am sometimes surprised when I find a camera setting that works well under a condition that I wasn't expecting. My recommendation to photographers of today, especially if you never had to deal with the days of film, try lots of different things and shoot until you find what works best. And be grateful it doesn't cost you 30 cents every time you release the shutter! LOL

[@tothesummit5864]

Also, I'm an eye-soh guy. But I won't cringe at I-S-O if that's your preferance.

[@toddedwards2112]

Amen! 😂💰

[@CosmicSeeker69]

Born in 1956 and I relate.. I'm guessing that you did your own developing - BC you didn't mention the weeks waiting to use the roll, then sending it away, and waiting for the prints to come back ..... 🤦‍♂️

[@garrydelday5816]

In my short journey so far (2 years or so) the general advice has always been “ISO, keep it LOW” I’m inclined to agree with that general consensus but there are times that you have to up it and sometimes quite high to get the right shutter speed. I love to include wildlife in my landscape shots whenever possible, to show scale and add interest. A lot of the time this will be birds in flight and you have to get a quick shutter speed, especially when they are close to camera. I have no problem with upping the “EYE-SO” to achieve this at the slight expense of noise. What I do with my images, a tiny bit of noise is acceptable. A blurred bird is not. To any beginners out there, don’t be afraid of ISO, experiment with it 😉

[@SilverLarry]

Another important thing to know is if your camera has a dual native ISO sensor, and if so, determine what that second ISO setting is. The second ISO is always less noisy than the 2 or 3 ISO stops lower. So knowing that will help you get better results. Most camera manufacturers use dual native sensors but don't necessarily promote it. For instance, on my D850, 400 is less noisy than 320 and 250 and equally noisy with 200. On my Z6ii, 800 is less noisy than 640 and 500 and equally noisy with 400. So sometimes in darker situations, I just switch to my higher native ISO and work around that. Mark, if you were using a Z6ii (which makes no sense for you - it's just an example) you wouldn't set your ISO to 640 as you did in the video. You would set it to 800 and bump up your shutter speed to compensate and get a cleaner image. I believe some Fujis have dual native ISO sensors but I don't know which models.

[@playeronthebeat]

This can also be a problem due to the way they implemented ISO. The thing is, sometimes it's implemented in a way that 50/100/200/400/800/1600/3200/6400 are the "standard" ISO formats whereas 640 is an ISO 400 pushed that far higher or an ISO 800 dialed back a bit. From a technical standpoint it's really frustrating. That's why I'm happy about ISO invariant sensors being a thing in many modern cameras.

[@SilverLarry]

@@playeronthebeat Good point. The dual native ISO sensors on the 2 cameras I mentioned are otherwise ISO invariant as well.

[@tuesdayjam5905]

On a D850, you shouldn't be experiencing any noise at 400 or below!!

[@matthewwakeling4978]

It's very common for sensors to have two native ISO settings. For instance, the D7500 has native 100 and 400, and all the other ISO settings are basically derived from them. So, ISO100 is only just very slightly better than ISO400, and ISO320 is definitely worse than ISO400. When I do astrophotography, I use ISO400 with this camera, as that's definitely the best compromise between light sensitivity and maximum brightness detectable. I do get the impression that Nikon made the sensor as a ISO400 ISO-invariant sensor, but then added the ISO100-320 range on as a concession to when you have more light than ISO400 can cope with. Also, Tuesday Jam, yes there will still be noise - it's just it will be very small. There are types of photography such as HDR or astrophotography where this matters.

[@jwp2166]

I'm an Eye-S-Oh guy but I completely agree with your take on ISO. That's why I usually leave it on Auto and worry more about the aperture or shutter speed I want for the particular image I'm looking for. Love your videos. You're a great photographer and a great communicator.

[@gmverber437]

Yep. I mostly shoot either manual or shutter-priority with auto-ISO

[@chrisfor]

Good stuff Mark. One of things that I look back at making a big difference in my images is when I figured out that selecting shutter speed was more important than ISO.

[@andreask.6872]

First of all, as a photographer from Germany, I pronounce ISO Eehzo :-) I always shoot - with very few exceptions - with the ISO Auto setting. However, I usually have this limited to ISO 1600. Beyond that, the noise increases significantly with my Canon APS-C cameras.

[@dreamflight5637]

With my Sony a7riv I often shoot at iso 6400 and it is still usable. Nice to have FF I guess.

[@majkiboy86]

Same deal here, Shutter and Aperture manual with auto iso limiter to 100-12800 with expo -0.3 and it works fine.

[@YariJaluff]

@@dreamflight5637 I have the same camera and for me above 1600 colors are not the best, sharpening is lost and noise appears without pixel peeping. I always try to use ISO 1250 or less

[@videojeroki]

which canon apsc do you have? My old Canon 450D still give good result at iso 1600 with noise reduction is post.

[@kencawley3121]

Eye-so for me. I've started using higher ISO levels for the reasons you covered. Unfortunately, my D7500 is a bit grainy above ISO 400. Invested in Topaz DeNoise AI which has helped tremendously.

[@brandonmjohnsonphotography]

When I started photography, I was told ISO 100 was the best, but I've always used different ISO. Now, I use the ISO to best match what shutter speed I am wanting. I think for beginners it's because normally they start out with super basic cameras which don't do well with high ISO. I actually say both. It just depends. 🤣

[@secretrat]

Noise isn't the problem from increasing ISO, and what little there is can be easily dealt with in post. But take a series of shots at a color checker target, keeping aperture constant and increasing ISO and shutter speed to keep the exposure constant. Load all the images as layers in Photoshop and watch the color histogram as you move from layer to layer, from low ISO to high ISO. You will see a flattening of the peaks and an overall "muddying" of the color. Depending on your camera, you might also see a color shift on the middle gray patch. So you are right in a way. Don't fear noise and use your ISO dial to get the shot you want. But be aware that doing so impacts the color, maybe more than you would like.

[@alansach8437]

Once again, noise and muddy colors, or a blur of that once in a lifetime opportunity? The choice is clear to me. If I have a sharp image I can always work with the color and noise. If it's blurry, it's blurry. Delete! I've been there. No, no, no! Can't go past 800 or 1000, or whatever arbitrary number I had in my head. Put the photos on the computer...blur, blur, more blur! Shots I couldn't get back!

[@williamblaker2628]

My father began teaching me photography back in the 1970s when I was a kid. He was a professional photographer, an author of photography books back then, as well as working at the university. He taught me to pronounce each letter: I.S.O., so that's how I've continued to say it. However, I never think about anyone being incorrect if they pronounce it EYE SO. I get that it saves a syllable when speaking. Neither way is right or wrong. We all understand each other, either way. As far as shooting considerations, I usually set my camera either to aperture priority or to shutter priority, depending on what I'm trying to achieve. Then, I choose the lowest ISO that I can, so long as I achieve the image that I want. I mainly photograph two types of subjects: birds or botany. Birds demand a fast shutter speed; for botanical photos aperture is more important. My camera is a Nikon D850 which doesn't handle ISO noise as well as the newer cameras, so I start to see noise at around ISO 800. However, I value a sharp bird image more than I care about ISO noise. I can fix ISO noise with an AI denoise program, to some extent. My preference is to shoot at an ISO below 800, but I occasionally need to grab a poorly illuminated bird at ISO 2,400 in a shady forest. However, a few days ago I was photographing wildflowers on a windless day in good light, and I had the luxury of using ISO 100 at f/1.4 to f/2.8 and the images came out gorgeous. For botanical shots it's oftentimes desirable to get good separation of the subject (say, a flower, or a seed pod) from the "cluttered" background of leaves, grasses and twigs, so a wide aperture does the trick. In those cases, the shutter speed only needs to be fast enough to eliminate shutter vibration, or a swaying subject. Oftentimes, I'll use something to hold the plant steady, like a clip, or my free hand, if it's breezy. Sometimes, I'll use my hat, held out-of-frame, to block the breeze. Long story, short: shutter speed & aperture are the primary considerations. After those are decided upon, then factor in using the lowest ISO I can get away with to create a clean, vibrant image. With my camera, a lower ISO does make a prettier image than a higher ISO. Better color and more detail in the shadows, with smoother tonality. My friends who shoot with the latest high-end mirrorless cameras enjoy much better ISO performance than I can get away with. My Nikon D850 is a good camera with lots of great features, but not so great at high ISOs.

[@drmathochist06]

It's "Eye-Soh". The International Organization for Standardization specifically picked the *Greek word* "ISO" rather than an acronym that couldn't be correct for all languages.

[@pjay3028]

Isn't it the acronym for International Standards Organisation?

[@drmathochist06]

@@pjay3028 No, it's specifically not, because that wouldn't be international! In English, the body you're thinking of is the "International Organization for Standardization".

[@suedenim9208]

Right. And as we all know, the Greeks had a habit of capitalizing entire words, and anglicizing the pronunciation long before there we any Anglos around.

[@suedenim9208]

@@pjay3028 A bit yes, and a tiny bit no. It's not really an acronym because the official name is The International Organization for Standardization. Because they have (or had when formed) three official languages there wasn't really one single name so they adopted a slight variation of the English name and went with ISO. That's according to the only guy who was involved with founding the organization and also talked about the name.

[@bigdaftorangedog]

I heard somewhere recently that "ISO" is actually a word and not an abbreviation or an acronym - since then I've been in the "eye-so" camp. On a somewhat-related note I recently came into a "new" old Canon EOS 1DS Mark II (shutter count of 200) which allows for expanded ISO with a low end of 50. I thought hey why not but was very disappointed with the results. Turns out it's some sort of electronic enhancement so it's definitely not the sharpest ISO setting on the camera. Won't do that again - live and learn I guess. Keep up the great work, Mark - I have learned so much from your videos over the years!

[@markspurgeon8084]

I thought it stood for International Standardisation Organisation however I suppose all words have an origin and maybe an acronym can morph into a word and get recognition in a reputable dictionary.

[@lawrencelunsford6028]

I'm back into photography after about a 15 year break and I'm amazed at how good high ISO images look compared to what I used back in the early 2000s. When I moved to all digital (from medium format film cameras) in the early 2000s I was using Nikon D1X, D100, and Fujifilm S3. I doubt I used any of them over ISO 400, MAYBE ISO 800. I now shoot with Nikon D700, 7100 and 7200. I can comfortably shoot them at 1600. Newer models may be better at higher ISOs than what I currently have, but I'm very happy with the results so far. Just subscribed. :)

[@arnantos]

Yes, I think the concerns to use low ISO is back when we were still using film. Back then we have to plan what film ISO we are going to use for the photo session, otherwise we bring many cameras with different ISO films. Since changing ISO was difficult that day, obviously we need to plan what kind of photo session we are going to shoot. It was common to use ISO 100 for landscapes and nature and higher ISO for sport events. Nowadays with current digital photography technology, we can even have the auto setting to make the camera (designer) decide which is best for the shoot. The technology also made less noise for higher ISO, and also to filter the noise.

[@mrc1ark528]

Came here to say this... the fear is a relic of the chemical process which inherently caused high grain in the finished product.

[@ajblitzstein7628]

Great video, Mark! Question??? How do you increase ISO?? Do you dial it on your Fuji or use autoISO??

[@JasonKjellberg]

I use both both ways to say the setting's name. If I'm explaining I might say, first change your I.S.O. settings to X, now that you've changed the iso... it helps people who aren't yet familiar with their camera see the word and button just a bit faster.

[@metagore]

Great content Mark. One of the things I do for achieving a specific minimum Shutter Speed is to use Auto ISO and set the minimum Shutter Speed for Auto-ISO. I've added the Auto-ISO Minimum Shutter Speed to my Fn quick-menu in case I need to adjust it from my default setting of 1/125th (general hand-held setting). This allows me to select a minimum needed speed and then the auto-exposure settings will get me the lowest ISO setting possible in order to get that Shutter speed. Post-edit: I'm using Sony, so not sure if the Min-Shutter speed for Auto-ISO exists on other systems. (labeled ISO AUTO Min. SS in settings)

[@ducnguyen1999]

Every system have that :))

[@metagore]

@Duc Nguyen I would have guessed so, but ya' know... best not to assume what I'm not sure of.

[@ADPX24]

I have recently found that I love 640 for portraits and landscapes. I went out this past weekend to the gorge and if I wasn't doing a long exposure I was trying to shoot at 400-640iso all I could. There is something with the colors and softness of some images that I like from higher ISO. Even in post sliding the noise slider to the right softens images just a little. For action sports I do my best to stay at 100 as long as my shutter speed supports it. Great video, haven't heard anyone talk about ISO before.

[@adipopa3966]

I started photography a bit over 2 years ago. I’m now studying photography at a film uni in my home country. I also was so afraid of higher ISO but now that I learned a little bit about how every setting of the camera works I keep may ISO at 320/400 when I want crispy, still images. I wish I had your video sooner, but hey…it’s never too late, right?

[@stickstackxd6093]

I love the grainy look my E M10 has when shooting over ISO 3200. Little tuning to the colors and boom, analog look

[@tjsinva]

Good discussion. New cameras and processing software minimize most noise issues at even higher ISOs. 👍🥂

[@jonpaulpepen9470]

Mark, I think you have quite a talent for breaking down topics into digestible takeaways and you certainly did that in this video! Though I do still think there's more to the story here that could be important (but maybe I'm over complicating it too!). If I had to sum up my take on ISO while shooting RAW on modern consumer cameras, it's that you should set your aperture and shutter speed for the situation, then increase your ISO just to the point you start clipping important highlights, and then back off till they're not clipped, and then correct the exposure in Lightroom. I don't like to think in terms of a "highest acceptable ISO". My thought process has to do with the technical aspects of the ISO setting *if you are shooting RAW*. Without getting too wordy, the dynamic range your sensor can produce decreases with increased increase ISO, but your shadow noise still improves as you increase your ISO. Though seemingly contradictory, these both happen because the analog gain applied at higher ISOs causes highlights to clip but also lessens the impact of noise introduced downstream of the amplifier in the process. However, most modern cameras introduce very little noise downstream of the amplifier, so there isn't as much to gain in the shadow department as there used to be, a phenomena some call "ISO Invariance" or "ISOless". All put together, you'll still pull the most dynamic range out of your sensor at base ISO, and with modern nearly ISO invariant sensors you're pretty well set fixing your shutter and aperture even if it means underexposing at base ISO and boosting exposure in Lightroom. But of course, as you've found, there are many times when you just don't need the full dynamic range of your sensor, and as long as you're not clipping any important highlights in a given composition, you do still stand to get back shadow detail by correcting exposure through camera ISO instead of Lightroom after the fact.

[@rsturm1767]

I remember shooting in high school using B&W film and regularly using ISO400 because of low light conditions a lot of times. So I lost my fear of deviating from 100 early on. I leave my ISO on auto now. Sometimes it’s nerve wracking in low light situations but it works out pretty well.

[@paulbirch7635]

Stick to ISO 100/200 is good advice from 15-20 years ago, but much has happened since then. I wholeheartedly agree with your take on eye-so. I remember my camera from 2003-2005-ish could not go past ai-zo 800 in normal operation (there was an I-soh boost function to stretch it to 3200), and by then it was a last resort to get anything that resembles a picture of your subject at all.

[@jkerman5113]

Also, on canon cameras the ISO settings that are 1/3rd of a stop below the standard values (160, 320, 640, etc) are actually less noisy. I believe one test showed that 320 had less noise than 100, and 640 had comparable noise to it. I barely shoot at 100 now, 160 or 320 at the lowest. PS: I've taken correctly exposed photos with my 80d at ISO 5000 and the grain is actually similar to film grain, colors hold up great. Don't even get me started on how high i can go if i'm shooting in black and white.

[@joshua-noelstrigl3607]

I was always using different ISO, but my girlfriend at the time who just finished photography school and she was the one telling me to only use ISO 100 when shooting outdoors. So I fell into the circle of keeping my ISO Low so thank you for this!

[@michaellong9526]

My main concern is the drastically reduced dynamic range that quickly ramps up past about even iso 400. People focus on noise performance ,with iso invariant sensors noise is not really a major concern anymore ,but even high end cameras with 14 -15 stops of dynamic range at base iso, fall to 10, 8 stops of DR past even 800 iso. There are compromises everywhere, I personally don’t worry about blurred leaves, I think it reflects the motion and wind inherent in the scene. Thanks for the video.

[@erikswenson2659]

No discussion of ISO is complete without a discussion of dynamic range, particularly for those shooting on raw. Using your camera's base ISO will result in the least noise within the cameras usable dynamic range. However, using an ISO higher or lower than the camera's native ISO will result in a loss of dynamic range. Moreover, in many instances native ISO is higher than base ISO. To me losing all detail in the bright or dark areas is far worse than adding a little noise.

[@ThiagoGuedesC]

Spot on. The discussion is missing a critical component, dynamic range. Noise has long stopped being a problem, even more if you consider the usage of specialized denoise software.

[@ABC-sc2ip]

I wouldn't worry about 14-15 stops of dynamic range. No printer or paper can capture that much range (7-8).

[@TheCrazyCartModChannel]

@@ABC-sc2ip you aren't trying to get a printer to cover that range, you're hoping to recover it in post in high contrast scenes.

[@ABC-sc2ip]

@@TheCrazyCartModChannel What are you doing with the image after you're done in post? Printing. And as I said, no printer or paper can capture that much dynamic range, so anything you can squeeze out in a file on a monitor is pointless.

[@eafortson]

The only caveat I’d add to this is that the usable ISO range is still very much dependant on the camera you are using. I have a Canon M50 and it gets very noisy very quickly. Like basically above ISO 400. Although noise removal in post with AI has improved dramatically, its still additional labour in your workflow. So something to consider.

[@eafortson]

I take that back, he actually mentioned it later in the vid right after I commented. 👏🏽

[@alansach8437]

Very true, BUT, if you are shooting a once in a lifetime opportunity, would you rather have a sharp, noisy photo or a clean blur? Sometimes that's your choice. Almost any camera made in the last 5-10 years can handle noise fairly well, and as you point out, AI software is getting better every day. But a blur is always going to be a blur.

[@tylerroerick3895]

Aye! Shout out, NC! I love how insightful your videos are.

[@cs3359]

Thank you so much this tip has improved my photography no end. As someone who's new to this i have followed the rules exactly to learn but that meant i would miss whole moments messing about with low light. Such a shame so truly thank you. Xx

[@kevinroberts1888]

I do a lot of forests and brook pictures so I'll often put the iso for sharp trees too. I also like to shoot pictures of birds on the side and will usually use a faster iso to stop the action. I personally don't think a little noise ruins a picture as long as it doesn't distract from the overall picture. Back when I moved over from film to digital, I was so obsessed with getting no noise that I often ruined what would have otherwise been a great shot.

[@emerana]

I chose the ISO 100 films too and should have bought a lot more ISO 400. So many underexposed or blurry failures. I don't miss the film era at all, but respect its foundations that got us to where we are now

[@mrmosk2011]

I do marching band photos and many times in the evening under stadium lights. Shutter speed is a lot more important than noise. I use Tamron 150-600 with 6.3 at 600mm. I frequently use ISO 25600 and sometimes even ISO 51200. Yes, it is very noisy, but I can get the sharp focused paces using 1/1000.

[@TheFamedwarrior72]

I very much appreciate this video. I’m new to dslr photography and I just started playing with ISO to get low light photos. I’m going to play around with the ISO tomorrow on a photo field trip. Thank you

[@robwheeler7660]

Hey Mark: Just watched your short video discussing Eye-Soh vs Eye-S-Oh! I absolutely know what you are talking about as I have had those discussions with people also! There certainly is no right or wrong reason for using one over the other in my opinion. However in my circle of contacts including me, we seem to use Eye-Soh. I also really enjoyed your very clear discussion of your Scenarios when you find it advantageous to bump up the Eye-Soh amount!!

[@chichechich99]

Eye-Soh for me! Couple of thoughts I had: Dual gain sensors! You can use Photons to Photos (google that, it's a website) and then their "Read Noise in DNs Chart" to check if your camera has a multigain sensor and where the noise drops back down. For example, my Sony A7 IV has one, noise increases from ISO 100 to 360, then drops way back down at 400. At 400 it's almost equivalent to 125. So to me, there is almost no reason to use 125-360 unless I'm maxed at 1/8000 (I must say this is rare). Also of note, increasing ISO doesn't just add noise, it also reduces dynamic range. I would do as you suggested and take some sample pictures to see if you can notice it

[@aquarioamico6604]

I never thought about the connection between ISO and dynamic range. However, it sounds right when I think back to my own high ISO situations. Thank you.

[@quite1enough]

It's also should be noted that in journalistic photography high iso is not rarity, I used to take pictures up to iso12800 with my x-t3 and was amazed that pictures were totally usable and relatively clean for such high iso.

[@nadyamad3]

I take pictures with high ISO too. My cam is X-T30.

[@gromitdaddy]

I think us older photographers who grew up with A.S.A. tend to lean more towards I.S.O., where younger ones who grew up with ISO use Eyeso

[@larrycitra300]

I agree … was just thinking the same thing. Seriously though, ISO is an abbreviation, not a word!

[@BGTuyau]

The generational difference and the ASA precedent probably is the best account for the pronunciation difference.

[@gibmebalut]

@@larrycitra300 it’s an abbreviated word.

[@davidthefat]

You aren’t saying ASA isn’t Ah Sah! 😂 ISO is an organization, whose name is an acronym

[@gibmebalut]

@@davidthefat the organization is called the International Organization for Standardization. It’d be “IOS”. They decided to name their organization an abbreviated form of the Greek, “isos”.

[@ericclancy5666]

Many thanks for this video very informative, I took up photography 2 years ago to get photos of the Birds in my garden , after watching loads of KZbin videos which were very informative but as you pointed out I got trapped by the "Eye-Soh" rule of keeping it low, a couple of months ago I started using higher Eye-Soh and was impressed with the change in the quality of my shots. It was good to come across your video as it confirmed what I was doing was ok, once again Many Thanks.

[@s.andrewwaltersjr.1524]

Shooting "weather photography" (basically a huge overlap with landscape photography), I have moved away from my fear of I.S.O. to solve the same problem - shutter speed. In lower light conditions under clouds, to get those tack-sharp images of cloud structure, which are also constantly moving, requires fast shutter speeds that often result below proper exposure when trying to use ISO-100 Great video!

[@manicdan481]

How I trained my mom for photography. Set Aperture as open as you can but still get your subject in focus, then set your shutter speed as slow as you can to get the motion you want. Then set your ISO to match the exposure, or leave on auto. ISO is rarely about a goal, its just the result of physics around the hardware or style of the image.

[@Dustyphoto915]

This has been the easiest approach for me as a hobbyist. I bought an entry level full frame camera and let the camera brain worry about where ISO should land. I tell the story(aperture) and determine movement(shutter).

[@petemulhearn7787]

My fear of high ISO comes from my early days in photography in the 1960s when any film over 100 ISO would produce grainy grey shots. For colour transparencies I used 64 ISO film.

[@Bernard-ux2eb]

Did you shoot Kodachrome?

[@petemulhearn7787]

@@Bernard-ux2eb \some Kodachrome and some Agfa. Mostly did monochrome with FP3 or 4 100ASA but exposed at 400ASA and cooked with Promicrol or Microphen developer.

[@potatofuryy]

My fear of high ISO comes from my D3300 that becomes overwhelmed by noise if you shoot over 400 ISO. (and it’s already pretty bad at 400)

[@grahamheath9957]

I think the relative lack of impact of high ISO is a newer thing. In the early days of digital ISO was much more of an issue, but I do completely agree that shutter speed and aperture have a much more significant impact on the composition and it’s definitely something that photographers need to understand and consider. One thing that you didn’t mention here is the multiple native ISOs that a lot of cameras have these days and in my view it’s important to understand your camera and lenses well.

[@rex_s80]

Yeah my old canon xsi gets a lot of noise once I go past 800. 600 is alright but like 1600 can become really grainy if I don’t have a long shutter speed to go along with it which defeats the purpose of trying to use higher iso. But I’m upgrading to a camera that’s 11 years newer soon so definitely hope to not have that issue as much but generally I worked in the 100-600 iso range and had great results at both ends.

[@giorgioingravalle9228]

When would you say it started getting less relevant? Because I use a Nikon D3200 which is not really new and over 800 it starts getting really noisy

[@hipporage18]

Newer CMOS sensors. Started to be noticiable better About 10 years ago with the Nikon 3 flagship full frame. Now even crop sensors are really good. You would see a significant improvement even with a 2020 camera over your 2012

[@petee19]

Great video Mark, I have only recently set my ISO to auto and a getting good results from photographing moving vehicles, trains, buses etc.

[@KarenBenford811]

Thank you so much for your videos! So informative and easy to understand. Can't wait to try your tips.

[@mrmrb04]

I’ve taken photos at 12800 many times. Sometimes if you don’t want motion blur it’s your only option. Honestly 12800 doesn’t look that bad! I always try and avoid it when I can but it’s ok to have noise in your photo imo

[@Panphobia]

I definitely agree with most of what you're saying. However, I find it important to point out that your ISO-theory is greatly dependent on sensor size. On smaller sensors, higher ISOs cause the image to "fall apart" much quicker. Sure, modern full frame or medium format cameras easily allow for ISOs up to or beyond 6400 with out noticeably degraded image quality. On my 2015 micro four thirds camera, such high ISO values may be alright for online usage, not however for larger prints. And by the way, its definitely eye-soh ;)

[@DaveBerthiaume]

I think the best advice here is to run some tests with your own camera to determine the point at which increasing the ISO is too much for your personal taste. Then you don't have to spend time worrying about it in the field. Thanks, Mark! Oh, and I always say eye-so!

[@BGTuyau]

A useful dissertation on the subject -and not limited in applicability to landscape work.

[@MattTrevett]

With a7 III, my auto-ISO is set from 100-3200. Occasionally I'll set it to 6400 depending on the lens. I rarely use any additional noise removal than the standard Lightroom setting of 40. Honestly if you keep a fast enough shutter speed there isn't enough time for the sensor to pick up noise anyway. Slightly more than double the noise per second (assuming one stop adjustment), but half the exposure time equals roughly the same amount of noise. Fun to shoot in full manual and just set the aperture and shutter speed as desired whilst leaving the ISO setting to full auto.

[@ko300zx]

I love on newer cameras you can use Auto ISO and set your max ISO to 3200 or 6400, or whatever you find is your maximum acceptable level. Then you can set everything else to exactly what you need and your camera will use the lowest ISO for the right exposure. In almost any situation where ISO 100 doesn't work, you can choose the best shutter/aperture for the situation while letting the camera do the ISO work. And since you chose the max ISO, you'll never get a photo you deem unacceptable.

[@account-pending-deletion]

Exactly. Once you know what your max acceptable ISO is, you can set it in your camera and never have to think about it again.

[@definingslawek4731]

@@account-pending-deletion You still have to think about it / control iso, just indirectly. Because often 0EV is too dark or too bright, but then you control iso with the exposure compensation dial instead of iso dial.

[@99unclebob]

Great video your ability to break it down into layman's terms is far better than allot of youtube photography channels, a big 👍 for you, i say it both ways, it just depends on who i am with when shooting or talking about the last field trip i was on, I am a hobbyist shooter and have used Sony since they bought Konica/Minolta back in the early 2000's and they've always been reliable and fairly robust, the ISO 100 heard people talk about never really bothered me, I just got to learn myself, who cares these are digital, you delete or photoshop them, now i have just gone full mirrorless in the last few months and have to learn all over again, got an A7 MK4, a hybrid camera, it has sure opened my eyes and its both intimidating and exciting at the same time and still love to learn even now in my 60's its all good, you have a new subscriber, all the new modern cameras i believe are good, it comes down to preference 👍

[@MegaDanielSK]

My 5D2 is very comfy at iso 640, and it gives me best performance at 160 (noise-wise). I learned to use 160, 320 and 640, because at those iso levels the amount of noise always dips lower than at the iso level before that. My 40D has a similar pattern but the 5D2 can really give the same noise amount at iso 640 as it would at iso 100. Super neat stuff.

[@mobbinator]

As someone who mainly has a camera for KZbin videos, I fell into the whole ISO 100 thing when I would try to take photos. For video it's much different with high ISOs but I never realized how minimal it is for photos. Thank you for this video! And I actually say "I-S-O" instead of saying "eye-soh"

[@joanarling]

And you're right. The ISO (the organistion) explicitly state that it should be called as an abbreviation.

[@TimLucasdesign]

​@@joanarling Incorrect - this is from ISO's website: "ISO is derived from the Greek 'isos', meaning equal."

[@joanarling]

@@TimLucasdesign Also from their website: "Whatever the country, whatever the language, we are always ISO." Sounds like an abbreviation rather than a noun, don't you think?

[@isabelbarbosa3618]

Great vídeo! Great photos! Useful information. Thank you!

[@darrenkoobs6244]

My experience lines up with everything you’ve said here. If you have settings that bring in as much light as possible for the result you want, and still underexposed, high iso doesn’t create lots of noise at all. And like you said, today’s camera are so good they’ve mitigated the problem anyway. I recently upgraded to a full frame mirrorless from a dslr from 2008. I am getting drastically less noise at 3200 iso on the mirrorless than I did at 800 with the dslr. Love your content! Good explanations that have helped me tons!

[@lukefellnerphotography]

Hey, you're from NC too! I haven't had the chance travel outside the state to do photography, but this is such a great state to be limited to. I'm surprised I don't see more photographers from here

[@lioneldieperink7199]

Another great video. Thanks for being so generous with your experience. Always learn something by watching your videos. I use F4 lenses on my A7Siii because video is my main focus but also find it works for photography, despite the low resolution sensor. ISO, always :)

[@taylormolitoris9131]

If your camera does get noisy quick or you need low iso for whatever reason you can always take a shot (on a tripod) at a lower iso and then another shot at a higher iso to freeze the movement. stack layers in photoshop with higher iso layer on top > create mask > invert to black > brush in the areas with leaves or movement from the higher iso shot with a white brush. If you're a purist and against blending then I understand this won't be an option. I do this often when shooting exteriors or landscape architecture where the client expects a low or native iso shot but also requests no motion blur. Just a thought.

[@wl5609]

Excellent instructional video! So, do you shoot in manual or shutter priority when you want to bump up your eye-soh?

[@thomasmichel9528]

Thanks, this video will change how i make pictures. Tanks for this other view point.

[@LudwigDrummer0013]

Very cool video, I got into photography on my cell phone (as many have now) and really got an eye for the shot and composition and knowing what kind of lighting would make a pic look great or not. Just got my first real camera and have been having a blast learning to shoot manual. I learned quickly that ISO 100 was not the end all setting especially on a recent hike in a canyon on a cloudy day haha. I also found a cool resource that graphs out your ISO to image noise on your camera models and they're not all linear as you'd expect. My nikon zfc actually has a lower image noise at ISO 400 than 200 so I've been jumping up to 400 with out even a second thought if I need some more light. I'm still leaning and vids like this are a great tool. Thank you!

[@leeny1871]

I say 'eye-soh' 😃 and I always was afraid of raising it at the beginning. But after a while I discovered that iso 100 always made my images too dark. Now, even in the middle of the day if I'm in a shady spot I will use around 250 - 400 and it doesn't affect the image quality at all but makes the images much brighter and the colours prettier. However it also depends on the camera too. I have a cheap canon DSLR which starts to produce image noise at iso 800. But with my newer and more expensive Fuji xt30 I can comfortably use iso 4000 -6000 without any issues. I only do that though if I'm not using a tripod at night, for example with street photography. Great video content!

[@SheilaCornett]

Thank you for the info! Will make a difference in my photography! "eye-so".....

[@jimswift2400]

This is a great explanation of why using ISO is a great option. Lots of great examples outstanding!

[@JustinBench]

Great video, I loved the info 3 examples you share. AND I would have loved to see the Aperture, ISO, Shutter speed settings for each of the shots you talk about (text overlay?), to put them in context and make some reference points.

[@agustinrecio]

This is the video that nobody asked for but everyone needed, thank you 🙏🏻

[@merlebecker8417]

Mark great video and confirmation on the Eye So controversy. One question, pls. In photos like the two later water scenes, where do you start on the Triangle. For example start with I want this F Stop, (manual or aperture priority), then ISO to see what SS you get and tweak ISO to obtain the needed SS. Or do you say I need this SS and set this first and then the others. Greatly appreciate this.

[@Lbezerra82]

Hey Mark, love your content and I need your suggestion, just move to NC near to Charlotte area, do you have any sugestion for some landscape spots in the NC? keep up the good work!

[@davesnow6762]

Thanks, a very well timed video. Only yesterday did I find myself doing handheld shots in woodland. In order to get the shot (without flash) I did adjust the ISO on my XT-3 mostly between 800 &1600. I was really impressed with the shots on screen as I was fully expecting some degradation in the quality. (Learning back in film days). I shall certainly avail myself of this tool in future shoots.

[@NgocSuTran]

thank you very much..my concern when using high ISO has been answered.

[@GirdHerd]

Very informative, Mark. Thanks. It makes me feel better about my technique of setting the ISO (I-Soh) on Auto so I can select my aperture and/or shutter speed.

[@BigJim1961]

As you recommended at 6:05 I took a number of shots of my Historic Route 66 coffee cup, testing the ISO on my Nikon D5100. I took the ISO all the way up to it's maximum setting Hi 2. I used a tripod, setting my apreture at f2.8, and my shutter speed at 1/100th of a second to 1/500th of a second. Even at Hi 2 my pictures were clear. I did have some noise in the image but that only showed up when I zoomed in to my maximum zoom. But even then the pictures were very usable. I have watched a couple of youtube videos that told me that I should never take the ISO of my D5100 higher than 1600 to 3200 or I will have unusable images. But even at Hi 2 the pictures were great.

[@BigJim1961]

And to answer your question I say Eye Soh part of the time and Eye S Oh part of the time.

[@markfengchaenagcus]

Did you already change the battery of your wall clock? just noticed that it doesn't move

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Mark, I tend to use the term eye-so because that is the acronym for the implies sensitivity range, it is loosely based on the old film emulsions which were made with differing combinations of chemicals to make them more or less sensitive to light, the same does not apply to digital camera sensors, each one is designed to perform at some specific sensitivity and this cannot be altered!. What the software does instead it vary the output amplification, this then also increases the amount of noise in the signal, this reduces the dynamic range, that is the difference between sensor saturation and the noise floor. The current range of Fujifilm cameras claim a dynamic range of up to fourteen stops, with a noise floor down there at around two or three of those stops, each time you increase the output gain by a factor of one you reduce that range by a bit more than one, thus a camera will a base ISO of one hundred to eight hundred the range of light and dark, across all colours will be significantly reduced, this means significant loss of detail and colour depth. Listening to you while typing this I hear that your main reason for doing this is the 'freeze' the action in moving subject and as you say there really is no other way you can do that unless you can find a lens with a much wider aperture to permit a faster shutter speed without compromising image quality, one other 'trick' to be wary of is the one where you increase shutter speed by reducing exposure time, this underexposed image with have less blur from subject movement but again the noise level is constant and once more you lose dynamic range Basically the claims you make for no loss of quality are false!, it could well be that the trade off is worth is from a subjective point of view, you can claim that the price is worth paying but nor-t that there is no price!. Cheers, Richard.

[@Festvangelist]

For years I developed all my black and white negatives. I tried hard to keep my film ISO around 100 or 200 most often. When you got to 800 and above I really noticed a grainy image after enlargement. With all the technology in todays digital cameras I think a lot of the high ISO concerns for settings up to 1200-1600 today are almost mute. I love using my preset ISO brackets with auto ISO and concentrate on my shutter speed and aperture to achieve my compositional and creative goals.

[@arapahoetactical7749]

Great video! Being an old guy who started on film back in the 60s, I often forget that I can adjust ISO shot-to-shot. When shooting film, you're stuck with the ISO of the film you have loaded and the only way to change is to change the film in the camera or have multiple cameras. As I shoot both landscape and wildlife, it kind of sucked having 100 in the camera when I saw birds in flight or coyotes hunting and needing that higher ISO.

[@royhakala7999]

A couple of years ago, I read that the most sensitive camera sensors were actually about ISO 180 and an algorithm in the camera then will simulate ISO 50 (Nikon) or 100 (Canon) when the camera is set for those numbers. Since then, I have set my cameras for D+ highlight protection, which incidentally limits the ISO, low range to 200. I may turn off D+ to allow going to a lower ISO and a wider aperture when I want to seriously restrict DOF but I do that only rarely. Does this make sense, or am I deluding myself?

[@stever7638]

Well done video… good job. I'm curious, at the 7 minute mark, what was your focus point? Was it the trees or the rock face? My 2 guesses anyway. Aldo, I'm more I.S.O with the fam as the kids are learning...but eye-sow with some fellow camera hobbyists.

[@LiamPhotoATL]

where are you in NC? Just curious I live in Roxboro.

[@DaveInBridport]

I started taking photos with film. Slide stock was ISO64 or 25 and I used ISO400 black and white for sport, sometimes pushed to 3200. Higher speed film was grainier but that could be used to your creative advantage. Eye so? I was raised on ASA...

[@InteractiveDNA]

Good video! The problem with most photographers and videographers is that they don’t understand how cameras actually works with light. In digital camera ONLY have two things to exposure light (Aperture and Shutter Speed) The ISO is ONLY a Gain Controller. You can increase the ISO until your goal is reach before breaking apart. In Film Cameras we use the Triangle to proper exposure because ALL ( Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO) will after the final photo or video, and that is why many miss information about today’s digital cameras comes into place. Think digital cameras as a microphone 🎤 that if you increase the gain (ISO) too much the frequency starts to be notice. In another words the ISO in digital cameras is a processing slider after the camera already took the picture.

[@ndc5544p]

I bought my camera last year and I found out early on that low ISO isn't always noise free. Underexposed images are noisy though so I will look for the shutter and aperture settings that I want for a shot and then adjust the ISO to be properly exposed. What helped me is thinking in stops: if I increase the shutter speed for a given aperture I have to increase the ISO by the same amount to have a consistent image. It's a give and take between ISO, aperture and shutter speed and each situation requires a different exposure. Also, it helped tremendously that I bought vintage manual lenses, so I'm stuck in manual most of the time when I'm shooting. Now I don't feel comfortable in Auto because the camera does stupid things sometimes and I don't want to waste a shot because the camera didn't expose the way I wanted. Edit: a good way to think is that the lens makes the picture that I want and I have to work the camera around it with shutter speed and ISO.

[@PeterSmith-is8cj]

Thanks, very helpful, especially the examples you shot with your X-T4 which has the same sensor as my X-T3. I pronounce ISO as "eye-soh" with photographers who know what I'm talking about, because it's easier; and as "I-S-O" with non-photographers or novices, so they can recognize the acronym more easily.

[@classzedits]

hi, sir. may i ask what is your camera setting for this talking head video? it's really so clear and clean. this looks far better than the other guys i follow discussing about KZbin channels, studios, and yes... camera settings. thank you so much in advance. by the way, i got a sony zv e10 and a 23mm f1.4 lens. what can you recommend for an indoor night filming for my own talking head? thanks.

[@wizofoz0605]

Hi Mark, Greetings from Down Under (or 'up over', as we like to think) Firstly, Thanks for a great channel. I've learned quite a bit from you over the years. As to the I.S.O. v's eyesoh debate, I think it comes down to when and where you were brought up. In most of the world,and for decades, we were used to the International Standards Organisation (ISO) film speed ratings, (Just as we are used to the decimal system,) whereas in the USA it was the ASA rating. So, we are used to using I.S.O. when describing film or sensor sensitivity to light. However, with the increased international reach of people such as yoursel, Mark, over time and with a predominance of educators (not all, but a predominance) coming out of the States, the use of the (in my opinion mispronounced) eyesoh has become prevalent. I use eaither term interchangeably, It's not the biggest problem in the photographic world, but it gets some folk hot under the collar. :) Keep up the good work

[@TomGodzik-o6s]

Super great video. I understand what you're saying. It makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. ❤❤❤

[@landesnorm]

So Mark, how does ISO effect the rendition of contrast or the latitude from highlights to shadows in any given situation? Also, on your images, how much and what type of post-production work--if any--have you done? Thanks for your experience and perspective on this subject.

[@RMD2U]

Thank great info overall, I wish you had side by side examples of the same shot taken both ways.

[@ghoward54]

ISO, I have my ISO set at100-3200 I use 50-100 mostly when using N D filters I know some guys prefer a bit of noise to reflect grain from analogue days however any issues with noise LR has excellent tool in Details noise reduction. Thanks Mark another intuitive video.

[@jonnyquickalive]

Do any of your photos have noise reduction software either lr or denoise? What f stop and gutter speeds are you at? Need more info to really understand your teachings. Thank you!

[@ColleenVR]

Thanks for the great content..for me the desired DOF often overrides everything so after i set that for what i want, next is SS and ISO will take up the slack.

[@philipfoster7269]

Hi. Thanks for the vid.. I use high ISO very frequently and I have done so for many years. Two other issues with doing this is colour shift and dynamic range which is becoming less of an issue as sensors, processors and software evolve. And then there is DXO Pure RAW. For my money it is must have for post processing. I say I. S. 0.

[@jameshoy380]

The right settings are whatever settings allow you to make the creative choices to get the shot that matches your vision. Adobe recently released a Denoise AI function that does a pretty impressive job of mitigating noise. It competes well with Topaz Labs.

[@outofthecommonphotography5503]

This was very helpful. A perspective I never thought about. I'm usually set at 400ISO. But, I have had scenarios that knowing this would've really helped. I was so into making sure I had enough light and the world was still that I never thought, let me bump up the ISO for fear of noise. But, I get it. There's a balance. Still knowing that simple perspective I know would've helped with some pictures I was trying to take of flowers with a slight breeze. I would wait until it was completely still. Now, that's not to suggest bumping up the ISO being so close would guarantee a sharp photo. But, I believe it definitely would've helped!!!