Tackling more Photographic nonsense you might hear -

[@AndyBanner]

Inevitably, there's a few people that want to make personal comments. This happens a lot when a video reaches a wider audience than usual. These people live under the false pretence that I want to read their bile and that their opinion is of interest to me or others. There's a brilliant tool on KZbin that "hides" these people's unpleasantness, and the great thing is that they don't know the rest of us can't see it so can just go about their awfulness and waste their time without anyone ever knowing their user ID.

[@iphoneography]

@@itsallminor6133 You are suggesting people should accept abuse, and vulgar insults. Andrew is providing content about photography, yet you believe people insulting him on his looks, or the way he dresses, is ok. You clearly have no friends.

[@josh8494]

@@itsallminor6133 you misunderstand censorship. Censorship is, legally speaking, when a government prevents someone from freely expressing themselves. What people are screaming censorship about is not censorship, it is capitalism. That thing where a company forbids specific speech or behavior on their platform in order to maintain civility at a level that advertisers don’t leave. What Andy does is not censorship, it is moderating his channel. He sponsors this channel through his thoughts, knowledge, and opinions. He runs his channel in a way that he deems appropriate. You have not been censored, Andy simply moderates the environment he keeps his KZbin business in so it is welcoming and polite. Feel free to disagree with him, me, anyone, however that doesn’t require name calling or hateful speech. If you wish to see these types of spiteful comments then you are free to create your own channel and allow anyone to say whatever they want. You would be the moderator at that point. Final thoughts, what’s your stance on doxing? When does saying whatever you want cross a line? Is it before or after someone publishes your personal phone number, place of employment, and home address followed by something ignorant like, “Someone should deal with this pedophile”? Is there a line to draw or is this an anything goes world, in your opinion? If there is a line then it must be chosen based on opinion. Someone decides what is too much. Who gets to decide that? Is it you? I think it’s fair to say that Andy gets the say so in his business/channel. You are free to view and participate with his rules and you are free to be insulted and leave. Nothing requires your participation. And nothing requires the moderator to allow hateful comments on his channel. If you want to be hateful there’s sub-Reddits available for you.

[@robertleeimages]

Bugger I went looking to see who it was 😂

[@josh8494]

@ and I ask again, at what point, if any, is someone attending to his own business have the right to moderate their own business? Is it permissible to you that others may enter a business, online or otherwise, and threaten or create a threat to others there? If I walked into your place of employment and verbally assault you, call your mother, sister, wife and daughter derogatory names and named them as streetwalkers, then you are satisfied that it is my right in the name of avoiding censorship? Perhaps advertising at your place of business that you committed sexual crimes against children and then displayed your address for all to see? This would be tolerable to you because censorship? I’m just trying to gauge your sense of reason. If there are no limits then you would not be concerned if I did such things to you. I often wonder why some people insist that coexistence and courtesy are violating people’s rights. Why is intentional harm less offensive to some than allowing private companies to moderate their own business in a way that promotes harmony? To declare this idea to be censorship is simply ridiculous. As to the history and impact, I am currently a journalist, communication and censorship was my course of study in college. I return your suggestion to study it further.

[@josh8494]

@ my point is exactly what you are trying to say. There’s a difference between what is and what isn’t acceptable. If we can agree to that much then let’s move forward. Since there is such a thing as unacceptable behavior then there must be a line to draw. Where is that line? At some point the line must be based on someone’s opinion of acceptable and not acceptable. My question is who makes this decision? At what point do you think it becomes unacceptable to disrupt other people’s peace, business, livelihood, or mental health? Is it fair in your mind that since a teenager has a public profile on instagram or KZbin that people bully them online until they take their own lives? It seems to me that stopping the bullying is censorship in your mind. So these children’s deaths are just the cost of your rights? I don’t think that you would be a good choice to decide where we draw the line of appropriateness. Since your beliefs are just that, beliefs, not facts, I counter that they are no more important than my beliefs, or Andy’s. Since Andy is the proprietor of this channel I would have to say that the limits should be set by him. If it’s his profits that concern you(you stated individual rights come before profits, more on that later) then don’t give your business (views and engagement, such as this) to his channel. After all, monetization is based on views and engagement. Since we are discussing individual rights vs profits, does a small business have the right to eject unruly people from their shops if said persons are preventing others from coming in and shopping? Does the right to speak freely, insult and threaten, supersede a shopkeeper’s right to earn money to feed themselves and their family? Who wins that battle of individual liberty in your opinion? If that business is online instead of face to face, does the shopkeeper lose their ability to regulate what occurs in their shop in order to keep their customer base comfortable and returning? Again, how about those kids who were cyber bullied to death? Did they deserve that because they put themselves in the public view? What about you? You have put yourself out in public view by posting in this comment section. Who gets to be the one whose opinion decides who gets protected and who has to deal with abuse? If I understand you correctly, dead kids don’t matter because their mental welfare is second to an individual’s right to be an ass? Edit: The dead children are not what-ifs. They are a systemic problem with the keyboard warrior culture. The digital equivalent of tacticool. The “I’m tough and can intimidate you”, except online.

[@alfo6085]

As a subscriber to far too many YT photography channels, I value your opinion above all the rest. Your honesty and demonstrable abilities are so refreshing. Thanks you again for sharing and inspiring.

[@AndyBanner]

That's so kind, thank you.

[@thomasschemmel8002]

I am sorry that you had to deal with keyboard warriors in your last video and some people just want to act as if they know it all which means they're not at a point where they're willing to learn. I heard the argument go back and forth when it comes to ISO but I absolutely agree with the way you described that which is what I personally discovered with just learning by using the tools that are in my hand. You are so relatable and I appreciate that and I love your practical way of explaining things and some people just want to think they know the best and will fight tooth and nail for no apparent reason. Photography saved my life and for me I don't want to be a professional I just want to learn how to capture the beauty that saved my life and hopefully get other people just to get outside to enjoy what surrounds them. I've learned a lot but I'm smart enough to realize I will never learn it all and that's why your videos are helping me get back to basics where I can enjoy things a lot more and get those little more creative.

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you. I hope you never lose your passion for photography. Be well.

[@WoadVisageVA]

Andrew, you're 100% right about ISO: it is absolutely not an exposure-control. The muddle arose, I think, because of "The Exposure Triangle." ISO is a member of that (along with Shutter-Speed and Aperture - which both are genuine exposure controls). The point is that they both change the quantity of light hitting the film or sensor: ISO does not. ISO works with the electrical signals generated by the sensor; it does not affect the quantity of photons hitting the film or sensor in any way. This is important because knowing that, we understand what we can do to change the (genuine) exposure and what we can do to compensate for poor light. Cheers.

[@oldsailor5711]

I wish i could send 90% of the photo KZbinrs out with a old school camera meaning manual focus prime lenses and iso 100 film and see how they fail

[@WoadVisageVA]

@@oldsailor5711 Hi. Well, I've never really shot like that. Of course, prior to the "digital revolution," I did shoot film but on simple, auto cameras. These days, I use (mainly) a canon 80D DSLR cropped-sensor (24MPx) from eight years ago. Here's my usual approach: Auto-focus - though I often have to resort to manual-focus because of hunting in complex scenes. I prefer auto because it is more reliable than my aging eyes - which are still pretty good - but I do not hesitate to use manual when needed. Lenses - I have only one prime (Nifty-Fifty, of course). Else I prefer my Canon 70-300 (which on a 1.6 crop gives me great reach). I cannot afford a vast number of lenses and prefer mainly one which covers what I need - but I sometimes take-out the 50mm or a wide, too. Tripod - Have almost totally given-up using mine. This is because of a chronically poor neck - hence preferring just one lens to carry. I miss out on long-exposures, etc but I can capture far more than being ill with a mal-functioning neck. ISO - I use manual settings with auto-ISO (up to 32,000). This enables me to use a shutter-speed of 1/1000 to compensate for subject motion and my imperfect holding of the camera. I then use Topaz Photo AI to clean the ISO noise (High ISO + Crop-Sensor + Cheap lens). So I do rely on technology but that does allow me to concentrate on composition, as opposed to the technicalities. Hope that all makes sense. Do let me know about your settings, if you wish. Cheers.

[@el3dprint]

Yes, but in that case, what about filters, flashes, reflective screens and the time of day? All other variables we control. And in the beginning of the video Andrew talked about the proces that no picture is 'straight of the camera' but it is all processing. And I think especially with digital photography there is a lot of extra processing we do. Although we could do most of those things already with film and work in the darkroom but it was a bit more complicated in many cases. Just change the temperature of your developer and you change the whole characteristic of your negatives, but another bulb in the enlarger, use more concentrated developer for the print... all has its effect besides using another kind of paper or film. For the end-result there are at least 1000 factures that have the effect on the final picture and I think the choosing of the film and camera is just part of it like with digital also the iso-setting. For that, I don't think the triangle is the complete thing. At least make it an octane or a form with 20 sides since that is getting closer to the real thing we are dealing with in my openion.

[@itsallminor6133]

Yup..​@@oldsailor5711

[@WoadVisageVA]

@ Hi. Personally... I do not use filters nor flashes. I own both and have tried them in the past. Very very occasionally I have used the camera's built-in flash to fill in some details (e.g. fungi in woodland) but I do not really like the look of it and it requires much post-processing. Filters are good for tripod-based images (e.g. long shutter for smoothing water) but as I no longer use a tripod, I do not use filters. Besides, most filter-work can be produced in post instead (Polarisers aside). Reflectors (White / silver / gold) again, I have those but they are cumbersome to carry. I might consider mini versions (and a mini light) for fungi next year but am anxious to keep the weight down. NB my camera-lens combo is fairly heavy but I gave called that my indulgence... though there are times it becomes almost too painful to carry. I (almost certainly) could not produce many of my images if I were using film and a darkroom only; I need the software (I use ACDSee 2024 Ultimate - shall soon upgrade to 2025, I hope, plus Topaz Photo AI for noise-reduction mainly). But, yes, past toggers did amazing things in the dark room - people always quote Ansel Adams and he was a brilliant pioneer but many excellent practitioners of the dark arts followed! I do agree with your basic thesis that a photograph is the product of a myriad factors / settings and tweaks. LOL re: your polygon of exposure. Yes but the Exposure Triangle is a simple concept which can accompany the beginner togger through to the seasoned Pro. After some experience, toggers (as you say) can add-on as many vertices to their polygon as they wish. To be honest, I never give the Exposure Triangle any thought. I simply set Auto-ISO, a shutter-speed of 1/1000 and an f-number of between 5.6 and 8. I then tweak the settings to the situation / subject but those settings (which I have pre-set in a mode on the camera) are a great start. I do vary them between summer / good light and winter / poor light but, overall they are not bad. I hope to avoid colour aberration and defraction by shooting near the lens sweet-spot and softness by f8 (or higher if necessary), distance and the high shutter-speed. It is absolutely true that I do miss out on some images - e.g. cotton-wool like water or clouds. But, again, if I keep my neck in working order (or there-abouts) I can carry-on shooting all the other pix. I am also more nimble with little gear to carry-about, so can shoot more (if I wish) and reach places I might not otherwise. NB: Henry Turner, Craig Roberts (E6) and James Popsys have all explored this minimal approach to togging in their respective KZbin channels. All are worth a look, though I especially like James's All the best to you. Cheers.

[@grantcullen6066]

I commend you Andrew for the effort you have put into this video. Of course, for the closed-minded, it will be fruitless. However, as I'm sure is the case with many of your reasonable viewers, I always learn something from you and often I come away from your videos saying, "I'll try that." With regard to digital ISO, perhaps a simple way to understand its role is to say that aperture and shutter speed work on the light coming into the lens and digital ISO works on the electronic signal that light becomes in the camera. As you say, the technicalities of the physics and maths don't really matter.

[@walthamwalker]

Photography is a personal thing - I think anyway . I am an amateur photographer I believe in getting the photo first time without editing - I hate editing sometimes I do ,most times I don’t .I won’t entertain AI at the moment . For me photography should be enjoyable, fulfilling and personal . I respect other people’s opinions even if I don’t always agree with them. Great videos Andrew really enjoying them.

[@GingerCaptures]

Loving these last 2 videos, from the heart and photography is all personal so why people feel irate to post BS comments etc and then delete them is beyond me.... keep up these chats, it's a breath of fresh air in the community 😉👍

[@AndyBanner]

Thanks, Darren.

[@peejaypayne]

Arguing with a rude person is like swatting a fly off your cheek....you may or may not kill the fly but you'll always slap yourself in the face....👍....all the best,great vids as usual

[@AndyBanner]

I have never heard that one. Very true.

[@humblepie8638]

Andrew, you're building a great community of photographers around your channel. I always enjoy 'going on these walks' with you and hearing your perspectives on taking strong photos. As I write this comment the views and 'thumbs up' are spinning upward. Bravo! I discovered your channel last year looking for other photographers who employ ICM in their work - my personal go-to these days. But I've enjoyed all of your videos on street, built and natural landscape and still life. I wish you continued success and joy in the new year. Doesn't photography provide us some sanity out here, too!

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you so much. Do I call you Humble or Pie? :-)

[@humblepie8638]

@@AndyBanner Just don't call me late for dinner, okay?

[@KarltonKemerait]

I enjoy your videos, very informative. The only thing is that with the walking and labored breathing I expect that after every two or three steps you may have a coronary. lol, I hope not ... but maybe a video sitting behind a desk might be easier to watch. (Not a criticism, I am in the same shape, just a thought). Keep them coming, the info is great.

[@AndyBanner]

I am just desperately unfit. You'd barely hear my wheezing if the mic wasn't so close to my chest, say 1/4 mile away. ;-)

[@KarltonKemerait]

@@AndyBanner Same for me lol. Well, best wishes, good health and keep on walking...it's gotta help :)

[@nellatrab]

As a professional long time working photographer I whole heartedly agree...YT is filled with what I dub as "Content Opinionators" promoting click bait for bucks! And more so those that spill their nasty nonsensical accusations and comments. Many believe that their opinions are facts and not just subjective malarkey...then there's the product reviewers spilling total BS. I'm not bitter, just calling them out on their obvious agenda's. But that being said there are many great folks doing a better job honestly....including you...thanks!

[@AndyBanner]

I fully agree with the first bit and thank you to the second! :-)

[@AntoineSteen-f5l]

I liked the picture of the bridge, especially the lighting. And yes to color for this image. Take care.

[@AndyBanner]

Thanks, Antoine. Hope you are well.

[@prinflex]

I think SOOC has its place, for example, if I’m watching a video to see how a lens performs, I’m interested in what the camera is recording… the vignetting, distortion, and overall colors on what is likely the same sensor as I may have. Is it something I find pleasing or will it just upset me so the lens gets left behind or sold. But, yeah, SOOC as an artistic choice seems rather silly to me. I also use film simulations on my Fuji… but also record the RAW image. I use the simulation mainly for two things: first to have a higher contrast and saturated image to review, to see if the camera is capturing what I’m seeing, or if I’m just wasting my time. Second I use the simulation images when I just upload them to my phone via WiFi to post to socials. The snapshots of gatherings or documenting a trip, for example… something I want to share, but have no interest in editing. So I’m not concerned with the profile being baked in, because I only upload the unprocessed RAW files to my computer. Bit of the best of both worlds. As to ISO, yes, each year that becomes less and less of a concern. I just pick the aperture and shutter speed I want, then if overexposed, add an ND, and if underexposed I raise the ISO. So it’s not really part of the triangle, it’s just something that gets changes once the other two are selected. Recently saw something where someone was pointing out how if you underexpose to keep the ISO low, then raise the exposure in post processing, the post processing will essentially add the same amount of noise to the image as using ISO to shoot it at the proper exposure. So may as well use ISO when shooting. Carry on, enjoy a challenge to conventional thinking. And enjoy your shots.

[@AndyBanner]

A few points. Firstly, SOOC jpegs will generally have applied the appropriate lens profile so you're not seeing the native glass distortion or aberrations. These will not be applied to Raws but the data will be embedded in the exif. I started typing something about your ISO point and realised that I might be talking BS myself - I might not too, but I would need to get a better understanding of this before I was confident of my words. Certainly, the most noise tends to come from shadows, I assume because the signal from a low-light area is weaker and therefore more difficult to overcome the noise - this seems to be the logical conclusion. What's not so logical is how raising the ISO gain would deal with this because the amount of light hasn't changed. This, of course, supports your point. I am just not entirely sure it's 100% accurate. As ever, there are nuances in these technicals I have less of an understanding of.

[@prinflex]

@ my point on ISO was that it doesn’t really matter… you choose the shutter speed to get the result you want, and choose the aperture that gives the effect you want, then whatever ISO results in the exposure. The other two are choices and the iso just puts your light meter or histogram where you want it. For example when I’m shooting wildlife, the subject chooses the SS, say 1/2000 for an owl that may be about to fly, my lens is 5.6 so no real options for more light there, and thus my iso may be 6400 for a decent evening exposure. I’m going to have noise. What option would I have, shoot it at iso 400 and then raise it 4 stops in post, that would then magnify the noise in the shadows to be just as bad as the noise there at 6400? Thank goodness noise reduction is improving. I’m not saying iso is part of my decision process, it’s just the necessary evil to get a shot.

[@MarcelSiderius]

Great video Andrew. You voice what many quiet souls think and understand. I always enjoy watching your videos.

[@AndyBanner]

I appreciate that, thank you

[@ChrisAthanas]

Agree💯

[@morrisgentry8624]

Great topic, Andrew. I have a wonderful friend that says “I don’t believe in post-processing, I just use the jpeg without any adjustments.”

[@AndyBanner]

Haha. "I don't believe in Post Processing" is so funny and such a great example of how little someone knows about the photographic process.

[@morrisgentry8624]

@@AndyBannerI’ve been missing notifications for your videos and wondered why. I recently did a huge purge of my YT subscriptions and apparently I accidentally purged you! Got some catching up to do!

[@AndyBanner]

Haha. Glad you're back!

[@josh8494]

Great information, Andy. I think your explanation of digital ISO was brilliantly executed. I really appreciate your method of expressing ideas that are difficult for some to understand. Simon d’Entremont has a video that I watched recently where he described how he uses auto ISO. He explains the same idea that ISO is only a digital gain. He sets the aperture and shutter speed to control exposure and lets the camera deal with brightness (ISO). The other thought about “straight out of camera” was very well explained. I have said “without post processing” for a long time now. As you said, the camera does post processing and any photos I shoot in RAW and convert to a file type that is easier to share (JPG, TIFF) then it is getting processed. I believe that by clarifying no post processing is easier for people to understand that I did not manipulate the image (beyond exporting to JPG). As an analog photographer I always chuckle a little bit when anyone says that an image is direct from camera. Even my film photography has post processing and cannot claim to be straight out of camera. I control push or pull, I decide moods I’m trying to get by adjusting my development time or temperature. After drying negatives I throw them on paper through the enlarger where I dodge, burn, and apply filters, in addition to adjusting the time I spend casting the image on my print paper (exposure time). I am able to double expose prints to add elements from another negative that was not in the initial image I am printing. Every imaging technique has a post processing process that gives the individual processing it the opportunity to make adjustments or corrections to the image that they wish to loose on to the world. Last thing I have is that I have to admit that I was fascinated by the sea foam that was piled in the background while you were speaking. I just have to wonder what kind of images could be made using the foam as the subject. There is so much form and texture there. I think I’m going to go try to make some soap bubbles now.

[@AndyBanner]

Simon also has an excellent video on how digital ISO works (not how he uses it like the one you mentioned) with some excellent graphics. Indeed no photograph ever produced is without post processing. Never was, never will be. Sea foam. Never considered it before. Probably really hard to get much out of. Sounds like hard work to me. Soap bubbles and oil on water here I come

[@josh8494]

@ I have seen that one as well. You two are my favorite KZbin photographers. I would not call it a stretch to say that after decades of photography, your channel and Simon’s have made the greatest impact in my skills outside of my photography professor who has been instructing me over the last two years. Thank you for your efforts and the time you spent sharing your knowledge with us.

[@AndyBanner]

To be held even close to Simon here is an honour, thank you.

[@DanielLeivaCardozo]

I've been saying that first point for a while now, you're not a better photographer because you shoot JPEG, those mistakes you say you don't commit you certainly are but the camera is fixing for you. I'll keep watching but you already earned my subscription.

[@the_atomshop]

Good talk. I have often wondered about people commenting or asking about SOOC images. I'm in a Ricoh GR3 group and they are constantly presenting or asking about SOOC images. I didn't see the point and your opinions have helped me realise it's BS.... I enjoyed this Vlog, Great photos as usual.

[@AndyBanner]

Of course, some cameras are more optimised for certain styles of shooting. The GR3 is a good example just as the Olympus Pen-F is. And, of course, by optimised, I mean programmed to make images look a certain way without further user intervention - ergo post processing without your contribution...

[@280bunny]

Watched a video from Mark Denny the other day, much the same ISO he considers is not part of the creative process, he showed 4 images shot with different ISO but all correctly exposed, very hard to tell them apart! I will keep watching!😀

[@AndyBanner]

Over 2 years ago, I did a video about settings not mattering and showed four correctly exposed images of the same scene shot with different combinations of speed and f stop (no iso variation) and most people couldn't tell the difference. I did this in response to people asking me to put settings on my photos as though it made any measurable difference.

[@brucetomlin4912]

Thanks!

[@AndyBanner]

You are too kind, Bruce. Thank you so much

[@j.mahoney1178]

I like to take total control over my photos and always try my very best to take the photo without much editing, I set everything manually, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, metering, and white balance settings, I don't want the camera making my decisions for me, I really couldn't care what my camera exposure is telling me if I want to under or over expose I will.

[@AndyBanner]

This is an interesting thought process - why shouldn't the camera make a few decisions? Is your equipment prone to making bad decisions? After all, there aren't many choices it can make overall - exposure, white balance and focus (you didn't mention focus). This isn't a criticism in any way, you do whatever you want to do. My point is more that taking control of everything as you wish doesn't make you a better photographer - I keep saying that we can all learn the technicals from a book and whether we use a semi-auto mode, full auto or full manual makes no difference to our ability to find a scene and compose it. If we need to practise anything, it's the art of photography and not the technical aspects of a camera.

[@HughRogers609]

@@AndyBanner I get what he's saying, but taking control of EVERYTHING is masochistic not to mention time consuming IMO. Take white balance. You'd get some odd results setting a hard K value for all situations, the AWB is best 90% of the time. I took my favourite family holiday photo on a 15yo DSLR with Canon's auto portrait mode and had no input. In this instance, the camera got everything right. The kids did the rest. It's on a large canvas in my house. THAT is what photography is about.

[@spectralcav]

@@HughRogers609 That is what photography is about for you. Others prefer to have more manual input. There is no right or wrong here; it doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is the end result. That's my take!

[@flightographist]

I have thought about this. It's the same argument with halides and sensitizer dye clouds in emulsion film. Signal to noise and detail/sharpness. It is a creative consideration, based on location and subject. Grain can have quite an impact- either way on the aesthetic spectrum i.e. studium. Think of grain in a compact dutch tilt image at the scrum line, then think about it in a photograph of a breaching Kingfisher... one clearly works, even in your mind, the other not even close.

[@colcot50]

Love your videos Andy, you cover so much more technical aspects of photography rather than just camera reviews. It’s about light, perspective and lines. And I agree with you ethos of take photographs and you’ll get the odd banger, that should inspire you to achieve another. It’s about getting out there and just give it a go

[@AndyBanner]

It is exactly about that.

[@JamesRBurnsVLOG]

Very interesting content. Good luck with convincing togs around the exposure triangle! 😂Important not to reinvent the wheel. The shot of the bridge arches and that patch of light was wonderful.

[@AndyBanner]

Yeah, well, some beliefs are deeply rooted. :-) Thanks for your input, James. Don't be a stranger.

[@dazxmedia]

it is pretty much an established fact that ISO is not a part of exposure, but this exposure triangle myth has been floating around since the advent of the digital camera.

[@noname123-y8j]

Refreshing content and much to factor in for/to understanding the importance of the creation process. Thanks for sharing your experience, knowledge and expertise! Favorite photo was the bridge! Stunning! Enjoying your content.

[@AndyBanner]

My pleasure! Thanks for being a part of it.

[@ianbrunt2322]

As a relatively new Sub here I am rapidly finding this to be my favourite Photography related channel. I feel I have already picked up some useful tips to help improve my own photography. The explanation of ISO in relation to a Digital camera was excellent whilst the idea that a JPEG image produced by a camera hasn't been processed in any way made me chuckle. I moved to using RAW several months ago and it's been a revelation to me. I'm sorry to hear about the abuse. Overall I think the Internet in general, and social media in particular, is a good thing but unfortunately there's always going to be an element who would rather attack them debate. Perhaps they feel threatened and don't like competition? Who knows? Finally about 14 mins there was a fantastic background shot of some of sea defences - stone filled wire cages and some timber planks. Would make a fantastic composition IMHO. Keep well and keep posting. The videos are appreciated.

[@AndyBanner]

Thanks. Yes those gabions are very interesting subjects. I might return for some abstracts...

[@7inrain]

I think of the ISO as a conversion rate. It tells the camera how a certain amount of photons hitting a sensor pixel is to be translated into a brightness value of that pixel in the resulting image.

[@andyl4565]

I do know somebody who almost never has to post process his jpgs and it's mainly because he is very good at setting them up in the first place and reading the light. He also nailed his film and slide images back in the day so I'm happy to give credit where it's due. But I do get your point and it's the same with people who think cropping an image is a moral crime against photography.

[@AndyBanner]

It's very hard to post process a JPEG - the very action of making a jpeg discards the vast majority of the data that made the image. Also, most cameras give you very little control over how to set up a jpeg - it's a compression setting, usually something like Fine, HQ, Normal and low (quality) and some rudimentary adjustment of the tone curve. I doubt anybody adjusts this for each image - it make no logical sense to do so. I take your point about nailing exposure, but as I said in the video, that's hardly much of a skill these days - far more so on celluloid where understanding the properties of the emulsion helped a lot.

[@kualilo]

@@AndyBannerBut isn’t what you just said in your reply above, which is true, about JPG being harder to process further - “ignoring” the fact that the point of SooC is to not process further (other than cropping)? There are valid reasons to love and enjoy SooC images produced by the specific camera/brand’s built-in processing engines. Keep in mind that photography is a very personal and subjective “art” form for each of us. We can be looking at the same photo and agree that it is good or bad. But we also have different reasons why it is good or bad. If one starts to edit a photo (again, other than cropping), I’m pretty sure that is no longer SooC.

[@bobmayphotography]

Andrew, the point I take re SOOC is to aim to choose the exposure and composition before taking a shot, rather than aiming to get it right in post. Some people love spending time in post. I don't! Each to their own.

[@AndyBanner]

Like I said in the video, you have to work hard these days to get a bad exposure from a modern camera. In most cases, a bad photo is a result of poor composition and not poor camera control skills.

[@Robdickson1962]

Great blog love your honesty. Keep it going . Class

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you! Will do!

[@1010AllOne]

Thanks for this! Could you mention which software you prefer instead of lightroom? I couldn’t pick it up from the video and I couldn’t see it in the description. Thanks.

[@AndyBanner]

I use DXO Photolab. There's a link in the description where you can download a free 30 day trial without having to give any payment info. Like anything, there are some things it does better and other worse than LR. I think Photolab's masking tools are vastly superior to LR.

[@davidskinner274]

Shutter speed and apature are physical attribute of adjusting the amount of light. ISO in a digital electronic process using a digital camera and a chemical process on film. When I use 400 speed film in my seventies 35mm cameras, I have the mindset that the ISO is 400, so my shutter speed and apature settings are based around that, as those two settings are based around whatever ISO I decide is required using a digital camera. I never try and explain technical stuff beyond my own capacity to articulate it... A bit like you, Andrew. My brain likes to keep it simple. Who gives a tinkers how ISO works, except to say the bigger the number, the brighter it is and the more noise you will have, so it is the last resort to up the ISO if the other two don't get you the desired result. However one really needs to understand the workings of shutter speed and apature and how that affects light falling on the sensor. When the penny drops on all of the above, photography becomes easier, as it did with me. Happy for you to take my approach further, but it works for me. Cheers

[@AndyBanner]

The biggest issue of increasing ISO in digital is loss of fidelity. Noise is secondary but most people focus on noise because it's easier to determine. Noise is always present.

[@findermanimages]

Another lovely video with some amazing photos. My take on SOOC, for what it's worth (which is likely not a lot!), is not so much what the camera has or hasn't done prior to you having a finished jpeg. It's more that one can post that image online or print it and say "I've not done anything to it, this is how it came out of the camera." Therefore, anyone wishing to get those same results without having to go through lengthy editing processes, will know how to achieve them. It's just doing what it says on the tin. It's why I really loved the Fuji system a few years back. Being colourblind limits my understanding of colour when editing, so I let the Film Simulations take control. Now, armed with an older DSLR, I shoot only in RAW and enjoy the editing process (mostly B&W). Great work... subscribed.

[@AndyBanner]

Indeed, the ability to share an image sooc is valuable to a lot of people.

[@jeitrheim]

I agree 100 % in what you say about "straight out of the camera", or "no filter", as many are saying here i Norway. These people can never have seen a non-processed picture in RAW-format. I enjoy your videos. Thank you.

[@AndyBanner]

There was a time when #nofilter was a big Insta hashtag I think.

[@bifcake]

Hi Andrew. I have stumbled upon your channel recently and I find it quite refreshing in that you cut through the bullshit like a hot knife through butter. Having heard your arguments with regard to ISO, I wonder if you would consider it as part of exposure control if the ISO settings actually raised the sensitivity of the sensor, rather than gain?

[@HughRogers609]

SOOC: when I first dabbled in photography many years ago and returning now, I wasn't aware of the jpeg processing a camera does, never mind the editing tools available, which were probably a Pro tool back then. I'm not into editing and do get a sense of accomplishment not having to tweak a image, but sometimes they do pop much more. RAW is for those who enjoy the editing of flat files. It's not a superior approach. Most photographers buy a camera for the processed colours and look, hence the current popularity of Fuji flim sims and other brands copies of this processing tech.

[@AndyBanner]

I beg to differ. RAW is a vastly superior approach in terms of what can be achieved. Jpeg images are lossy compressed with changes baked in. Raw is pure data that can be manipulated in so many more and less limited ways. Whichever people choose to use is their decision. There's no judgement on that but understand the differences

[@HughRogers609]

@@AndyBanner I know the difference. You missed the point, which was the same as your own. The point is, too many start RAW wars arguing it's better. Maybe it is, if you're one who likes editing images. Not everyone does.

[@tremaincheerful4189]

I think you make an excellent point. I can understand kicking ISO out of the exposure formula. On would always use the native ISO of the camera if conditions permitted it, so it is at best a sacrifice when conditions force one to move the ISO upward. On the other hand, the changes to the image that shutter speed and aperture choices afford the photographer, are deliberate stylistic and artistic choices.

[@therealbonj]

ISO isn’t part of exposure, but it’s called a “triangle”. If ISO isn’t part of it, it’s not a triangle, it’s … well, a line. I think what’s meant by including it is that it’s one of the things you have to get right to achieve correct exposure. It _influences_ what (combination of) shutter speed and f-stop you use. But it’s not ‘part of exposure’ per se.

[@johnchipperfield3367]

I find myself having to use a tripod more and more, my hands ain't as steady as they used to be, it can be a pain in the arse sometimes lol.

[@AndyBanner]

The winter chill doesn't help either, John.

[@WoadVisageVA]

Hi John. I no longer carry a tripod because of my bad neck. My solution? Quick shutter (1/1000 where possible), High ISO and I use software in post to clean the resultant noise. It usually works (though I do have to change shutter speed in lower light). And my neck survives and I can continue togging. All the best.

[@uncle0eric]

Just a general principle far too people appreciate (and this isn't directed against ANYONE in particular) is that Internet popularity is not the same as expertise.

[@g0fvt]

Perhaps a better analogy for the ISO setting would be a traditional tape recorder, if you record at a low level you can add gain while playing it back to get the desired volume but the white noise will increase too. The analogue to digital converters in the camera have finite dynamic range so raising the sensor gain by forcing a high ISO is a legitimate tool. (though sub-optimal). Certainly the ISO setting is the last one to adjust..

[@therealbonj]

Hi, Andrew, I came across one of your videos the other week that youtube wouldn’t let me play and it said it was “members only”, but alas I couldn’t find a link to “join”. Is it by invitation only? I use the youtube app on my ipad mostly. cheers.

[@AndyBanner]

There should be a join link right next to the subscribe button

[@SimonBurnCreative]

I agree with you about ISO not being important in exposure control, certainly not as important as shutter and aperture. ISO is not a sensitivity value. I've noticed a few larger photography channels have made videos about ISO in recent months, encouraging people to crank it up. At least one of those channels is sponsored by a noise reduction app! These channels don't appear to really understand ISO and its role, and no one mentioned base ISO or dual base ISO, which to me is essential to understand, particularly when shooting video when there's no ability to change shutter speed because of the 180 degree rule.

[@AndyBanner]

A conflict of interest perhaps? :-) It's true that more modern sensors have a better SNR than older tech and so raising ISO can result in a better image with modern gear than older CCD technologies. Modern software does a way better job of data "recovery" than before so its less of a problem. Of course, recovery isn't necessarily the most appropriate word here, perhaps replacement is better but also worse. This is the problem, language causes misunderstandings that people can then run with and start spouting as "facts". Mostly, they are inconsequential in day-to-day life but if they're allowed to always go uncorrected....

[@therealbonj]

It's a good point well made, but another school of thought is there is a difference between "straight out of _camera_ " and "straight out of _sensor_ ". i.e. if you regard the camera as the whole package of pixel-acquisition apparatus _and associated firmware_ , then the camera can be regarded as responsible for the final jpeg output into which it may apply art presets, film simulations, whatever. Cameras (digital ones at least) _do_ have software in them. I think it's that anyone who is more of a film photographer, or at least started their photography journey with film, may be more likely to tend to the view that the image-processing software shouldn't be regarded as part of the camera, because film cameras didn't have it. But - even so, if you are shooting negative film and then processing and scanning the negatives, is the film processing and the scanning not to be regarded as 'post processing'? Even if you manage to completely omit digitisation by shooting slide film and viewing the photo using a slide projector, are the chemicals in the slide (and the development process that's still required) not 'post processing'? If you are using the term to mean "no post processing has been applied" then I accept that that is not the case, but it could be said that post processing has _always_ been applied, _whatever_ format you use. Personally I take 'straight out of camera' to mean that no _manual_ editing has been done. I think the reason manual post processing (out of camera) is sometimes regarded as less 'virtuous' is the fact it can be applied to selective parts of the image, whereas post processing that is applied "in camera" (whether it be by the film itself, film processing, film scanning, or digital firmware) is usually applied universally to the whole image. The only example I can think of of 'processing' that's _not_ applied universally is a graduated ND filter, but that's _pre_ -processing, rather than post.

[@AndyBanner]

The "problem" with my video is the majority of the audience thus far appear to be people who know how this works. I make this comment early on at around the 2:40 point. Nobody here has indicated that they would use the term in a superior race which is great. But, it is used by people without the requisite knowledge to know different

[@TheFulcrum2010]

Signal to noise ratio, at last I get it thanks to you. Yes I'm that stupid. Yes I get it in sound as you ablely explain in the video by using the increase in sound can distort the sound. It's one of those " slap on the forehead" moments. I come from the age of film cameras and in those days I always used 100 or lower ASA film. That's just me but now that I've been using digital cameras I still use the lowest IOS settings on my camera. Totally agree with you Andrew about the BS out there so keep up the education to people who, like myself, are still learning and are prepared to take in the helpful advice you give.

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you. We're all still learning. In a previous comment, someone corrected me on how film grain and ISO worked. I had never had it fully explained before. The knowledge helps cement my appreciation of how I can use film and get the best out of it.

[@michaelwebb4500]

Andrew what a great explanation of ISO. As an amateur photographer I value sharpness, but the reality of a good photograph is as you and the other photography experts say are composition which is driven by depth of field, focus and action. but the distractions such a noise is like your example its when your volume of light for the sensor is too much for the sensor. Over the years with my cameras from the days with 6 mega pixel sensors, the 12 megapixels and my new 20 mega pixel marvel. To me I could push the speed for acceptable results, before getting the noise at an unacceptable to me level. as the sensors improved I can achieve acceptable results (less noise at the higher ISOs) and ultimately with the current marvel I can get the depth of field I want, stop action in lower light situation. I think this is the reason that I see many experts having ISO set to auto with the newer equipment. Is your explanation what is intended with signal to noise ratio? your explanation explains why I get more acceptable to me with the results with newer cameras. However, I still have the older carmeras because I love shooting with them. I just respect the limitations of the sensor. In short, Andrew you cleared up my confusion with other explanations. Thank you so much.

[@therealbonj]

Another point is that in film days, ISO came first, but in digital, it often comes last. Some film photographers like to set ISO first even on digital cameras… I prefer to use auto ISO possibly combined with minimum shutter speed, but each to their own. My argument against ISO setting on digital cameras is you can end up with a shot (of a still subject) at, say, 400 ISO, f8, 1/1000. You could have used 200 ISO, 1/500 (or 100 ISO, 1/250).

[@AndyBanner]

That's an interesting observation. With film, you're stuck with what you've loaded. Maybe you were lucky or pro enough to have different bodies or film backs with different stock, but you'd still have been limited..

[@ledesclos5321]

Thank You Andrew. I appreciate the education you provide.

[@AndyBanner]

My pleasure!

[@rakutzimbel4539]

Thank you for this, it earned you a sub from me. I think we use ISO in digital photography the opposite way to the way we use it with a film camera. With the latter, we choose the exposure according to our film sensitivity, while in digital photography, we choose the iSO until it fits our aperture and shutter speed settings.

[@AndyBanner]

Thanks for the sub! It's difficult to make generalisations, really. You say, "I think we use..." butni don't think that's right. A lot of the comments here show that a lot of people have a good understanding of digital ISO. However, your comment may well apply to people who have learned using the exposure triange because a simplistic understanding of this can logically lead to your generalised statement. I guess it's like anything: to begin with, we know nothing and then we learn a little but sometimes we think we have learned everything when the reality is that the gaps in our knowledge are far larger than our knowledge itself but those gaps are obscured by our inner belief.

[@quirkworks4076]

Agree. All digital images are post-processed, even “right out of camera.” I love precessing my images. I can turn them into what I saw and felt.

[@AndyBanner]

With you, Peter, that is almost as worrying as the SOOC guys... :-)

[@vermis8344]

My ears pricked up at 'SOOC', wondering how offended I was going to be, but you're right. 😄 I shoot jpeg mostly because I _still_ don't have a machine capable of running RAW-processing software*, but I'm always at least dimly aware of RAW vs processed jpegs, that I've got the photo style almost permanently set to vivid, and that I've mucked about with raised shadows in-camera. It's mostly fine for my amateur snaps, but even then I run them through a paint program to crop and nudge the levels, saturation and sharpness. I don't think I can claim SOOC at any step. Also, I still goggle at the image in my viewfinder 'standing to attention' when I half-press the shutter button. OM stabilisation is amazing. But when I got my hands on that 150-600mm bazooka, next thing I bought was a tripod and a gimbal. The stabilisation might not quiver, but my arms after handholding for a while are a different matter. 😂 * I suppose the in-camera RAW processing is a stopgap, but the screen size is hardly ideal. Is that where an external monitor might come in handy, or is it just better to keep on keeping on for a new computer?

[@AndyBanner]

I don't think there's any "stopgap" about shooting jpeg. Indeed, most jpegs from modern cameras are perfectly fine. My EM1 mk2 launched 9 years ago does a great job of them - I was focus stacking macros this morning using the 60mm lens on some flowers (future video) and the in-camera stacked jpegs are faultless. My problem is that some people that think camera jpegs are not manipulated and sometimes they wish to use that misconception to pretend their photo skills are rather more than might actually be the case. These people are out there.

[@TimSeraphiel]

Personally I feel that there needs to be distinctions between different levels of image manipulation. There's a difference to doing everything with manual settings in RAW and simply converting that RAW to JPG with no further edits and editing said RAW to the point where it no longer looks like the scene did in real life. Not to mention using AI to remove or add elements. I mostly do landscapes and personally hate post processing so do very little or no post processing. I get my enjoyment from finding shots and capturing them. For me the rule of thumb is that my image should look like it does to my eyes without embellishments. Just my two cents. I enjoy your videos, BTW. 🙂👍

[@sarahneedham]

Recently found your channel Andrew and I am really enjoying your videos ☺. DSLRs will have a histogram if shooting in live view (the upper end models at least like the 5D series etc). Also of course you see the histogram after taking the shot as you know. You just don't have the luxury of a histogram through the viewfinder. FYI, I still only shoot SLR (film) and DSLRs. I agree with you about ISO by the way. In the film days, yes you might load a certain speed film for effect, but mostly you did it to match the conditions eg, sunny or cloudy etc. Therefore you only really thought of aperture and shutter speed as the things that controlled the exposure of your picture............. At least that is how I see it.

[@AndyBanner]

Thanks, Sarah. Be aware that histograms are generally calculated from a processed image and not raw sensor data. This can lead you to believe that shadows and highlights are clipped when they might actually be recoverable from the raw - within reason, obviously.

[@sarahneedham]

@AndyBanner thanks, that's really helpful to know

[@duringthemeanwhilst]

excellent stuff Andy whenever I say SOOC it's not from a place of superiority, it's an excuse for the shoddy raw "image" I've been too lazy to process before (usually) popping into a video! It's a pejorative and easily understood / well-known term I guess just to let a viewer know I've not fiddled with it. I didn't see the comment left by the "snob" on ISO. If I'm ever asked to explain it, I say it's akin to a volume knob on an amplifier, and to think of it like gain. And noise is like audio distortion. I'm probably wrong but it's a simple thing to explain 🙂 It is most definitely nothing to do with the amount of light hitting the sensor. I've no time for keyboard warriors. I always end my videos by saying "be nice", and it's something I've always lived by. There's a saying along the lines of: "If you've got a problem with me, then send me a text or call me. If you haven't got my number then you don't know me well enough to have a problem with me"

[@AndyBanner]

I like that sentiment. Hope you're well, Nick. I've sent you a message elsewhere.

[@duringthemeanwhilst]

@@AndyBanner ah thanks Andy. I've given up on IG (had enough of the crap if I'm honest) but I'll pop over and have a look now 🙂

[@josh8494]

Beautifully articulated. I find your point about being polite to be spot on. As for the idea of gain, it is my understanding that the digital ISO is exactly that, gain control. As a former electronics technician the ISO has the exact effect that I would expect to see from a gain control.

[@duringthemeanwhilst]

@@josh8494 I got something right!!! that's a first! and yes, being polite costs nothing 🙂

[@peternumber19]

It is more efficient if you download the file and can use it without an editing tool. I'm quite happy about the term and realise if I've used black and white setting that's what it will be. So I'm OK with the term.

[@AndyBanner]

Time efficient, yes.

[@steveh1273]

Makes sense to me. I enjoy your channel, always stimulating and entertaining.

[@AndyBanner]

Glad you enjoy it. Thank you

[@wakeywarrior]

It gets worse on video. People say that to post on KZbin, you need to be practising the 180 degree shutter rule, sticking on ND filters for walking around with your holiday blog, always filming in DLog or Slog, over exposing the footage, and spending hours colour grading.

[@AndyBanner]

Do they? Thankfully, I have never watched a video or had someone talking such tosh to me.

[@haneyfrancis2780]

Thank you Andrew for another great video. I watched part 1 and it opened my eyes."Straight out of camera" doesn't or I should say shouldn't apply to any photograph. Because even in analogue photography do we not chose the type of film and its unique characteristic to give our images a certain look. For example: Fuji velvia 50 compared to Kodak gold 200, or Ilford delta 3200 compared to Koday TMax 100. Isn't that manipulating an image?

[@AndyBanner]

Of course it is. And then you have the option of push or pull developing and then the choice of paper stock, exposure time, dodging and burning, double exposures, paper developing time, chemical temperature... the variables are almost infinite. SOOC as a concept of "purity" or "superiority" as always been absolute BS.

[@kalaharistuart]

I enjoy your take on the exposure triangle, Asa film speed or iso as it is now is the only element that has been changing continuously with technological advancement, film cameras were produced on a 10 year run because the technology was in the films that changed over time now we ‘need’ a new camera as the technology advances. Also the film grain was an element that could be used as a creative element and enhanced with processing I’m back to film now just for those aesthetics, digital noise as it is now much less so due to a much less organic construction and constant size or pitch and I try to avoid it, only my opinion I know also a few decades of experience. Cheers 🍻 For getting me thinking about this again

[@12symmo]

I suppose I think of SOOC as things like, did I overexpose and blow highlights I need to PP out. Did I underexpose and need excessive noise reduction. Did I get a good composition or did I crop the heck out of it to get there. I can see the benefits of these things, but agree with you that your choice of camera settings / film you use already impacts your photos before they get out of the camera.

[@AndyBanner]

I guess we all consider the sooc phrase in different ways. There's definitely a contingent that use it as some kind of moniker though and to those people, I say watch and rewatch this video until it sinks in ;-)

[@12symmo]

@ agreed!

[@angelathomas2117]

I loved your video you a always honest about everything so keep up the good work. Hope you and Nicky a ok dont see her anymore with you. Some people have to much to say on here so they need to keep some to themselves aye 😊 Take care

[@bruceborrowman4342]

I agree with you on the tunnel - Colour was the way to go!! Great video - Thank you

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you too!

[@ChrisAthanas]

I appreciate your analysis

[@JonGibbsPhotography]

Well done Andy. You put your points across so well. Hope you don’t get any grief from the keyboard warrrryers worriers, whatever they are!!!!🤣Bridge shot is gorgeous.

[@AndyBanner]

Cheers, Jon. Was watching your trip to Herringfleet Hills last night - got distracted and need to watch the rest. Good to see you making new content. We must get out together some time. I promise I am every bit as weird as I appear in these videos - actually, I might even tone down the weirdness...

[@JonGibbsPhotography]

@@AndyBannercheers Andy. I dearly wish I wasn’t so stop start with YT!! Probably cos I have the pt job now but the intention is there this time. Hope I can keep it going!!

[@justinzellmer110]

Exposure triangle is a tool I see as primarily useful for teaching people who are new to photography the mathematical relationship between the 3 settings. I think the most important thing is to understand how ISO works and teach people its benefits and drawbacks. While I hear the argument that it is like turning up the gain there are two types of gain you can increase. One is analog gain which what your doing when you increase your ISO and the other is digital gain when you brighten an image in post processing. And all my research as well as processing my own images has shown that at Higher ISO levels the Analog gain is noisier than the digital gain. Therefore if an image is only slightly dark its better too keep low ISO and brighten in post processing. If its extremely dark 200, 400, or even 800 ISO has very little noise on my camera and will give me a cleaner image, after post touchup, than pure digital gain. So there are tradeoffs but If I can get an image without clipping the darks I always use my native ISO. And this isn't even touching dual native ISO cameras which muddies the water when it comes to ISO noise. I think the exposure triangle while flawed still has a lot of value especially as ISO gets better. The way technology marches on ISO could easily become the most important aspect of exposure while aperture and shutter speed simply become artistic flavor.

[@AndyBanner]

Hard to argue with any of that. Thank you.

[@mtmccornack]

I havent shot a JPG in over 5 years, and TBH lil QR codes dont count, but are the closest thing in my photography journey. I hate posting SOC photos and dont really believe in them. The best SOC photo can still benefit from some sort of post processing, and dont get me started on robots thinking and making decisions on what the color blue should look like. Thats my job!

[@AndyBanner]

I never shoot jpeg unless I have a need to quickly share an image. For me, that's the only value of a jpeg. I hate that when I focus stacking, my camera automatically writes jpeg and raw versions. It's just a waste of drive space and I always delete them. But that's me and I fully understand the differences between the two formats.

[@billgreen1140]

Your explanation of ISO is spot on and can be easily related to film speeds. Way back when, I used to push a film speed and process accordingly. So when I shot a film with 400 ASA (that reference dates me), and wanted to “push” it to 800 I would set the film speed on my camera’s meter to 800. But that didn’t change the sensitivity of the film. It’s still a 400 speed film. But over processing would give you results that approximated an 800 speed film. But at considerable costs. The more the film was pushed the greater the cost. Same with the digital sensor. The sensors sensitivity doesn’t really change. It receives x amount of exposure then “bumps it up” as needed to fit the iso setting you’ve selected. But again, at a cost. Granted, the cost isn’t as great as with film, and can more easily be corrected. But to your point, that’s all after the exposure. Which was controlled by the shutter and aperture. The iso setting is the beginning, the very first step of the post exposure process. New to your channel and just subscribed. Seems you touch on subjects and ideas that many KZbin gurus overlook. 👍

[@geraldillo]

I agree with you that JPEG's are not "straight out of camera". If you want to use this terminology it is even debatable if you can say that your images are "straight out of camera when you "over- or underexpose.

[@Carl_D_photography]

I'm surprised to hear that another KZbinr (one with such a huge following) has acted in such a way. They could have quite easily said they disagreed with you followed by their argument without being offensive. I take your point on iso as valid. Exposure triangle out of the equation, shutter and aperture are far more important from your artistic perspective. Iso is always the last thing I consider. As for straight out of camera, I can see both sides but have to agree with you, regardless of the way the image is completed it has gone through some sort of post processing, but those saying straight out of camera aren't considering the cameras built in processing and only consider anything they do to the image as PP. So to someone with a technical mind the argument is that the image is indeed processed in camera, to the less technically minded it isn't. If that makes sense. But regardless it is post processed or it would just be a load of zeros and ones on a page.

[@peterschmidt6482]

Dubbing other people's statements as BS and nonsense but then getting upset about unruly comments. Reveals wonderfully the double standards and hypocrisy of our time. Exactly my sense of humour.

[@AndyBanner]

Define "unruly".

[@peterschmidt6482]

@ Since it's your show, it’s on you to define it, not on me. These are your rules. If some people don’t like it, they can avoid your content. However, if I were to get upset about it in general, I would start with myself and not call other people's posts BS and nonsense, because I have a strong sense of integrity. Because if language is so dangerous, then everyone needs to be careful with it, not just the others.

[@AndyBanner]

You used the word, not me. Calling BS on untruths shouldn't be a problem. I have not named anybody or singled anyone out in any way. If the cap fits, it's up to someone to wear it. I have gotten upset about personal comments. Anyone with a point to make about my content is welcome to. The guidelines for comments are simple: make it about the argument, not the person. If I make a mistake, I will generally own it. I can't say that I always own it because that would be a lie.

[@thegroove2000]

Over editing for me in post messed up a lot of my images because of watching many youtubers using all manner of editing tools that I wont name.

[@AndyBanner]

Like anything, it's possible to go too far. One beer is nice, two, nicer. 6 is like pushing the saturation slider to 120%...

[@thegroove2000]

@@AndyBanner Thanks fella. Have a good day.

[@DavidCampling]

Great vid, unless you shoot at native iso you are post processing your image just the same as changing the exsposure in Lightroom.

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you, but I feel you have misunderstood. Post processing is inevitable because it has to happen to assemble the data into an image. It's not linked to the iso setting. A raw file is just data that must be processed and a jpeg is raw data that has been processed into an image. The ISO setting is an amplification of the signal from the sensor - all electrical signals have a degree of noise on them and when you amplify that signal you amplify the noise too, thus degrading the signal - reducing the fidelity of it. It's hard to explain it further without understanding how you're grasping it.

[@DavidCampling]

@AndyBanner hi, I understand perfectly and the SOOC claim is crazy as you say, my point is even a raw file has had some post( ie after the image hits the sensor) Processing and I suspect using a non native iso just increases the amount. I really do not consider iso on modern digital cameras especially so called iso invariant cameras, to be part of the exposure triangle, this is a gang over from film (which I have used a lot of in my early days of photography 50 years ago)

[@richardwhitehand5414]

I feel SOOC gets used in a variety of ways, some of which are unfortunate, some are useful. Just because an image is "SOOC" doesn't necessarily make it any better (or worse) as a photograph. It also, as you point out, doesn't mean it isn't post processed. To me "SOOC" simply means exactly what it stands for - if I review the photograph I've taken (on the rear screen, or a separate external screen connected to the camera) then that is the image I get straight out of the camera (as a Jpeg). It is simply what I was satisfied in capturing when I reviewed it in the field and that in itself can be valuable/useful later (it doesn't even mean the exposure was right, or that I won't make adjustments later). Furthermore, some people use SOOC to make it clear that the image has not been manipulated (or at least not manipulated beyond settings that are possible to apply in-camera) - this, I feel, is also useful these days when with various AI tools in post-processing software one can completely change the actual content of a photograph. Finally, I feel it is worth mentioning that part of the reason for "SOOC" being thrown around so much at all may in part be due to a reaction to those that claim their photography is "better" because of the time they have spent editing in Photoshop (maybe the resulting image is "better", maybe it isn't, but that then concerns their abilities/interests in Photoshop editing rather than photography).

[@AndyBanner]

Mostly agree. I disagree with your final point though. Anyone with skill can usually develop wide dynamic range raw image better than the camera can in a sooc situation. Cameras are getting better at Jpegs for sure, but once you have a jpeg, it is seriously limited in what can be done to it. The term "better" can be both objective and subjective in this matter.

[@richardwhitehand5414]

@AndyBanner I hope we can agree to disagree on the last point then. "Anyone with skill" is, I assume, a reference to skill in post-processing/editing. I don't claim to have that skill (and given the huge amount of time I already spend behind a computer screen in my job, I have no inclination to develop it). There are, if the situation demands it, ways to create high dynamic range files in-camera too, but I believe what really matters is enjoying the photography and creating a good quality and satisfying result (in whatever way suits you). I do often make some adjustments briefly "in post", if nothing else one wants to prepare the images for printing or sharing on Instagram or whatever. Sometimes I also do this in-camera, more often on the computer. However, I don't believe that a lack of skill in photo processing/editing is the same as a lack of skill in photography (these are two different things, at least according to most definitions - perhaps some professionals are obliged to take on both roles for their business, but they also need to do a bunch of other things too). Sadly I've met several amateur photographers in recent years who do great work but have become very discouraged due to the fact that they either don't have the skill or don't have the interest in photo editing/processing and are essentially told they have to do this - they don't, and I feel it is detrimental to photography as a whole if such people are put off by the ever-intensifying focus on these aspects.

[@mortenthorpe]

ISO is absolutely not a part of exposure settings! It is an electronic signal boost factor applied, so it has nothing to do with what light actually hits the sensor and makes up the actual image data…

[@mortenthorpe]

@andrewbanner thanks for the “heart”… I’ll go a bit further here then, trying to attack another misconception of digital photography… why Exposure to the right, is absolutely right! Just as ISO is a boost factor, boosting the signal, then to understand how to capture the widest amount of detail, we need to think in a tune of… how do I, within a range of light values captured (dynamic range), record as much and quality data as possible… well, you need to consider the signal - incoming light being recorded - compared to whatever noise your camera has at given settings - for now, lets just pretend the sensor only has one signal path, so a single signal-noise capture in general. The signal to noise fraction gives us the answer… if the noise is in the denominator of this fraction, then the signal is in the numerator. The noise is constant, so to get the best signal to noise ratio, we need to raise the signal… now consider that noise applies equally, to dark and bright pixels, dark areas recording signals, is the same as an inferior signal in the fraction… this is why, that exposure to the right - will always aim to capture a quality signal - the signal to noise ratio is high here, which is our guarantee that we get little image noise.

[@mortenthorpe]

… getting as good a signal quality as possible, does obviously not translate into a photograph resembling what you want as the final image… shooting in this way, demands that the final image is created in post-production

[@robertleeimages]

On to the topic of mp I only have a 24mp crop sensor canon 200d(equivalent full frame would be 15mp) and I can print A2 size no problem at all(I have 1 for sale in a frame as I speak😉) but as you say for the most part images are viewed on phones or tablets and a perfect example to back up your point is that I resize my images from 21mb or so down to 1 or 1.5 mb for faster uploading to social media and that is still plenty for viewing on those size screens unless you want to pixel peep and zoom it so it becomes a pixel mess.

[@ericflesher]

I really appreciate this video and your previous ("provocative") one on being careful on whose advice you follow. I'm trying to summarize my feelings about both, which is this, I think: you've managed to cut through the over-valorized BS put out by one KZbin "expert" after another by articulating how technical concepts are creative tools that can inform aesthetic choices and ultimately lead to artistic creation. I shoot Fujifilm and have for some years, so the whole SOOC nonsense all too often leads to a can't-see-the-forest-for the-all-the-trees scenario. You know, Fujis also have "poor" autofocus, their crop-sensors are inferior to full frame, et cetera, so forth, and so on. It's like people forget that they have a camera that can produce great images *if they understand how to use it.* I suspect that real photographers (I'm just an "enthusiast") don't really care what gear others use; they care about the art itself. I could say a whole lot more, but I think you get the point. Anyway, count me as a new subscriber. I hope you keep posting honest and opinionated videos like this one. It's a refreshing breath in a sea of myopic sameness.

[@AndyBanner]

Thanks for the sub. We're all enthusiasts, Eric. I am trying to earn something from my work, but I am no less an enthusiast for that. I don't think that my first video was overly provocative, it wasn't intended to trigger people (not that that stopped some). I would never suggest that a crop sensor is inferior to full frame either - push that "size factor" argument into transport and a van is better than a car and a lorry is better than a van and if that's true, a cargo ship trumps everything. Nobody would dream of making these comparisons because its obvious all these different sized vehicles have different strengths and weaknesses and therefor you choose the tool that's most suitable or available to you when you need to use it.

[@ericflesher]

@ Agreed. I used the term “provocative” not to suggest that that was your intention, but because the other video was provocative for me: it brought out some unexamined (or underexamined) ideas or opinions I’ve had, and I want to thank you for that. My background is that of a musician whose professional training is in composition, and at this point I’ve got decades of creative work in my past. So, it’s refreshing to see someone who is equally vested in his own artistic path call out the nonsense one hears from various personalities. There’s a time, a place, and a necessity for thoroughly developing one’s technique, but I’ve come to appreciate over the years how technique serves the artistic intention, rather than being an end in itself.

[@kualilo]

I can’t speak for others, but when I think or speak of SooC, I say it with the understanding that the JPG is/was a result of being processed by the specific camera/brand I chose to use. With that said, it is precisely the differences in how different cameras/manufacturers implement their in-camera processing engine that allows me to either process the image further using RAW or just enjoy it as it is - SooC. I’m can understand why you would think SooC lovers are snobbish, but there are valid reasons to prefer SooC images over RAW. Especially if you have cameras that lets you adjust the looks/feel of what you envisioned before even snapping a photo (aka, film recipes). Do I prefer SooC from a Fujifilm over a Sony, for example? Absolutely. I hope this helps or clarifies that SooC does not equate to snobs.

[@AndyBanner]

There are plenty of people who don't understand the photography process and who will use the Sooc argument in a snobbish, purist way. It's usually very easy to determine that they have no idea what they are talking about as opposed to someone who knows the difference.

[@66kandFrends]

I'm shooting on 2008 - 2012 DSLRs, we take a test shot to view the histogram and it's fine. The other thing you learn quite quickly with cameras from that era is just because you can rack up the iso it does not mean you should all the time. My opinion from several decades of natural light photography, and I have no idea if it's controversial or not, is that high iso should be your emergency mode. The lighting is poor but you'll miss capturing that picture of your child/pet being adorable, then rack that iso up so you get the minimum shutter speed you need. For anything else it's going to be a case of what kind of noise does your camera produce and how much you can tolerate it. Some cameras, like the Nikon D300 and the original Fujifilm X100 were designed for film photographers so the high iso noise isn't unpleasant by design, whereas full frame dslrs can be 'gah!' at high iso as it was assumed you'd fix it in post, or..drumroll...the in camera noise reduction on the jpegs would.

[@AndyBanner]

More recent sensors and camera processors tend to perform a lot better than cameras of that era, for sure. Even ISO 6400 on my micro4/3 can produce acceptable images (within reason, obviously). Software de-noising these days is so much better than anything most cameras can do. But, yes, only push the ISO if there's a need.

[@webmuir]

Exposure is how much light reaches the sensor so it’s a function of aperture and shutter speed. However, achieving correct exposure needs to consider the sensitivity of the sensor and so ISO is part of achieving correct exposure. If your shot allows you freedom to change aperture and/or shutter speed to achieve correct exposure, set the iso to base for the best quality. A tripod shot landscape would be an example. If it doesn’t, like a bird in flight where f/5.6 is as big as your aperture goes and you need 1/2000, let your iso float to achieve correct exposure and accept the increase in noise. People use terminology loosely so they may say iso is part of exposure when they mean it is part of achieving correct exposure. Not a hanging offence imo.

[@AndyBanner]

But terminology leads to a misunderstanding. You have said here "consider the sensitity of the sensor" which can imply that you can change the sensitity of the sensor - I know I have made this mistake myself. In general, ISO does not change the sensitity of the sensor (please, someone correct me if this is inaccurate with iso invariant types), it changes the gain from the signal from the sensor. It's hard to know if this is a terminology error or a misunderstanding but the point is that someone else could rub with this inaccuracy and whilst it doesn't make much practical difference (any?) , it doesn't promote the transfer of knowlegde. To be pedantic, a tripod shot of a landscape could easily also necessitate a rise in ISO to achieve a desired shutter speed - your example assumes bright daylight thus an adequate speed. It's the nuances that people miss in every aspect of something they know enough about to think they know everything. I am as guilty as the next person with this.

[@JeffBourke]

YT is plagued with bad advice and “followers” who repeat advice in a viscous cycle.

[@AndyBanner]

It's not just KZbin, it's life. Wherever we turn there is some fool or conman trying to convince us that they're right. Just look at world politics.

[@itsallminor6133]

And this is another imo

[@tfresh99]

Interesting argument. It can be appreciated without agreeing. It’s a very technical perspective about the ISO argument. It’s more of the concept that it’s directly related to exposure. Wrong ISO and your exposure can be so off it’s not fixable. And a SOOC is usually a compressed file that’s being viewed, however it’s usually a good indicator of the starting point for editing, and if there’s minimal or no editing to do as the camera and lens captured and interpreted the data in a pleasing manner then SOOC image can be considered great. Seems your argument has more specific application then to the overall understanding of SOOC images.

[@AndyBanner]

Of course, a jpeg has barely any latitude for further editing. My argument is against "purists" who wrongly attempt to use the sooc argument to boost their own credibility as some kind of master of the craft whilst demonstrating how little they actually know

[@tonybaker55]

Just like we humans; we have an eye with a lens in it and the light passes through this lens and hits our retina (sensor) and then is processed by the brain and then stored in our memory (for a fleeting second or a lifetime).

[@BobN54]

ISO is not part of exposure both by the definition of exposure (remember E=Ht, which is three, not two things - the amount of light from the scene, and the twocontrols which determine how much of that gets through to the sensor) or of ISO which is defined according to the exposure which gives a certan lighness in the output. To understand this you need to know the difference between exposure (amount of light energy) and lightness (how light or dark the final image looks - preferable to 'brightness' because that suggests an amount of light, which takes us back to the initial mistake).

[@AndyBanner]

A very good reminder. Most people would have not encountered this equation. It's a very long time since I have thought about it too.

[@BobN54]

@AndyBanner They don't know about it because no-one taught them it. It's very, very hard to find an 'exposure' explainer that actually tells the learner what exposure is. You don't need to use the equation. That's just the formal definition, but everyone teaching exposure should know and understand it. Once you do, you realise that most You Tube technical explanations make no sense at all, including, I'm afraid, that ISO is 'gain'. Had you remembered it, you'd have had an easier time explaining your case against the anonymous You Tuber. Mind you, that doesn't always work. One time when I did so I got accused of being a 'Sony shill', even though I don't use Sony gear, this from a very well known creator.

[@simonpayne7994]

"Straight out of the camera!" I rather suppose that every photographer has his or her own definition and his or her own value for this phrase. I myself am always on JPEG (except when I am not 😋). Then I have set up an extra ounce of contrast and and an extra ounce of saturation as default. Add in exposure compensation and choice of white balance and my images "straight out of the camera" are actually "straight through several thousand lines of Sony firmware coding". Of course, if I am happy with the image pulled over to my laptop to be popped up on its non-calibrated display, and then spend - almost - no time editing, I have a direct and indisputable confirmation that I am an outstanding photographic genius in a class of my own. 😋 I am afraid Andrew has just shattered my beliefs.

[@AndyBanner]

lol.

[@dennispenton2052]

Keyboard Warrioring - posting on a platform what they would never say in person. I think you have a good thickness gainst that. Thanks for sharing your opinons.

[@AndyBanner]

Opinions are fine. Spouting BS as fact will be challenged. Sometimes, I am wrong too and I learn something that challenges my own views.

[@SpudUna]

Regular feasting on endangered species can improve your photography. Sautéed Sugar Gliders are especially good at improving portrait photography. 👍🏻

[@BeccaB-dr6vd]

What's your thoughts on the "real photographers only shoot raw" mindset?

[@AndyBanner]

It's BS. Define "real". This is nothing but someone with a dumb opinion looking for an argument or reinforcement of their opinion by others who have as poor a knowledge as the utterer. Someone seeking confirmation bias reinforcement or conflict.

[@JamesRBurnsVLOG]

I think you’re interpreting togs understanding of Straight out of Camera meaning no processing at all which I don’t believe is the case. I often choose SooC and JPEGs for my Urban stuff but prefer the camera to weave its magic rather than me to finish the job using RAW. I tell the camera how I want that edit to be made. It’s the understanding of the term rather than the argument that SooC means no processing.

[@AndyBanner]

Hiya, James. I enjoy your videos. No, I have no issue with sooc. It has its place. My issue is the superior attitude of some togs who imply that sooc makes them a better photographer because they haven't edited it without necessarily understanding that their camera has.

[@ihateunicorns867]

As an established photography KZbinr with a large following (on my other channel), I want to offer you some friendly advice: The KZbin photographic community is varied, but also fairly small. Try to make friends, not enemies, because it will bite you in the ass later down the line. Gatekeeping is a quick and easy win for views, but you will attract negative people and the long term outcomes of it will be more negative than positive. I know you’re not ‘naming and shaming’, but that will just make it worse in a way as more people will see it as an attack against them. Honestly, the best way to get a successful KZbin channel is to make good videos. Don’t try to hack the algorithm, don’t fish for negative clickbait, don’t worry about what other people are doing, just concentrate on what knowledge and enthusiasm you can bring that is of genuine value to your audience. I hope you take this comment in the spirit that it’s meant.

[@AndyBanner]

This is precisely why I won't name the person. Nothing positive could come from such an action.

[@spectralcav]

Whether you think of ISO as part of the exposure 'triangle' or not is practically by-the-by. Most of the time we'd prefer to use base ISO whenever possible to get the best possible SNR and dynamic range. But, getting 'stuck' on base ISO is, at some point, just going to get you a load of blurry images because you've maxed-out the aperture and your shutter speed is too slow to hold the camera steady (assuming shooting hand held rather than with a tripod.). So you need to increase ISO to be able to use your preferred aperture and SS. This compromises ultimate image quality to some extent but that's a excepted price to pay to get the shot. I can see that you could view ISO as an aid to the other two parameters other than as a part of the 'triangle' itself, but I'm not sure I can see that POV as having any real value. Why does it matter?

[@AndyBanner]

I made these points in the video. Why does it matter? Because by understanding underlying processes, we can make better informed decisions about things.

[@spectralcav]

@@AndyBanner I understand that, but no matter whether I see it as an exposure parameter or not, how is that POV likely to change how I use ISO? I mean, I'm not likely to use ISO6400 unless I have to, irrrespective of how I think about it.

[@AndyBanner]

I use iso6400 on occasion because it's necessary on occasion. I like having a greater knowledge of how things work - I have an analytical mind. We are all different.

[@spectralcav]

@@AndyBanner Yeah, OK cool! We are indeed all different. I supposed I'm just intrigued why your so adamant about your view on the subject when, at the end of the day, it's just another tool ;-) Whatever helps you to get the results you want, I guess! In recent times and given the way I shoot, I've taken to using Auto ISO because the camera's SNR performance is so good these days it seems to matter less than it used to. Back in the day, I used base ISO on my small sensor compact camera because anything above ISO200 was basically unuseable.

[@oldsailor5711]

It’s easy iso is a leftover from the film time, they needed a fraise to explain to photographers what the gain was without changing there understanding… and it works basically the same as in film…a iso 800 had more grain then iso 100

[@AndyBanner]

This is not technically correct. I stand to be corrected here over film grain but the high-level technical points are that larger areas of the light-sensitive emulsion are more susepctable to light than smaller ones, so larger grain could be used in lower light at "normal" shutter speeds. You're quite right that the carry-over to digital is more for convenience, but we're not talking about grain any more. The pixels are still all the same size and what you are suggesting is grain is noise on the signal causing less fidelity. Grain and noise aren't the same. However, the biggest issue is the loss of fidelity of the image when you push ISO.

[@el3dprint]

@@AndyBanner Well, if you are going technically.... grain on film is actually mostly the effect of the way we develop a film, not on the size of the grains when taking pictures since a very long time. If you develop the same film in a different developer/solution, you get more 'clustering' and therefore bigger grain that will be visible earlier in the proces of enlarging. Which is even different if you just go other filmsizes. Just the effect of using a 120 roll instead of 35mm with the same type of film and developing process and actually catching the same amount of light if you use the same size of frontlenzes would compare to using more emulsion.

[@AndyBanner]

Thank you. It's been over 30 years since I have been in a darkroom and I guess I had a lot to learn back then.

[@unexpectedvistas6198]

I get what you are saying about iso. An I think you make a valud point. Maybe it could be simply said as iso should be set considering the creative decision about shutter and dof.

[@WoadVisageVA]

Hi. I set Shutter and Aperture (and focus / auto-focus) but allow auto ISO to do its own thing within parameters. Cheers.

[@AndyBanner]

I think that's being over simplistic. Knowing the "why" helps you make informed decisions.

[@WoadVisageVA]

@ Hi Andy. I agree entirely - the "Why?" question is the main key to understanding anything in life (though "How?" and "Where?" may be more urgent). However, once we understand ISO, with modern software, we are freed from being enslaved by it, I would submit. Cheers.

[@brxee]

To me ISO is film in your camera and not being anything like pro I mostly could only get/afford 100 or 200 with a very rare foray into 400. I then exposed said film using Tv/Av. I think ISO has become entangled in exposure purely because we now have the luxury of, in effect, putting a brand new film in of just about any ISO we want for every shot we take.

[@stevewest131]

Too negative bro. Photography is a beautiful positive pastime. Share your positive experiences. Sorry mate, switched off after a few minutes.

[@AndyBanner]

Each to their own.

[@simonpayne7994]

Technically a bit of a muddle. But what Andrew is telling us is that aperture has an artistic effect and shutter speed has an artistic effect. However, only under certain conditions. The aperture setting leads to pictures with different depths of field - e.g. a person sharp with the background blurry. This only holds for non-2D motives. If the motive is 2D, i.e. perfectly flat - e.g. page of a book - the depth of field given by the choice of a specific aperture is artistically irrelevant. The shutter speed leads to pictures with different amounts of motion blur. Obviously, if nothing is moving - including the camera itself - the shutter speed is artistically irrelevant. Nevertheless, both settins have an effect on the exposure - not any different from the effect of the available lighting of the scene. ISO has practically no artistic value unless you consider noise to be an artistic effect similar to grain. Waiting for more sunlight, using a flash, bumping up the ISO , doing the opposite., waiting for the dark, drawing the curtains, setting ISO to a minimum, screwing on a neutral density filter - each of these measures will all influence the exposure needed to get the shot. Getting the shot can mean getting the exposure needed to be able to choose a specific aperture and a specific shutter speed to obtain the artistic result desired. In other words, the only two artistic knobs you have there on your camera to twiddle are aperture and shutter speed. The ISO knob is more an auxiliary, something needed to get the exposure right. Getting the exposure right is just a technical issue. The infamous exposure triangle is purely technical. Last not least, purposeful exposure deviation can actually also be used artistically. See: low-key, high-key. Or simply allowing dark areas in the shadows to disappear in utter blackness.

[@frijitz001]

@@simonpayne7994 It's a simple matter of scientific definition. Exposure is defined as the amount of light hitting the sensor (intensity times time). Obvious to anyone who has an inkling of how a camera works, exposure depends only on aperture and shutter speed. Period.

[@el3dprint]

@@frijitz001 No, also on lens for example. Just get a bigger front-element with the lens and it already changes the whole thing. And since aperture is not a fixed size but a value that is directly calculated to negative-size compared to frontal-element.... but we did simplify it quite a lot for us to understand it while compairing. For me with digital, ISO is only a kind of making a comparison with film and development of the film, yet another standard that has been taken and simplyfied just for us humble brains to understand fastly in the field. Do you calculate the exposure with the light-color-mixture all the time too? Since exposure is a calculated thing that also depends a lot on the waves (te color-mixture) it will make things quite complicated fast. In a really scientific way, we should calculate exactly the energy and amount of photons (yet another definition) that comes to a certain area of the film or sensor and then compare and calculate that. That includes all no visible rays that are not filtered out, including UV and X-rays for example that are usually not calculated but do have an effect on the film or sensor.

[@frijitz001]

@ So if your are not willing to accept the standard scientific definition of exposure, would you tell us precisely what your personal definition is?

[@simonpayne7994]

@@frijitz001 I was referring to "the result of exposure as visible in the image produced" which is a bit of a mouthful. This in the sense of over-exposing and under-exposing. The correct exposure of the legendary 18% gray-card is quite clearly dependent on the lighting situation, the aperture, the shutter speed AND the ISO sensitivity setting. On the other hand, ISO is just the name of an organization. Actually, we ought to be talking about "simulated photosensitivity in linear or logarithmic units as defined according to ISO 5800 for color negative film". And by the way, cameras are rather complicated now-a-days. The good old mechanical cameras of the long gone past were only simple if you ignored how the photo-chemistry of the film material worked. Most people never got past the "inkling" stage - myself included. 🙂

[@frijitz001]

@ Well, fine, and thanks for the clarification. Two different meanings for the same word. I imagine that's how most of us think when we are shoving the "exposure" slider around while editing. Maybe we could call it a "perceived exposure" or something. Anyway, I think of the exposure triangle mostly as an aid for setting up a camera for a specific shot, involving both exposure and sensor response. Certainly a good guide for the basics, which still apply for our complex modern cameras.

[@sandbilly100]

Your right it's not. It's a sensitivity boost than can positively effect your subjective needs for image character. But the exposure is the relation between volume and time. The ratio remains the same as you change the ISO therefor same exposure just different appearance of motion or depth of field. Your're the 'Cassandra' YT photographers 😀.

[@artsilva]

Okay, curiosity is Killing me. Who was this ISO person? because I in the past have had heated debates with YT camera gear Influencers.

[@AndyBanner]

This person is not really thought of as a gear influencer, so it's unlikely you have had a heated debate with them.

[@artsilva]

@@AndyBanner Fair enough.

[@daviddaw999]

Andrew, I understand your polemic about the use of the phrase 'straight from the camera', but when I say that I am fully aware of what the camera has and hasn't done to the image. I suspect that many other photographers are just as aware as I am. It is merely shorthand for 'I have yet to sit down and spend an evening in post-processing.' For my friends it lets them know that I have posted my images without spending time cropping and adjusting the image in other ways. What I would say is that it obviously affects you deeply when people rudely and ignorantly disagree with you, and I would urge you for the sake of your physical and mental to let it go. Don't let it upset you.

[@AndyBanner]

I am not bothered about people disagreeing - opinions aren't facts; they're welcome to disagree. My issue is more that some people will not take any responsibility for their comments or, indeed, the hurt that they wish to deliberately dish out. The comment from the 100K sub photographer really rankles because, honestly, he should have known better - if you have the kind of following he does, you would anticipate an understanding of the technology he relies on for his income. Turning to SOOC. I guess people use the term in different ways. I think your meaning is one I haven't encountered; maybe I don't have enough friends I would show unfinished work to. A lot of people I have witnessed using SOOC are trying to be pious. Others have looked at my work and said things like, "but have you edited that?", clearly showing a total lack of understanding of the photographic process. Like anything, understanding how something works improves our overall ability to work with it to get the best results.

[@innercynic2784]

BS is the very "fuel" that jets YT along.

[@AndyBanner]

For sure. The problem is the same with all misinformation, enough people will believe it and swear it's the truth.

[@andreaspostler7519]

Nice pictures, i like them! Hey are inspirering me

[@AndyBanner]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@streetlegal008]

Photographers make the big mistake of stressing far too much over 'image quality'. It really is neither here nor there - unless you are in the scientific record business. So you have photographers who will insist that they must keep their ISO at minimum setting at all times. This is just foolishness. Use all of the tools in your box - and produce pictures which have merit at an 'atmospheric' level, rather than an 'image quality' level.

[@AndyBanner]

Use all the tools in the box for sure. But it also helps to understand how they work so you get the best out of them.