Another great show. I feel for you guys when I read some of the comments. For all those dissenters out there - it is good to question, but please remember that Marcus and the team are all extremely experienced photographers and their advice is backed-up by years of in-the-field learning and probably much research. On the other question, P.O. is absolutely correct, ISO pronounced EYESO is from the Greek word meaning equal. So for all you I.S.O. speakers man-up, accept it, deal with it, live with it and then I will believe you have an interest in photography.
Cracking episode as per guys, ignore the comments on people who know better. Where is their photography channel? Good to see you all this weekend. See you all soon, hopefully.
Hi PB FED, totally agree. Thank you Photography On Line for producing such a great professional programme (I dislike the word show, it is not a circus) It is probably the best of all the youtube content. Love the mythbusting and techie bits. The segment on lens compression a few months ago was great. I will recreate the experiment myself when I can find a 6 year old to help, as we know it only works when photographing a 6 year old :o)
I.S.O. is an acronym. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say each letter separately. It doesn't not come from the greek word for equal. Tell that to the International Organization of Standardization. PB KED I also tend to say EYESO but don't be that guy that thinks they know it all!
@@terrygoyan Hi Terry. Please check out the latest edition of P.O. at 18.30 minutes. My comment was not someone thinking they know it all, just a simple statement of fact. The last sentence was said tongue in cheek. I personally don't care whether it is pronounced I.S.O or Eyso.
I always thought ISO superseded the ASA (American Standards Association) and DIN (Deutsche Industrie Normen). As a student of photography more than three decades ago, the 'Langfords Book of Basic' and Advanced Photography was every UK photography students bible. So instead of googling, I took to said books and this is what it says, 'ISO International Organization for Standardization. Responsible for ISO film speed system. Combines previous ASA and DIN figures, e.g. ISO 400/27.' Pg 458, Langfords Advanced Photography 8th Edition. I do believe ISO, although isn't an Acronym is a globally recognised 'shortened' name for International Organization for Standardization.
The acronym ISO stands for “International Organization for Standardization”. However, camera ISO does not directly refer to the organization that creates various technology and product standards. Ever since two film standards called ASA and DIN were combined into ISO standards in 1974 (later revised for both film and digital photography), they were referred to as one word “ISO” from that point on. Although ISO initially defined only film sensitivity, it was later adopted by digital camera manufacturers with the purpose of maintaining similar brightness levels as film.
Hi Bangkok Photographer and Alien65. Thanks for your comments, which are all valid and correct. We asked "what does ISO stand for?" and then gave 4 answers - none of which were "International Organisation for Standardization", so this left only one as being the possible correct answer. We threw "Interntational Standards Organization" in there, as we knew that is what a vast majority of photographers think it stands for, but as you know, there is no such thing. Thanks for watching and for taking to the time to comment. All the best.
Back in the days of film, emulsions were produced to very strict ASA standards so that an ASA100 film should give the same results whether it was Kodak, Agfa, Basf or Fuji. The amount of silver halide used in the emulsion determined the film's sensitivity to light - the more silver used then the more sensitive the emulsion, but also the more 'grain' that could be seen. At the moment the shutter was opened, three things determined the exposure ie. aperture, shutter speed and the film ASA which was fixed unless 'pushed' in the development stage. Into the digital age and we have ISO. What many photographers are not aware of is that ISO is only applied after the exposure has been made - it is a kind of 'gain' control like those used in music mixers. The DXO labs have equipment that can actually measure ISO and have shown that its use in digital cameras is far from standard. The old standard of 100, 200, 400 etc. is only a guide as many cameras, even those belonging to the same manufacturer can vary from those markings as 100 ISO on a Nikon will not necessarily be the same as 100 ISO on a Canon. Ergo, if ISO was an acronym for International Organisation Standards then one would expect ISO ratings to be the same on every digital camera which sadly they are not. Please check out DXO Labs information on ISO for various cameras.
@@PhotographyOnline Correct, we don't have "International Organisation for Standardization" anymore, as it changed to ANSI (American National Standards Institute).
Agreed. I've always understood ASA to be American Standards Association which morphed into International Standardisation Organisation. Certainly nothing to do with Greek!
The "advertisement" for the Photography Online Toque (yeah, I'm from Canada) was awesome! I know it was to make a point, but that young lady could sell freezers to the Inuit in Arctic Canada LOL. Thank you for another great episode. I appreciate the information shared, through the efforts of the team. This channel is very helpful in improving my photography skills.
I’m heading to Iceland at the end of the month and I’ve been reviewing your videos about everything from tripods, to focal length to depth of field. This episode was very helpful in reminding me that you don’t need to focus stack if you get it right in camera. Thank you so much!
Focus stacking is about more than just getting everything in focus. It also allows one to use their lenses at their best performing apertures. For many of my lenses this is around f/4 or 5.6. Once I start getting up to f/7.1 or f/8 diffraction starts to appear. By using focus stacking, I can ensure that I get everything in focus with the absolute highest image quality possible with the lenses I use.
Also if your macro photographer, there is another benefit. Sure you can get everything in focus (sometimes) at f/8 or f/11 but distracting background could also show up. Doing a 5-8 focus stack, the DoF will fall off quicker at f/4 and f/5.6 and you get more pleasing bokeh.
I know that it has been said but ASA disappeared in 1987 and gave way to ISO or International Standards Organization. FYI, it's pronounced I S O and not Eye So as so many do. As an architectural photographer, I try both hyperfocal as well as focus stacking and find the latter to give the best results in my genre. But then my clients are OCD and demand tack sharp.
Sorry Jeffrey but you are mistaken about ISO. You are correct that it replaced ASA but there is no such thing as International Standards Organisation. It is the International Organisation for Standardization and they chose thier name from the Greek work Isos. If you still don’t believe us, check out the ISO website.
The hyperfocal technique seems to be supplanted by focus stacking with digital cameras. With film, which some of us grey haired ones remember, focus stacking was basically impossible to do while the hyperfocal technique was doable with a film.
Great episode as always , enjoyed the section on Focus and the video academy , i still feel Gavin Hardcastle has the best ever meaning of I.S.O , im sure most know this already but he says , and rightly so, ISO stands for Increasingly Shitty Outcome , i think that is the best description of it :-)
Hi Team: Another great video. I really appreciated the segment on hyperfocal techniques. I also liked the segment by Nick and I think I like the second image that he created. I am starting to feel much more comfortable with video, so thanks Harry for your segment. Cheers, Keith
My month is complete again… 👍 Seriously… I could listen to Markus’ technical advice all day. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the whole team of course… 😉 I just wish that I was in the UK to tag along on a photo shoot or three.
As usual another excellent show, especially loved the hyperfocal /dof expalntion by Marcus, also really liked going with Nick, just to take photos. Would like to see more of this kind of thing please.
Found the focusing segment useful, it helped to re enforce an area I’ve really been trying to focus on recently, sorry about the unintended pun. Great show guys.
As the range of acceptable focus created by any given aperture extends 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind, my understanding of the idea behind hyperfocus distance was to not "waste" the range of DOF that extends beyond infinity (the 2/3). By focusing at the hyperfocal distance, the DOF range beyond the focus point ends at infinity and not beyond it (wasted DOF). Regarding the "infinity range" of focus (e.g. 50mm lens focused at infinity has a range of focus from 50m to infinity independent of aperture), do you know of any published papers on this subject? Although I don't doubt the approximate range I would like to see the physics & math on that explained. I have not had any success via internet searches
Hi Scott. You need to remember that only objects on your plane of focus will ever be truly sharp, so it's a dangerous game to start focusing away from your subject, even if your depth of field will include it. If you enlarge the image enough, sooner or later it will become apparent that your subject is not sharp. So if your subject is at infinity and you have little of importance in front of it, then always focus on infinity and don't worry about the wasted DOF behind it. Only focus in front of your subject if you want to maximise sharpness on the foreground too. With regards to the infinity threshold being equal to your focal length in mm, this is just our own rule of thumb based on our own field tests. Just like DOF, this is dependent on aperture, image reproduction size and viewing distance, so it is only a rule of thumb intended to assist judgement rather than be a scientific equation. Hope this helps. Thanks for watching.
@@PhotographyOnline I don't use hyperfocal distance. The point of my comment was related to the concept of hyperfocal distance. It would seem your description does not match my understanding of the principles behind it.
@@PhotographyOnline Oh, and thanks for the details on the infinity threshold. Good to know that even without supporting math, it has been proven in the field! Great channel you guys are building!
I tend to agree with Wikipedia when they say that ISO stands for "International Standards Association". It used to be called ASA which was "American Standards Association". Adam Gibbs called it "Increasingly Shitty Outcome" in one of Gavin Hardcastle's skits! So true! Regardless, another great show.
Robert. Never ever use Wikipedia for your facts (unless you want to be wrong!). You can read the truth here on the ISO website - www.iso.org/about-us.html Thanks for watching. All the best.
@@PhotographyOnline ISO is the sensitivity scale standardized by the International Organization for Standardization and they have adopted ISO as the short form of their name. It's true the three letters do not represent the initial letters for the organization's name (which would be different in different languages) and they have chosen to derive their short name from the Greek for Equal, but ISO certainly does represent the International Organization for Standardization and it's important that photographers are aware of that otherwise the numbers on their camera dials could be arbitrary, with different cameras using different scales.
@@JoeyMudflats Richard - at no point did we say that ISO is not the International Organisation for Standardization”. We asked what ISO stood for, because most people pronounce it incorrectly. Hope this helps
@@PhotographyOnline Hmmm. Similarly, many people talk about Canon's autofocus EOS camera range as EE-OH-ESS rather than EE-OSS. It's a name, not a string of letters. And co-incidentally, Canon took the name from the Greek Goddess of the Dawn.
I watch hours and hours of videos on photography.. Your content is by far the best. Great topics, well presented and clearly really nice people 👍 thank you..
I have used the S rule (tilt) on a view camera to create a hyperfocal shot but I don't know if the tilt shift lenses for DSLR's work as well. I'd love to see a video on those lenses.
Always informative, beautifully presented, and entertaining. I can also recommend the Kingjoy tripod which I purchased from the online shop. Keep up the awesome work, I’m sure it inspires a lot of people to improve their photography, and brings more amateurs to the world of photography, and that’s a great thing.
I get how you work out the hyperfocal distance, but during the quiz, how did you know what aperture to use? Sorry if this is a dumb rookie question. In the meantime, bought your beanie last year…been wearing it all winter! Even stayed on my head in the Outer Hebrides in 80mph winds!! Love it! Love the show! Thanks to you all 🤗
Hi. The aperture decision is simply down to the unique conditions within each scene. The Aperture wasn’t part of the question but we included it in case it was useful. It will come with experience, so keep practicing as much as you can with your camera and try to learn from the results. Thanks for the purchase of the beanie - glad to hear it can stand up to 80mph winds (although we already knew that!)😆
thanks for the episode and great content. Marcus what are the limits for the "infinity" technique? what about focal lengths beyond 50mm and how close can the foreground target be in a deep vista shot? thanks again
Hi Andy. Thanks for the questions but I’ve covered all these in our feature on infinity. As it’s long winded to explain, the easiest thing is to watch our show which has Buzz Lightyear on the thumbnail and you’ll have all the info you require. Thanks for watching.
On DOF, yes - strive to get it right in camera, but focus stacking for landscapes / cityscapes / seascapes is extremely useful. I usually take 3 shots, close focus, many times within a few feet of an object(s) setting a mood or a leading line, mid distance focus, perhaps the subject, then at the background or infinity. Blending them together in post yields extremely sharp images from near to far. You cannot achieve this with one shot especially as I want to keep my aperture at f/11 or larger in order to avoid diffraction. Hyperfocal distance gives you an "acceptable" sharpness range. What's acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me. Blending shots from 3 in focus planes yields more than "acceptable" sharpness. Focus stacking is almost trivial in PhotoShop only taking a few minutes.
I'm learning more from this channel every month! Keep it up! I have a question. In the quiz, some f-stops were highlighted for maximizing DoF in those scenes. In the previous video on Infinity Focus, it was mentioned that the f-stop selected didn't really matter and that the best one should be the lens' sweet spot. Wouldn't that apply here as well? Perhaps those referenced apertures were the sweet spots for the lens used?
Hi Robert. For the photo of the boats on the loch and the castle, the sweet spot was used. For the astro shot, a wide aperture was used so as to avoid a super high ISO. For the landscape shot, a small aperture was used to gain more depth of field as there was foreground in that one. Does that make sense?
@@PhotographyOnline if you swap his word 'focus' for "sharpness", his statement makes more sense, i.e. the point at which diffraction impacts acceptable sharpness. F/4 seems a little low in my opinion, but perhaps M4/3 has that issue? For my Fuji XT-5, aficionados tend to place diffraction limits in the f/7.1 to f/8 range.
@@PhotographyOnline OK, but clearly maths isn't my strong suite, or I'm not getting it as 23m isn't 1/3 of the distance is between 10m and 50m it? Its 1/3 plus 10m, so is the calculation then; 1/3rd plus your nearest subject you want in focus distance?
@@andrewmactier5215 Hi Andrew. The 10 meters was beginning from the camera sensor and extends outwards too 10 meters to get to 10 mts. Once you understand this all the "maths" work out. 50 - 10 = 40, 40/3 =13 (ish) add the 10 mts to the 13 mts you get 23 mts. Thats where you should focus for this focal length. Hope this helps.
Comment about the final (best?) image from Scarborough beach - beach and water look lovely but my attention is completely taken by red flag/sign upper left hand side. Were you not tempted to crop it out or remove in post?
Hi. We would never clone out such objects. The red flag was intentionally included as it added to the story of the shot. Without such elements, photos can easily become sterile. Obviously this down to personal opinion, so you may disagree. That’s what makes photography interesting - there’s always differing views.
Focusing using glasses. I have two pairs of glasses. One for computer screens and close up writing on my desk, and the other pair is for long distance. I can't see very well without my glasses so if I'm doing landscape photography and looking through the view finder. Which pair of glasses should I use. Should I wear my close up glasses or my distance glasses. Or do I swap between them and reset the diopter each time I change? This has been a thorn in my side for some time now and I haven't solved the issue despite the amount of time. Is there something that you can suggest I try or should I maybe ask my optometrist again. Last time I asked he couldn't help me as he had no idea about taking photographs. Anyway if you can help me or if anyone in the community has a similar issue if you could let me know that would be great.
Hi Andrew. It is difficult to answer this problem without first hand experience in it, and we don't need to wear glasses, so it's really not something we can make any good suggestions for. I would imagine that you should set your diopter so that the viewfinder looks sharp when using your distant glasses, as these are what you need to look at the scene. Then you'll need to change to your reading glasses to look at the screen of the camera, but this doesn't interfere with the viewfinder diopter.
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with your definition of ISO. I was taught it stands for "International Organization for Standardization", an organization that sets standards for different types of measurements. In the case of photography....the measurement of light. I'm not sure why they didn't use IOS given their full name, but ISO is what they, and we, use.
Hi Robert. You seem to have misinterpreted the question. We asked “what does ISO stand for?”, but you seem to be asking what it represents - two totally different questions. You are correct that ISO represents the International Organization for Standardization” but if you go to their website and read how they chose their name, you will see that ISO is an abbreviation for Isos - the Greek word for equal. The purpose of the question was to make people realise that it should not be pronounced “eye ess oh” but “eye so”, or if you want to be really correct… “eee-so”. Thanks for watching.
We use Premier Pro but there are many other packages out there which are just as capable. We have no experience in how these compare so cannot say which ones are best. Premier Pro is great when it isn’t crashing!
Hi Alex. That’s just the name that the international Organisation for Standardisation chose. So ISO doesn’t mean “equal”, but they decided on their name because of their initials and the Greek word Isos.
@@PhotographyOnline I truly wasn't offended because I'm on my own journey, and I'm right where I should be. To be clear though, "I'm not knocking those who focus stack" was immediately followed by, "however, I don't do photography so I can sit in front a of a computer all day...if you enjoy editing more...you might like long winded post production." The word "however", in this context, usually means that I don't really believe the words that I just said and this is what I really think. Anyhow, I did learn something which was the point of watching the video. - Take care
I think the answer is both. International Organisation for Standards (IOS) but their web site is ISO, International Standards Organisation. The web site goes onto say they decided on ISO to avoid confusion in translation, so ISO fitted in with the Greek ISOS, meaning equal. i.e 1 litre of water in UK would be the same as 1 litre of water in Jamaica.
@@PhotographyOnline No, but there is the International Organization for Standardization which is of course what @Donald Goldney was referring to. I'm not very happy with the robust way in which you've been defending your quiz answer. While it's true that ISO is not the initials of the organization, it is the name they've chosen for themselves. The derivation from the first three letters of the Greek word for Equal isn't really the point. ISO 100 is 100 on the sensitivity scale standardized by ISO, the International Organization for Standardization. That's what it means in context. ISO also administer many other standards.
By the way, there's no such thing as the International Standards Organisation. It's the International Organization for Standardization. Do I get a prize?
In regards to focus stacking, if your macro photographer, there is a benefit. Sure you can get everything in focus (sometimes) at f/8 or f/11 but distracting background could also show up. Doing a 5-8 focus stack, the DoF will fall off quicker at f/4 and f/5.6 and you get more pleasing bokeh. If the last frame is showing a little too much background, just cut it out of the stack. With the IBIS in my Olympus, I can hand hold my focus stack.
I can't understand why they have remove the depth of field scale of the modern lenses. As a man that spent most of his time behind old school medium format cameras it was just a normal thing to set the depth of field for the area you was photographing rather than pointing and focusing on a subject. Old school press photographers used to preset the lens and just fire away. Most modern photographer really don't understand how to setup a lens and definitely don't fully understand depth of field.
I feel bad. The content and level of of advise is unlike anything I follow in photography. I feel like I should at least buy a hat. Because this show is off the hook.
Come on. Delete the app. OK big disclaimer - I'm guessing what they are having never used one. (Outch!) But in the days of film with macro and tubes etc I found ye olde Lens Tables invaluable. I'm guessing the app is just a modern day version of this? If so that app is based on very old sound physics. Not to mention the old lenses that had most of this marked on their barrels for f-stop and distance. Should they also be 'rubbed off' your lens (aka deleted)?
Hi Kill Pop. All tables and lens markings are intended for guidance only. The problem with many modern day digital shooters is that they assume such figures give an assurance of sharpness, and they then wonder what they are doing wrong. The purpose of this feature was to highlight this issue and try to encourage everyone to set their own standards and then work out how to achieve them by using their head instead of an app. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for watching.
@@PhotographyOnline I did not mean instead of an app. 8:30 has a list of Considerations and some of those exactly match Lens Tables like closest point , furthest point, as well as focus distance and f stop to achieve the desired outcome. Long time since I've seen them so all IIRC, but if there is no way to preview or review best guess is those guides (or app?) IMO as they are quite specific in reinforcing anything you might go with with your head. You head could even get it wrong, those guides, based on optical physics, shouldn't.
Hi Scott. ISO for digital is the same as for film, but ISO doesn't stand for International Organization for Standardization, otherwise it would be IOS! You can read about it here - www.iso.org/about-us.html
@@scottdimond6763 I have to say I agree, I've just Googled a number of different digital imaging websites and the following is typical of the definition of ISO "The acronym ISO itself is a reference to the International Organization for Standardization. However this organization does far more than define camera sensitivities, it promotes universal standards for measurements of all different types, on an international level. Fun fact: Instead of calling themselves the IOS, the title "ISO" is in reference to isos, (ίσος) which means "equal". Previously, film sensitivity was also measured a similar way by another organization, the ASA or American Standards Association. This has been superseded by ISO in modern times, but the measurement itself and the scale remain effectively the same."
@@PhotographyOnline From this website, it seems that the International Standards Organisation intended for ISO to represent their name in the same way as ASA stood for American Standards Authority but thought that non-English speaking countries would try to translate this into their own language and avoided this by telling them that ISO was a Greek word rather than an acronym. If the intention was not to name ISO after themselves I'm sure they could have come up with a better name than calling it after three quarters of the Greek word for "equal".
Another great show. I feel for you guys when I read some of the comments. For all those dissenters out there - it is good to question, but please remember that Marcus and the team are all extremely experienced photographers and their advice is backed-up by years of in-the-field learning and probably much research. On the other question, P.O. is absolutely correct, ISO pronounced EYESO is from the Greek word meaning equal. So for all you I.S.O. speakers man-up, accept it, deal with it, live with it and then I will believe you have an interest in photography.
It's okay. We welcome all comments as it is good to have a debate (as long as we are right!).
Cracking episode as per guys, ignore the comments on people who know better. Where is their photography channel? Good to see you all this weekend. See you all soon, hopefully.
Hi PB FED, totally agree. Thank you Photography On Line for producing such a great professional programme (I dislike the word show, it is not a circus) It is probably the best of all the youtube content.
Love the mythbusting and techie bits. The segment on lens compression a few months ago was great. I will recreate the experiment myself when I can find a 6 year old to help, as we know it only works when photographing a 6 year old :o)
I.S.O. is an acronym. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say each letter separately. It doesn't not come from the greek word for equal.
Tell that to the International Organization of Standardization. PB KED I also tend to say EYESO but don't be that guy that thinks they know it all!
@@terrygoyan Hi Terry. Please check out the latest edition of P.O. at 18.30 minutes. My comment was not someone thinking they know it all, just a simple statement of fact. The last sentence was said tongue in cheek. I personally don't care whether it is pronounced I.S.O or Eyso.
I always thought ISO superseded the ASA (American Standards Association) and DIN (Deutsche Industrie Normen). As a student of photography more than three decades ago, the 'Langfords Book of Basic' and Advanced Photography was every UK photography students bible. So instead of googling, I took to said books and this is what it says, 'ISO International Organization for Standardization. Responsible for ISO film speed system. Combines previous ASA and DIN figures, e.g. ISO 400/27.' Pg 458, Langfords Advanced Photography 8th Edition. I do believe ISO, although isn't an Acronym is a globally recognised 'shortened' name for International Organization for Standardization.
The acronym ISO stands for “International Organization for Standardization”. However, camera ISO does not directly refer to the organization that creates various technology and product standards. Ever since two film standards called ASA and DIN were combined into ISO standards in 1974 (later revised for both film and digital photography), they were referred to as one word “ISO” from that point on. Although ISO initially defined only film sensitivity, it was later adopted by digital camera manufacturers with the purpose of maintaining similar brightness levels as film.
Hi Bangkok Photographer and Alien65. Thanks for your comments, which are all valid and correct. We asked "what does ISO stand for?" and then gave 4 answers - none of which were "International Organisation for Standardization", so this left only one as being the possible correct answer. We threw "Interntational Standards Organization" in there, as we knew that is what a vast majority of photographers think it stands for, but as you know, there is no such thing. Thanks for watching and for taking to the time to comment. All the best.
Back in the days of film, emulsions were produced to very strict ASA standards so that an ASA100 film should give the same results whether it was Kodak, Agfa, Basf or Fuji. The amount of silver halide used in the emulsion determined the film's sensitivity to light - the more silver used then the more sensitive the emulsion, but also the more 'grain' that could be seen. At the moment the shutter was opened, three things determined the exposure ie. aperture, shutter speed and the film ASA which was fixed unless 'pushed' in the development stage. Into the digital age and we have ISO. What many photographers are not aware of is that ISO is only applied after the exposure has been made - it is a kind of 'gain' control like those used in music mixers. The DXO labs have equipment that can actually measure ISO and have shown that its use in digital cameras is far from standard. The old standard of 100, 200, 400 etc. is only a guide as many cameras, even those belonging to the same manufacturer can vary from those markings as 100 ISO on a Nikon will not necessarily be the same as 100 ISO on a Canon. Ergo, if ISO was an acronym for International Organisation Standards then one would expect ISO ratings to be the same on every digital camera which sadly they are not. Please check out DXO Labs information on ISO for various cameras.
@@PhotographyOnline Correct, we don't have "International Organisation for Standardization" anymore, as it changed to ANSI (American National Standards Institute).
Agreed. I've always understood ASA to be American Standards Association which morphed into International Standardisation Organisation.
Certainly nothing to do with Greek!
The "advertisement" for the Photography Online Toque (yeah, I'm from Canada) was awesome! I know it was to make a point, but that young lady could sell freezers to the Inuit in Arctic Canada LOL. Thank you for another great episode. I appreciate the information shared, through the efforts of the team. This channel is very helpful in improving my photography skills.
Thanks David - we’ll let her know she has a job!
I’m heading to Iceland at the end of the month and I’ve been reviewing your videos about everything from tripods, to focal length to depth of field. This episode was very helpful in reminding me that you don’t need to focus stack if you get it right in camera. Thank you so much!
Have fun Ted!
You guys are the real thing. You cut through so much nonsense, thank you.
Cheers Charles. Great to hear you appreciate it.
Loving this channel. The Video Academy is just what I need at the moment - thank you so much.
Great show guys! Loved the bloopers, & the hair restoring beanie...! ☺️
Thanks for watching.
Fantastic episode ! Hyperfocal & Infinity expeditions are extremely relevant for my stage of learning for quick recall. Really helpful, thank you.
Our pleasure!
Very enjoyable and super professional looking.
Thank you very much!
Another great show, keep up the good work!
Thanks James.
Excellent! Really enjoyed this show.
Glad to hear it!
Focus stacking is about more than just getting everything in focus. It also allows one to use their lenses at their best performing apertures. For many of my lenses this is around f/4 or 5.6. Once I start getting up to f/7.1 or f/8 diffraction starts to appear. By using focus stacking, I can ensure that I get everything in focus with the absolute highest image quality possible with the lenses I use.
Also if your macro photographer, there is another benefit. Sure you can get everything in focus (sometimes) at f/8 or f/11 but distracting background could also show up. Doing a 5-8 focus stack, the DoF will fall off quicker at f/4 and f/5.6 and you get more pleasing bokeh.
@@RobShootPhotos Agreed. I have even done a macro focus stack at f/2.8 to get dreamy bokeh/background behind what I wanted in focus.
Another wonderful show! Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
The little girl makes my day every time she's on. :)
Thanks TJ
I know that it has been said but ASA disappeared in 1987 and gave way to ISO or International Standards Organization. FYI, it's pronounced I S O and not Eye So as so many do. As an architectural photographer, I try both hyperfocal as well as focus stacking and find the latter to give the best results in my genre. But then my clients are OCD and demand tack sharp.
Sorry Jeffrey but you are mistaken about ISO. You are correct that it replaced ASA but there is no such thing as International Standards Organisation. It is the International Organisation for Standardization and they chose thier name from the Greek work Isos. If you still don’t believe us, check out the ISO website.
Fantastic job yet again guys, Nice to also see you are human and actually do make mistakes with the clips at the end. Keep up the great work.
Cheers Colin
Excellent
The hyperfocal technique seems to be supplanted by focus stacking with digital cameras. With film, which some of us grey haired ones remember, focus stacking was basically impossible to do while the hyperfocal technique was doable with a film.
Thanks for your input Jay. We're sure your hair isn't that grey!
Actually it is (was) absolutely possible, if you had a lab!
I really enjoyed the show. Informative and professional.
Great to hear!
Great show!
Great viewing!
Another great show guys 😊
Thanks for watching Philip. All the best
Thanks guys for another very informative and enjoyable show!
Glad you enjoyed it
Great episode as always , enjoyed the section on Focus and the video academy , i still feel Gavin Hardcastle has the best ever meaning of I.S.O , im sure most know this already but he says , and rightly so, ISO stands for Increasingly Shitty Outcome , i think that is the best description of it :-)
Hi Team: Another great video. I really appreciated the segment on hyperfocal techniques. I also liked the segment by Nick and I think I like the second image that he created. I am starting to feel much more comfortable with video, so thanks Harry for your segment. Cheers, Keith
Thanks for sharing!!
My month is complete again… 👍
Seriously… I could listen to Markus’ technical advice all day. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the whole team of course… 😉
I just wish that I was in the UK to tag along on a photo shoot or three.
Thanks David. Glad you enjoyed another one. We're back into our bi-weekly schedule now, so not long to wait for the next fix!
I also wish I could get to the British Isles for one of their workshops. The hyperfocal techniques Markus teaches are very enlightening.
dayum, this is the real thing...thank you a million for such a clear explanation for a dumb hobbyist like me..
As usual another excellent show, especially loved the hyperfocal /dof expalntion by Marcus, also really liked going with Nick, just to take photos. Would like to see more of this kind of thing please.
Your wish will be granted Lynn! Thanks for watching
Found the focusing segment useful, it helped to re enforce an area I’ve really been trying to focus on recently, sorry about the unintended pun. Great show guys.
Cheers Steven. Glad to hear it was helpful.
Excellent show thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
As the range of acceptable focus created by any given aperture extends 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind, my understanding of the idea behind hyperfocus distance was to not "waste" the range of DOF that extends beyond infinity (the 2/3). By focusing at the hyperfocal distance, the DOF range beyond the focus point ends at infinity and not beyond it (wasted DOF). Regarding the "infinity range" of focus (e.g. 50mm lens focused at infinity has a range of focus from 50m to infinity independent of aperture), do you know of any published papers on this subject? Although I don't doubt the approximate range I would like to see the physics & math on that explained. I have not had any success via internet searches
Hi Scott. You need to remember that only objects on your plane of focus will ever be truly sharp, so it's a dangerous game to start focusing away from your subject, even if your depth of field will include it. If you enlarge the image enough, sooner or later it will become apparent that your subject is not sharp. So if your subject is at infinity and you have little of importance in front of it, then always focus on infinity and don't worry about the wasted DOF behind it. Only focus in front of your subject if you want to maximise sharpness on the foreground too. With regards to the infinity threshold being equal to your focal length in mm, this is just our own rule of thumb based on our own field tests. Just like DOF, this is dependent on aperture, image reproduction size and viewing distance, so it is only a rule of thumb intended to assist judgement rather than be a scientific equation. Hope this helps. Thanks for watching.
@@PhotographyOnline I don't use hyperfocal distance. The point of my comment was related to the concept of hyperfocal distance. It would seem your description does not match my understanding of the principles behind it.
@@PhotographyOnline Oh, and thanks for the details on the infinity threshold. Good to know that even without supporting math, it has been proven in the field! Great channel you guys are building!
I tend to agree with Wikipedia when they say that ISO stands for "International Standards Association". It used to be called ASA which was "American Standards Association". Adam Gibbs called it "Increasingly Shitty Outcome" in one of Gavin Hardcastle's skits! So true! Regardless, another great show.
Robert. Never ever use Wikipedia for your facts (unless you want to be wrong!). You can read the truth here on the ISO website - www.iso.org/about-us.html
Thanks for watching. All the best.
@@PhotographyOnline ISO is the sensitivity scale standardized by the International Organization for Standardization and they have adopted ISO as the short form of their name. It's true the three letters do not represent the initial letters for the organization's name (which would be different in different languages) and they have chosen to derive their short name from the Greek for Equal, but ISO certainly does represent the International Organization for Standardization and it's important that photographers are aware of that otherwise the numbers on their camera dials could be arbitrary, with different cameras using different scales.
@@JoeyMudflats Richard - at no point did we say that ISO is not the International Organisation for Standardization”. We asked what ISO stood for, because most people pronounce it incorrectly. Hope this helps
@@PhotographyOnline Hmmm. Similarly, many people talk about Canon's autofocus EOS camera range as EE-OH-ESS rather than EE-OSS. It's a name, not a string of letters. And co-incidentally, Canon took the name from the Greek Goddess of the Dawn.
@@JoeyMudflats yes you are correct. Thanks for watching
I watch hours and hours of videos on photography.. Your content is by far the best. Great topics, well presented and clearly really nice people 👍 thank you..
Nice people? Even Harry?!! Thanks Francis. All the best.
Great show
Thanks Eugene.
I have used the S rule (tilt) on a view camera to create a hyperfocal shot but I don't know if the tilt shift lenses for DSLR's work as well. I'd love to see a video on those lenses.
Hi John. They work in the same way, but we will do a feature on them at some point because you're not the first person to ask. Thanks for watching.
Always informative, beautifully presented, and entertaining. I can also recommend the Kingjoy tripod which I purchased from the online shop. Keep up the awesome work, I’m sure it inspires a lot of people to improve their photography, and brings more amateurs to the world of photography, and that’s a great thing.
Thanks for sharing!
Had Marcus had his hair permed?? lol just pulling your leg mystery , great show yet again, keep up the good work
He's just growing it while he can! Thanks for watching again.
Very nice
Thanks ever so much for your helpful, interesting Show with the special funny bits, big thumbs up to everyone involved.
Cheers Stefan and thanks for your support.
wonderful thank you all so much made my wet and windy day in sussex feel much brighter all the best from trev
Great to hear Trev. All the best
I get how you work out the hyperfocal distance, but during the quiz, how did you know what aperture to use? Sorry if this is a dumb rookie question. In the meantime, bought your beanie last year…been wearing it all winter! Even stayed on my head in the Outer Hebrides in 80mph winds!! Love it! Love the show! Thanks to you all 🤗
Hi. The aperture decision is simply down to the unique conditions within each scene. The Aperture wasn’t part of the question but we included it in case it was useful. It will come with experience, so keep practicing as much as you can with your camera and try to learn from the results. Thanks for the purchase of the beanie - glad to hear it can stand up to 80mph winds (although we already knew that!)😆
I thought perhaps there was an additional calculation that I had missed. Many thanks! 👍🏻
Great show as always well done guys great work 💪
Glad you enjoyed it
thanks for the episode and great content. Marcus what are the limits for the "infinity" technique? what about focal lengths beyond 50mm and how close can the foreground target be in a deep vista shot? thanks again
Hi Andy. Thanks for the questions but I’ve covered all these in our feature on infinity. As it’s long winded to explain, the easiest thing is to watch our show which has Buzz Lightyear on the thumbnail and you’ll have all the info you require. Thanks for watching.
On DOF, yes - strive to get it right in camera, but focus stacking for landscapes / cityscapes / seascapes is extremely useful. I usually take 3 shots, close focus, many times within a few feet of an object(s) setting a mood or a leading line, mid distance focus, perhaps the subject, then at the background or infinity. Blending them together in post yields extremely sharp images from near to far. You cannot achieve this with one shot especially as I want to keep my aperture at f/11 or larger in order to avoid diffraction. Hyperfocal distance gives you an "acceptable" sharpness range. What's acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me. Blending shots from 3 in focus planes yields more than "acceptable" sharpness. Focus stacking is almost trivial in PhotoShop only taking a few minutes.
Thanks for watching and for sharing your views.
Would the Canon 5d mark IV be the second best choice of Canon camera for wild life photography
Hi Stewart. The 5D iv is the best of the DSLR cameras for wildlife (excluding the 1Dx III). Hope this helps. All the best.
Marcus your daughters advert is the star of this show! Lovely stuff as per!
thanks Peter.
@@PhotographyOnline I should add that the entire team are a joy to watch every episode with terrific varied content Cheers ~ Peter
Gutted I missed this live this month..
Great show again guys. Loved Shannon's part. 😆
Glad you enjoyed it, but please make sure you address your terrible attendence record!
@@PhotographyOnline it's the wife's fault making me Decorate. 😭
@@craigmaisfield3247 have you heard of something called divorce?
@@PhotographyOnline 🤣🤣 sorry guys but I have please her sometimes. 😜
Dude, that knocking sound scared the .... outta me. I thought someone was at the door and I have headphones on! Nice info btw.
Glad you enjoyed
Hi Mate, you prefer to shoot in JPEG or RAW setting??
Depends on the circumstances
I'm learning more from this channel every month! Keep it up! I have a question. In the quiz, some f-stops were highlighted for maximizing DoF in those scenes. In the previous video on Infinity Focus, it was mentioned that the f-stop selected didn't really matter and that the best one should be the lens' sweet spot. Wouldn't that apply here as well? Perhaps those referenced apertures were the sweet spots for the lens used?
Hi Robert. For the photo of the boats on the loch and the castle, the sweet spot was used. For the astro shot, a wide aperture was used so as to avoid a super high ISO. For the landscape shot, a small aperture was used to gain more depth of field as there was foreground in that one. Does that make sense?
You also need to consider that focus is diffraction limited with modern cameras at apertures above about f / 4 (on my camera)
Not sure what that means Maurice?
@@PhotographyOnline if you swap his word 'focus' for "sharpness", his statement makes more sense, i.e. the point at which diffraction impacts acceptable sharpness. F/4 seems a little low in my opinion, but perhaps M4/3 has that issue? For my Fuji XT-5, aficionados tend to place diffraction limits in the f/7.1 to f/8 range.
Love it
Thanks as always for watching Ian.
Wouldn't miss it
Hi. Great stuff, but I'm not sure I understand how you calculate that 1/3rd of the difference between 10m and 50m is 23m. Can you explain?
Hi Andrew. Difference between 10m and 50m = 40m. 1/3rd of 40 = 13. 10m plus 13 = 23m. Hope that makes sense
@@PhotographyOnline OK, but clearly maths isn't my strong suite, or I'm not getting it as 23m isn't 1/3 of the distance is between 10m and 50m it? Its 1/3 plus 10m, so is the calculation then; 1/3rd plus your nearest subject you want in focus distance?
@@andrewmactier5215 Hi Andrew. The 10 meters was beginning from the camera sensor and extends outwards too 10 meters to get to 10 mts. Once you understand this all the "maths" work out. 50 - 10 = 40, 40/3 =13 (ish) add the 10 mts to the 13 mts you get 23 mts. Thats where you should focus for this focal length. Hope this helps.
Comment about the final (best?) image from Scarborough beach - beach and water look lovely but my attention is completely taken by red flag/sign upper left hand side. Were you not tempted to crop it out or remove in post?
Hi. We would never clone out such objects. The red flag was intentionally included as it added to the story of the shot. Without such elements, photos can easily become sterile. Obviously this down to personal opinion, so you may disagree. That’s what makes photography interesting - there’s always differing views.
Where was the castle in the video?
Thomas Heaton would be freaking out about the footprints in the sand.
Thank god we’re not him then!
I missed the premiere this morning, Pacific Standard Time, but I had a good reason, I took the family out on a wildlife photo shoot.
We forgive you Jeff
Focusing using glasses. I have two pairs of glasses. One for computer screens and close up writing on my desk, and the other pair is for long distance.
I can't see very well without my glasses so if I'm doing landscape photography and looking through the view finder. Which pair of glasses should I use. Should I wear my close up glasses or my distance glasses. Or do I swap between them and reset the diopter each time I change?
This has been a thorn in my side for some time now and I haven't solved the issue despite the amount of time. Is there something that you can suggest I try or should I maybe ask my optometrist again.
Last time I asked he couldn't help me as he had no idea about taking photographs.
Anyway if you can help me or if anyone in the community has a similar issue if you could let me know that would be great.
Hi Andrew. It is difficult to answer this problem without first hand experience in it, and we don't need to wear glasses, so it's really not something we can make any good suggestions for. I would imagine that you should set your diopter so that the viewfinder looks sharp when using your distant glasses, as these are what you need to look at the scene. Then you'll need to change to your reading glasses to look at the screen of the camera, but this doesn't interfere with the viewfinder diopter.
@@PhotographyOnline thanks for your time and assistance with my question.kind regards
I'm as likely to refer to ISO as film speed, gain or ASA.
All would be correct
What is the record number of takes for a scene? And who's the culprit?
Thanks for the great show!
We couldn't possibly reveal that sort of information!!!
@@PhotographyOnline bet its Harry !!!!
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with your definition of ISO. I was taught it stands for "International Organization for Standardization", an organization that sets standards for different types of measurements. In the case of photography....the measurement of light. I'm not sure why they didn't use IOS given their full name, but ISO is what they, and we, use.
Hi Robert. You seem to have misinterpreted the question. We asked “what does ISO stand for?”, but you seem to be asking what it represents - two totally different questions. You are correct that ISO represents the International Organization for Standardization” but if you go to their website and read how they chose their name, you will see that ISO is an abbreviation for Isos - the Greek word for equal. The purpose of the question was to make people realise that it should not be pronounced “eye ess oh” but “eye so”, or if you want to be really correct… “eee-so”. Thanks for watching.
what would you say was a good video edit software ?
We use Premier Pro but there are many other packages out there which are just as capable. We have no experience in how these compare so cannot say which ones are best. Premier Pro is great when it isn’t crashing!
The camera manufacturers Should have called it G.OT. !! Gain over Time ! Which is what it (ISO) Actually does!! 👍🏼😊
Nah. not Eyesos but Eesos. Lol. Great show.
Cheers Edmond
Great show as always. I’ll start supporting. I’ve already gotten a lot of information for free from you - it’s time I pay back :)
Thanks very much Vijay. All the best
Why should EQUAL refer to the film speed? What is it equal to?
Hi Alex. That’s just the name that the international Organisation for Standardisation chose. So ISO doesn’t mean “equal”, but they decided on their name because of their initials and the Greek word Isos.
Neat
Thanks!
B 😊
Wrong!
The debate is still raging (see John Klopper's comment above) but the majority are agreeing with you that answer 'B' is correct.
I was always led to believe ISO stood for International Organization for Standardization ?
It represents that, but doesn’t stand for that, otherwise it would be IOS.
To the guy in the red jacket: Perhaps leave out the condescending vibe next time. Maybe I'm focus stacking because I lack knowledge and or experience.
You mean the part where he specifically said "I'm not knocking those who focus stack"?!! What more do you want him to say to avoid offending you?
@@PhotographyOnline I truly wasn't offended because I'm on my own journey, and I'm right where I should be. To be clear though, "I'm not knocking those who focus stack" was immediately followed by, "however, I don't do photography so I can sit in front a of a computer all day...if you enjoy editing more...you might like long winded post production." The word "however", in this context, usually means that I don't really believe the words that I just said and this is what I really think. Anyhow, I did learn something which was the point of watching the video. - Take care
But what if you hear ISO and still think ASA?
They are linked, so it's not a problem.
Surely your comment on iso is incorrect
You mean the quiz question? If so - please read here... www.iso.org/about-us.html
Surely it means “ international standards organisation “?
There’s no such thing!
I think the answer is both. International Organisation for Standards (IOS) but their web site is ISO, International Standards Organisation. The web site goes onto say they decided on ISO to avoid confusion in translation, so ISO fitted in with the Greek ISOS, meaning equal. i.e 1 litre of water in UK would be the same as 1 litre of water in Jamaica.
@@PhotographyOnline No, but there is the International Organization for Standardization which is of course what @Donald Goldney was referring to.
I'm not very happy with the robust way in which you've been defending your quiz answer. While it's true that ISO is not the initials of the organization, it is the name they've chosen for themselves. The derivation from the first three letters of the Greek word for Equal isn't really the point. ISO 100 is 100 on the sensitivity scale standardized by ISO, the International Organization for Standardization. That's what it means in context. ISO also administer many other standards.
I would love to purchase your merchz but the shipping charges makes it hard for me 😢
Sorry Marc. We don't hike up the shipping charges - they are what they are - out of our control. Where are you based?
@@PhotographyOnline a small hill station in Northeast India.
Well, now I have to buy a beanie for my fat, bald head. Thank you very much.
Our pleasure Pete!
I'm not convinced that Marcus Marcus daughter shouldn't be appearing in regular ads on the show! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Don’t give her ideas!
@@PhotographyOnline
🤣🤣😁🤣🤣🤔🤔🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣
CDs on the feet of the tripod? What the actual hell? :)))
We know! But some people actually think this helps!
I know. A pretty famous blog tog that recommended this, !!
By the way, there's no such thing as the International Standards Organisation. It's the International Organization for Standardization. Do I get a prize?
No, because we never said there was such a thing. Nice try though!
In regards to focus stacking, if your macro photographer, there is a benefit. Sure you can get everything in focus (sometimes) at f/8 or f/11 but distracting background could also show up. Doing a 5-8 focus stack, the DoF will fall off quicker at f/4 and f/5.6 and you get more pleasing bokeh. If the last frame is showing a little too much background, just cut it out of the stack. With the IBIS in my Olympus, I can hand hold my focus stack.
Good to know Rob. Thanks for watching
I can't understand why they have remove the depth of field scale of the modern lenses. As a man that spent most of his time behind old school medium format cameras it was just a normal thing to set the depth of field for the area you was photographing rather than pointing and focusing on a subject. Old school press photographers used to preset the lens and just fire away. Most modern photographer really don't understand how to setup a lens and definitely don't fully understand depth of field.
Agree Geoff, which is why we thought it would be useful to cover it on the show. Thanks for watching
I feel bad. The content and level of of advise is unlike anything I follow in photography. I feel like I should at least buy a hat. Because this show is off the hook.
Cheers Adam. No need to feel bad - we're happy to help.
I'm pretty sure ISO stands for International Organisation for Standardisation. Earlier we had ASA witch stands for America Standards Association.
Then it would be IOS! You can read how they chose their name on the “about” page on the ISO website
Come on. Delete the app. OK big disclaimer - I'm guessing what they are having never used one. (Outch!) But in the days of film with macro and tubes etc I found ye olde Lens Tables invaluable. I'm guessing the app is just a modern day version of this? If so that app is based on very old sound physics. Not to mention the old lenses that had most of this marked on their barrels for f-stop and distance. Should they also be 'rubbed off' your lens (aka deleted)?
Hi Kill Pop. All tables and lens markings are intended for guidance only. The problem with many modern day digital shooters is that they assume such figures give an assurance of sharpness, and they then wonder what they are doing wrong. The purpose of this feature was to highlight this issue and try to encourage everyone to set their own standards and then work out how to achieve them by using their head instead of an app. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for watching.
@@PhotographyOnline I did not mean instead of an app. 8:30 has a list of Considerations and some of those exactly match Lens Tables like closest point , furthest point, as well as focus distance and f stop to achieve the desired outcome. Long time since I've seen them so all IIRC, but if there is no way to preview or review best guess is those guides (or app?) IMO as they are quite specific in reinforcing anything you might go with with your head. You head could even get it wrong, those guides, based on optical physics, shouldn't.
A. isos
Correct
I swear ISO is International Standards Organisation... Can someone else back me up here?
There’s no such thing as International Standards Organisation Jordan. Read the “it’s all in the name” section here - www.iso.org/about-us.html
I beg to differ. ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization. Google it to find out.
Sorry John but you’re wrong. Try looking at the ISO website rather than Google (which is not a reliable source of reference).
Hi Scott. ISO for digital is the same as for film, but ISO doesn't stand for International Organization for Standardization, otherwise it would be IOS! You can read about it here - www.iso.org/about-us.html
@@scottdimond6763 I have to say I agree, I've just Googled a number of different digital imaging websites and the following is typical of the definition of ISO "The acronym ISO itself is a reference to the International Organization for Standardization. However this organization does far more than define camera sensitivities, it promotes universal standards for measurements of all different types, on an international level.
Fun fact: Instead of calling themselves the IOS, the title "ISO" is in reference to isos, (ίσος) which means "equal".
Previously, film sensitivity was also measured a similar way by another organization, the ASA or American Standards Association. This has been superseded by ISO in modern times, but the measurement itself and the scale remain effectively the same."
Back in the film days it was ASA for American Standard Association and then there was International Standards Organization.
@@PhotographyOnline From this website, it seems that the International Standards Organisation intended for ISO to represent their name in the same way as ASA stood for American Standards Authority but thought that non-English speaking countries would try to translate this into their own language and avoided this by telling them that ISO was a Greek word rather than an acronym. If the intention was not to name ISO after themselves I'm sure they could have come up with a better name than calling it after three quarters of the Greek word for "equal".
Another brilliant episode. Thanks!
Thank you for another great episode!
You are welcome. Thanks for watching