I am old. It was A.S.A. so I have always said it as I.S.O....I may be wrong but , does is really matter? I have the position that I want my ISO high enough that I can use a decent shutter speed as well as keeping my f-stop kind of in the middle. However, I am just a hobby photographer. No one sees my pictures... rarely are they shared. It is always a dance... trying to balance the triangle to get the picture we are looking for. That's the fun of photography!
EXACTLY! Easter, we wanted family pics... the girls took position... the breeze had their hair standing straight up. It was just crazy. Not two minutes before , it was dead calm!
😂😂😂 there's always breeze! Try to take a phocus stack, an hdr image or an hdr phocus stack, you will get breeze. I think it's part of our cameras firmware
Back in the before times, I remember taking my 100 foot rolls of ISO 400 film, loading it into a canister, and then shooting it at 1600 at sporting events because film with a decently high-enough ISO was too expensive for a high school student to afford. I'm just now getting back into photography (now mirrorless, I guess) and people refusing to shoot above 100 is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard.
According to the International Organization for Standardization, the abbreviation for their name is ISO. On their website, they go on to explain that you should pronounce the abbreviation as a word: eye-soh and that the abbreviation and its pronunciation are based on the Greek root word for equal: isos.
That’s interesting…eye-soh sounded right to me because of the Greek prefix (as in isomorphic etc.), and when he asked the question I thought of that, but I never would have imagined that’s actually where it came from
I don't think that's the reason we say EYE-SOH but because of the reasons of abbreviations are generally easier to say as words rather than pronounced letter-wise separately because of the ease of speaking and remembering to some extent, like IBIS (for, Inbuilt Image Stabilization) but it's pronounced as EYE-BIS for convenience!
It's funny listening to you as a landscape photographer talking about going above ISO 100 when as mainly a bird shooter I routinely shoot at anywhere from 1000 - 3200! Especially with todays brilliant noise reduction software and sensor tech those days of worrying too much are gone. As the old saying goes "I'd much rather have a noisy sharp shot than and clean blurry one"
But after all, it's not just about the sums. A high ISO entails a whole host of consequences. Is it possible to see your photos smashed at 3200 ISO somewhere?
@@JoannaMalak The big problem with iso is that it's basically artificial. You're just underexposing and boosting it in the sensor instead of in post. Old cameras improved noise because their DAC didn't capture the whole sensor dynamic range, but since 2012 or so sony sensors have been pretty much iso invariant, 14 bit, and makes little difference between brightening in post vs in camera. When you shoot high iso, reminder that you lose a stop of dynamic range for every doubling of iso. If you like you clouds not clipping and also edit to bring the shadows up.. you want that extra couple stops of dynamic range unless you want it to act like a 20 year old camera in the edit. I use auto ISO. If they're not enough light, there's not enough light, but it's not like the landscape will run away from you.
Same. I shoot sports and NEED my shutter speed high (3200 if possible). Shooting in manual with the aperture wide open & shutter set to 3200, the ISO has to "float" on Auto. I also prefer to set the ISO well above 100, so that it has room to "breathe". I achieve this by altering the shutter speed even faster to keep the ISO around 320. That way if it need to dip down to 200 or 100, it can.
Could not agree more! Requires a small change in how you think about metering since you really manipulate exposure compensation more once you have chosen your shutter or f-stop for conditions, which at an air show are pretty static usually.
For nature photography, I hate this. I’ll try to meter for a closeup of a flower for example, and I can’t easily tell how far I can go. Because ideally I could take it at native ISO, and if that means I’m shooting 1/30th then so be it (IBIS has my back). But it’ll complain if I try and do that.
When I got back into photography with Pentax DSLR's, which were fairly good with pushing the ISO. Down the road I switched to Nikon, found that in most cases ISO6400 is as far as I like to push things - so now ISO is maybe the 4th or 5th thing I worry about. Composition, shutter speed, aperture etc. are much more important. So I really like the fact that I can set the other two and just not worry about the ISO. I'll let the camera choose what is needed - today's camera's really do a good job with noise (and we typically have editing tools to reduce noise). If you want real noise - push Tri-X to 800 or 1600. LOL
Hi Mark, freezing the video for a few seconds I quickly decided the one on the right was the one shot at ISO 100, from the superior clarity and resolution of the rock face to the lower right of the image. I have to say, though, I would not have put money on my assessment!!! Still, I was blown away when you said the image on the left was shot at 12,800. The largest ISO I ever shot was at 2,000 and that showed minimal grain, but the "trick"/technique I learnt is letting in enough light from what was a relatively stationary scene to illuminate the sensor, thus preventing excessive grain. It's not necessarily your high ISO that produces the grain but how you "marry" shutter speed with aperture value!. Enjoyed your video, as usual. Cheers, Frederick Jansohn
I agree also especially considering the fact that there are very powerful softwares out these days to reduce noise even more without compromising the image quality.
I've found recently that I really enjoy manual mode with auto ISO. I still get the creative control over SS & aperture, but without an additional setting to worry about. In the best case scenario the scene isn't noisy at all, but if it is, I can either use the newer denoising techniques or just embrace the photo with a bit of noise!
Great video and good advice. Actually Mark I'm so old I sometimes catch myself still saying ASA from the old film days. You are correct , go ahead and use the higher ISO. I was reluctant to do so but it made a noticable improvement in my photos. The high end I use is 3200. The technology is much better now so use it!
Hi Mark, great video. I typically say eye-soo. For the longest time I insisted on staying below ISO 400, and subsequently missed a lot of opportunities because I could not get the right settings. Now I set it to what it needs to be so that I get the shot. Maybe it is not portfolio worthy, but it is a reminder of what is possible if the conditions are different. When hand holding I often will set it to auto ISO. You mention IBIS, and how it has improved. My camera does not have IBIS, but if it did, could the lenses with image stabilization be used with IS turned on along side of the IBIS? I have never heard anyone talk about this. Thanks again.
What a great illustration of the difference. And wow, what a beautiful area to hike around in; love those foggy mountain spots. You can almost smell the air from the video
Camera, lenses, you need to know your equipment. I just shot a baptism in a church, no flash was allowed. Having a good lense with low aperture is a must. I don't like grainy pictures so I set my ISO range and I know well my lenses. Every situation is different. How good is your camera's stabilization system. Bottom line. Your technical knowledge is crucial. Great video. I always appreciate them.
Good thoughts and definitely going to practice increasing my Eye-S-Oh to increase the shutter to help with increased detail I’m wanting especially when handholding my camera - thanks 📸
I probably say "EYE-SOH" most of the time, but I also remember when my film boxes had ASA/DIN on them! :) When shooting action (birds in flight) I'm still using 9-10 year old Nikons so I'm not shooting with the latest and greatest but those cameras are way ahead the 20 year old Nikons I used to shoot when it comes to usable higher ISO.
I was out shooting spring flowers this week and had to bump up my iso to get a shutter speed that would prevent the flowers blurring in the breeze. Especially tough with close-up shots. By the way, eye so is correct.
The main issue I'm finding with ISO atm (pretty new to photography) is the dynamic range impact. It can be a struggle to not just be blowing out the sky and I know bumping the ISO up makes the dynamic range worse! Mainly shooting things where I want a good Shutter Speed (like sport or wildlife) so it's pretty much the most extreme circumstances possible, must have high shutter speed and can't just bracket the shots!
I started buying and using digital cameras back in 1994 (Apple Quicktake 100) and analog to digital processing in today’s camera do a much better job of eliminating noise in the shadows at higher ISOs and todays sensors have greater dynamic range. 12 and 14 bit sensors also do a better job of dealing with noise than the 8 bit sensors of earlier cameras did. Earlier cameras just didn’t have fast enough processors to deal with noise whist shooting at high frame rates. The biggest problem with noise is in cross-lit or back lit sunny scenes outdoors which are exposed for accurate highlights with solid white around 245-250 and only specular reflections allowed to ‘clip’ at 255. When exposure is biased for the highlights the darkest shadows don’t reflect enough photons to register any voltage in sensor sites and what gets amplified is any residual noise from previous exposures. The problem of shadow noise would increase with prolonged shooting due to the sensor heating up and that also doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue with new cameras.
That’s interesting, I immediately saw which was the better image before you even zoomed in and I’m only viewing this on my phone. The more detailed areas of the image on the left seemed to be lacking something. When it comes to analog photography film speed makes a massive difference, but developer does too. That left image looked like it could have been developed in Rodinal. 😃 I live in the U.K. where our cloud cover calls for 400 most of the time but 100 speed film looks a lot better when you can make it work.
i did a media photography/videography internship with a college when i got my first camera and i learned quickly not to be scared of higher iso (especially shooting apsc) as most of it was indoors with no extra lighting it’s been a while since then and i’ve started to forget that, especially with a modern sony camera, i need not be shy with my iso lol
I totally agree about shutter speed. Some other Shutter Speed/ISO considerations would be, dynamic range and subject sharpness. For an example, if you were photographing a propeller airplane in flight you would want the propeller to show motion and the airplane to be sharp.
I went to the zoo with my grandkids a month ago, and what do you do with the nocturnal or crepuscular creatures? You can't use flash, and who carries the two Ts -- tripod and tranquilising dart -- to the zoo with grandkids? I so often use ISO 100 for grandkids and giraffes that I had to dig around menus to find how to lift my ISO to 3200 (or was it 6400?) I probably say "eyeso" more often than I.S.O, from back when I used to just say "eyeso A.S.A". But when we first started using ISO ratings, I said I.S.O when I said it alone, not including the A.S.A bit, because as an engineering designer in those days, I thought of it as "International Standards Organisation", and was used to the various Australian and International standards which applied to aspects of my work.
I tend to select my aperture and shutter speed for whatever artistic effect I am trying to achieve. I then treat ISO(eye-so) as a support of brightness control to get my desired exposure level
I feel lucky sometimes that I started shooting in the film days when using higher ISO film was commonplace, 400 was one of the most common films used, especially amongst landscape photographers like me living in an area which is more famous for being rainy and overcast than sunny, these days I shoot Fujifilm and their lowest native ISO is 200 anyway so I never use 100. Living in Europe I say EYE-SOH as I think that's the norm here, you rarely hear it being pronounced I.S.O over here.
Negative films are readily available and easy to shoot with but the most difficult was shooting transparencies and you have to very precise and careful about exposures because transparencies of low emulsion speed were preferred for in general, because of the huge enlargements and color reproductions of them were necessary for advertisements and books of high standards of photo prints! Negative films on the other hand has to undergo another process of prints to transparencies and then printed in books and magazines with a great amount of loss in the final prints from them! But transparencies have to undergo only a single time process to become a celluloid positive to project them in seminars and advertisements on screen, so they were so low in ISO because lower ISO of transparencies are meant to be giving large enlargements!
I like your statement very much. Too many photographers are fainthearted and poorly educated when it comes to higher ISO values, but it depends: point&shoot cameras with small sensors are not the best choice to crank up ISO. Your GFX will produce cleaner images just because of the bigger sensor. I also like to mention: As good as IBIS has become, it‘s no cure for moving objects, only to reduce my own motion - which is plenty to achieve.
I. S. O. started in the sixties but it was foreign. It stood for International Standards Organisation that represented the sensitivity of film. In Britain we used a different measure called ASA which stood for Advertising Standards Authority. The measurement of the sensitivity had a different numerical indicator to the foreign ISO and we'd set our camera for the ASA indicated on the cassette. We could at times alter this setting so long as we altered development appropriately. For example, Ilford FP 4 produced better results if rated at 100 ASA rather than 125, and then printed on multi-grade paper at grade 3.
Nowdays the main reason I’m reaching to get down to iso 100 (160 for Fuji) is to actually preserve some shadows and blacks in the image., while still showing some motion or keeping up with flash sync. Which, you nailed it, it’s a shutter speed manager more than anything else For my part it’s something like “eyessoh,” no acronym, full slur but all the phonemes present and distinct.
Thanks Mark, excellent video you explained everything is easy to understand English for the pro or novice. ISO is in fact an acronym or abbreviation for the International Organization for Standards. I know they are not in the correct order, but it wasn't my idea. Looking forward to more of your videos.
I think ISO is a misnomer. We should call it SNR for signal to noise ratio. The best way to ensure noise in your photo is to not feed your sensor enough signal. Great video,Mark.
I don't care how you say it, you are so on the mark, Mark! ISO saves me trying to capture moving insects and flowers in the breeze. It's also so beneficial when I can't hold steady with a macro lens - too much spinal issues and arthritis in my hands. And, my ON1 software can clean it up, no problem.
@@geoffc1862 I’ve started my career digital but I’ve never been spray and pray. A large Majority of my shots are well thought out. I’ve also learned more to edit money work in front of the computer less time shooting.
I’m not a photographer, I do cinematography (where you absolutely want to be more careful with your ISO) but I did a wedding back in November where I did offer to do pictures aswell and where they wanted the pictures done wasn’t ideal on terms of lighting. Although, it was cloudy which I was happy about because the lighting was very diffused. But even shooting wide open on a Sony 50mm f1.8, I had to crank up my ISO…quite a bit. Came home to put them in light room and after I applied my color grading, I did notice such a SMALL amount of noise. I’m talking SOO small. But after the color grade…it looked…good? The wedding was a rustic vibe wedding and this almost looked like film grain so…I kept it. Let’s just say that customer was so happy they sent me way more clients
So true. The tools in post help me use my camera at higher iso values to make the images I want. Cameras are far better than most people acknowledge at high iso.
Yeah, you make good points. Have had many shots that seemed fine on the LCD. But then i get home, look at them on the computer, and realize i didn’t raise my SS high enough. Lots of great shots!
I recall the Northrups covering this topic some years ago. We often hear people say "high ISO causes noise". But in truth it is poor "signal to gain ratio" that causes noise, or in other words low light. Do that picture comparison you're talking about with a very well lit scene (one high, one low ISO), then do it with a very dimly lit scene and compare those results. You will see a dramatic difference. The truth though is that today's cameras just have better sensors and can compensate for low light with higher ISO much more effectively than old gear did. I think maybe people just getting into photography might not be as fussed as us older guys by this topic.
This idea is very much an example of the Dunning Kruger effect, eventually you realise that you should be prioritising the lowest ISO possible and finding other solutions to get the right exposure (longer exposures, better stabilisation, image stacking, adding light, tilt shift lenses enabling wider apertures) The bit depth allowing gradients without banding starts becoming more important when you're doing higher end work, if you are truly content with high ISOs you shouldn't be using large sensor cameras, you are throwing away the one advantage they have which is signal to noise ratio. I will often add grain in post, but have the colours and detail of base ISO. In the examples in the video you can shoot multiple exposures that total the longer exposure you should be using, and mask in just the moving sections into the stacked image. Also most high end sensors are quite invariant, meaning you can shoot at base and bump exposure in post without penalty, but with the highlight preserving advantage. Don't be afraid of shooting for the edit, your in camera shots don't have to be the exposure you want to end up with
Waaaay back in the early days of digital there was a huge penalty to pay for higher ISOs, heck I had a point and shoot where the noise at ISO400 was almost unusable. The idea of trying to stay as close to 100 as possible probably started then, no doubt aided by a film becoming very grainy at higher ISOs making it a logical assumption. I do remember feeling my mid 2000's DSLR was pretty much feature complete and the only thing that would make me want to upgrade would be lower noise higher ISO capability. Oh and recently I have been shooting at 100 max and actually wanting for something lower! Somewhat different situation though, playing with a f/0.95 lens, and if you have one of those why would you shoot with anything else but wide open :)
This was a great video. Coming from the portrait world, where most of us use ISO 100 to 200, this helps me to see why I need to adjust my thinking when going out shooting in landscape. Question, do you have a formula that you use to calculate what to set your ISO to when shooting at different settings?
I shoot alot of wildlife in tough conditions. As camera sensors improve I switched to auto ISO and never looked back. I live above 1000 ISO most days in order to shoot high shutter speed in low light. Now, Nikon sensors are known as iso invariant. (actually split invariant). Which means I can shoot under exposed and move exposure up in post and it will be identical to shooting in the higher "correct"iso. Times have changed
Nice and informative video....i think modern day camera today manage the noise way better now but in the past It was signitificaly visible at highter ISO .
Great video, I think too you can pump up those numbers to get the right image. I know in photography we shouldnt tell each other what to do, but what stood out to me in most of your photos is that the perspective tilts down a little too much in my opinion. Maybe you should look up a bit more, for more comforting photos.
Great insights to give me confidence in "taking the shot" regardless of ISO. I'd like to know more about how you process high ISO shots and your thoughts on ETTR.
Basically always ETTR when you can. Boosting iso on modern (~2012+ Sony) sensors is just as good as boosting in post, short of hitting second base iso. You lose a stop of fynamic range per ISO stop because you throw away the brightest stop on the sensor. Cinema style cameras do better and shoot at ASA 800, really just 100 but underexposed by 3 stops so that you get 7-8 stops of highlights above middle grey instead of ~4 of stills cameras. Most noise in photos is individual light photons, so the more of those you have, the more tonality you have to work with for editing or such.
Thanks for sharing the I.S.O. info. I used Nikon DSLR cameras for as long as I can remember and always tried to keep the ISO as low as possible. Now using a high MP count mirrorless camera I have been able to shoot with a much higher ISO but rarely in the past have I went as high as 500. I thought the more MP in the sensor the more noise? Thanks Mark.
Great video Mark! I think the idea that high ISOs will degrade your image somewhat is a leftover truism from the "old" film photography days. Shooting with an ISO 1000 film would make your images look like they were shot through a screen door. Modern digital cameras ( and software) do a great job with higher ISOs. That and increasingly better dynamic range is where I'd like to see camera manufacturers put their emphasis when releasing new models.
Informative video once again. To your pronunciation of ISO question - I say I.S.O. Probably because i used to say A.S.A in the film days so the cadence was the same.
ISO levels vary in different cameras depending upon the sensor size. For travel and on the go photography I use a Lumix 2500 (1 inch sensor) which is great in decent lighting but you get above ISO 800 it's noticable. I can shoot ISO 3200 on my full frame Lumix S5 and it's hard to tell from ISO 100. I like shooting auto ISO on both cameras but cap the maximum ISO at 1600 on the 1 inch sensor camera and 6400 on the full frame, that way I can shoot in A, S or M mode without worrying about messing with the ISO settings.
when I take photos around dusk, I select a minimum shutter speed of 125 to eliminate motion blur. You might be able to do something about noisy high ISO photos but you can do nothing about motion blur. When I take bird photos with my Canon 5D mk III, birds flying around a tree, birds in the shade had artifacts as the ISO moved up for the higher shutter speed. This effect was less noticable with the Canon R5.
Great video!!!' I'll refer to the surf photos as an example. When you are presented with a situation where shutter speed is a key factor it would seem shutter priority (or manually set shutter and aperture) would be used. So, do you actually "bump up" the ISO or to you allow auto ISO to do its thing? Yep, I'm still in a learning phase.
I started selling cameras in 1980, when film-speed ratings were changing from A.S.A. (American Standards Association) to I.S.O. (International Standards Organization), so for me, the name referred to more than film sensitivity, but the reason D.I.N. (the much more arbitrary film speed rating system that was then used in Europe) was eliminated. Thus, I'll probably always say "I.S.O."
As an amateur of three years, at first I would stick as close to ISO 100 as possible for nearly every image but now I have more knowledge I have no problems going as high as 3200 with an elderly Nikon D3300. Even relatively elderly cameras can cope pretty well with high ISO, it’s a case of finding out how far you can push it 😉 I’m getting into wildlife photography more and high ISO is a must for getting the desired shutter speed. A basic understanding of the exposure triangle is a must but knowing how far you can push things with your kit is just as important, especially if you don’t use post processing apps to correct issues. I would strongly recommend beginners out there to NOT rely on apps to correct bad settings, learn how to get as good an image as possible in camera even if it means hundreds of failures along the way, we all learn from our mistakes. Don’t be scared to up your ISO 😉
Great video. How fast is your shutter speed typically to keep the leaves sharp in the forest? Also, what do you normally have your aperture set to? Definitely eye so.
Thanks Mark. I became a free ranger a few years ago, I set my SS and Aperture to fit the scene, then review the ISO (I say Eye-So) . If it is too high/low, adjust, rinse, repeat.
I say ISO from my film days in the late 70s. If my shutter speed needs to go high, my ISO goes high. And if I have a little noise, that doesn't bother me. I either fix it in post or leave it in and still enjoy my image. Especially the very large black bear in the early morning standing on his hind legs looking straight at the camera. It's all about enjoying the moment. Thanks for the video, I enjoyed watching it.
Agreed on moving water Mark, the creamy look has been done to death. Here in the UK Editors are looking for the best print quality that means your base ISO, with certain exception,s.
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. Source - Photography life . Finally since it’s not an acronym , like I.S.O . , and rather a name that was set , it’s best to go with “ Eye So. I say EyeSo .
Hello Mark love your landscapes amazing images, the first example you showed the first image at ISO 100 to me looked to have better colour and contrast only slightly but still perceptible. I totally agree with you about being able to push ISO these days with better cameras and also the denoise feature in Lightroom. One gripe I do have though is please stop using pros do this pros know this, I have shot alongside people who are supposed to be pros and are clueless I have also shot along side some of the best club photographers in the UK and the are streets ahead. If this video had been from anybody else I would have probably clicked not interested just my little gripe keep up the great work.
I flip-flop between I.S.O. and Eye-Soh, too. I totally forgot about A.S.A. until I bought a "new copy" of a Canon A-1, my very first camera from the Eighties. I find my long repressed high I.S.O fears from film a DSLR days cropping up again. 🤣
Great video! I remember when I first started I was terrified of raising the ISO super high but now Im so free with it.😂 btw, love the hoodie. got one myself and its one of my favs
The other thing is that even if you have to boost the ISO to a high value and you notice the grain like I do on my camera, Lightroom's denoise tool is brilliant. I've started doing a lot of my underground shots handheld (unless I have to lightpaint) as the results are now essentially the same as they would be on a tripod with ISO 100.
I always search for what the noise level is that I can live with on each device. With my canon R10 APSC camera it’s bellow ISO 3200 denoise is a great tool in post but the lower the level the better. The max ISO I’d go is 5400 but I’d try to avoid this unless necessary.
I have been doing photography for about 2 years now as a hobby. I started at 100 as everyone does. Its now very rare that I go out of 800. Sometimes 1600 if its low light. Thats the base ISO of my camera (A6700) and I get the best photo's out of 800 on it. I still clean it up a little using Lightroom, but only if im cropping or pixel peeping. Faster shutter will get shaper images.
🔥QUESTION: Do you say "EYE-SOH" or do you say "I.S.O."?
Eye-so
I Say Izzo😂
EYE-SOH
I.S.O. gang checking in.
EYE-SOH" because that how the ISO organization states it should be pronounced.
I am old. It was A.S.A. so I have always said it as I.S.O....I may be wrong but , does is really matter? I have the position that I want my ISO high enough that I can use a decent shutter speed as well as keeping my f-stop kind of in the middle. However, I am just a hobby photographer. No one sees my pictures... rarely are they shared. It is always a dance... trying to balance the triangle to get the picture we are looking for. That's the fun of photography!
Same here, it was always A-S-A, and now it's I-S-O. Oldsters unite!
Iso or asa is important for film to get the other 2 correct. However digital... not sure.
Then there was also DIN in the ASA days.
I work professionally Shutter speed is important to me especially when using flash and ambient light together
Hear hear....I learned A.S.A. and I.S.O. later. But do day EV values. Peace👍
Ok. Haven't finished the video. But you up close to the monitor looking with one eye up against it made my day. 😂
😁
@@MarkDenneyPhoto a few seconds of it need to be made into a gif.
Yes a GIF from the perspective of the monitor 😳
My question ....... why do the breezes wait until you want to take a photo before they start to blow???????
I know, right!
It's like the breeze saying "cheese."
🤣🤣🤣I thought that only happens to me!
EXACTLY! Easter, we wanted family pics... the girls took position... the breeze had their hair standing straight up. It was just crazy. Not two minutes before , it was dead calm!
😂😂😂 there's always breeze! Try to take a phocus stack, an hdr image or an hdr phocus stack, you will get breeze. I think it's part of our cameras firmware
Cracked me up that Gavin Hardcastle figured out how to work his way into your video!
Back in the before times, I remember taking my 100 foot rolls of ISO 400 film, loading it into a canister, and then shooting it at 1600 at sporting events because film with a decently high-enough ISO was too expensive for a high school student to afford. I'm just now getting back into photography (now mirrorless, I guess) and people refusing to shoot above 100 is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard.
According to the International Organization for Standardization, the abbreviation for their name is ISO. On their website, they go on to explain that you should pronounce the abbreviation as a word: eye-soh and that the abbreviation and its pronunciation are based on the Greek root word for equal: isos.
That’s interesting…eye-soh sounded right to me because of the Greek prefix (as in isomorphic etc.), and when he asked the question I thought of that, but I never would have imagined that’s actually where it came from
I don't think that's the reason we say EYE-SOH but because of the reasons of abbreviations are generally easier to say as words rather than pronounced letter-wise separately because of the ease of speaking and remembering to some extent, like IBIS (for, Inbuilt Image Stabilization) but it's pronounced as EYE-BIS for convenience!
It's funny listening to you as a landscape photographer talking about going above ISO 100 when as mainly a bird shooter I routinely shoot at anywhere from 1000 - 3200!
Especially with todays brilliant noise reduction software and sensor tech those days of worrying too much are gone.
As the old saying goes "I'd much rather have a noisy sharp shot than and clean blurry one"
But after all, it's not just about the sums. A high ISO entails a whole host of consequences. Is it possible to see your photos smashed at 3200 ISO somewhere?
@@JoannaMalak
The big problem with iso is that it's basically artificial. You're just underexposing and boosting it in the sensor instead of in post. Old cameras improved noise because their DAC didn't capture the whole sensor dynamic range, but since 2012 or so sony sensors have been pretty much iso invariant, 14 bit, and makes little difference between brightening in post vs in camera. When you shoot high iso, reminder that you lose a stop of dynamic range for every doubling of iso. If you like you clouds not clipping and also edit to bring the shadows up.. you want that extra couple stops of dynamic range unless you want it to act like a 20 year old camera in the edit. I use auto ISO. If they're not enough light, there's not enough light, but it's not like the landscape will run away from you.
Good argument for shooting in manual, and setting ISO to automatic, and letting it float. That is precisely how I shot airshows for years.
Me too works a treat.
Same.
I shoot sports and NEED my shutter speed high (3200 if possible). Shooting in manual with the aperture wide open & shutter set to 3200, the ISO has to "float" on Auto. I also prefer to set the ISO well above 100, so that it has room to "breathe". I achieve this by altering the shutter speed even faster to keep the ISO around 320. That way if it need to dip down to 200 or 100, it can.
Could not agree more!
Requires a small change in how you think about metering since you really manipulate exposure compensation more once you have chosen your shutter or f-stop for conditions, which at an air show are pretty static usually.
Auto iso. Aperture priority
For nature photography, I hate this. I’ll try to meter for a closeup of a flower for example, and I can’t easily tell how far I can go. Because ideally I could take it at native ISO, and if that means I’m shooting 1/30th then so be it (IBIS has my back). But it’ll complain if I try and do that.
Came to find out about the ISO 100 myth I've heard absolutely no one talk about and you didn't disappoint. Great service. 👍
When I got back into photography with Pentax DSLR's, which were fairly good with pushing the ISO. Down the road I switched to Nikon, found that in most cases ISO6400 is as far as I like to push things - so now ISO is maybe the 4th or 5th thing I worry about. Composition, shutter speed, aperture etc. are much more important. So I really like the fact that I can set the other two and just not worry about the ISO. I'll let the camera choose what is needed - today's camera's really do a good job with noise (and we typically have editing tools to reduce noise).
If you want real noise - push Tri-X to 800 or 1600. LOL
So well put. Using the tools you have available to create the image and/or feeling about the subject in front of you. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks!
Nice work Mark - fab compositions & lighting. “I.S.O.” (prob a throwback to the ‘A.S.A’ days..!)
Hi Mark, freezing the video for a few seconds I quickly decided the one on the right was the one shot at ISO 100, from the superior clarity and resolution of the rock face to the lower right of the image. I have to say, though, I would not have put money on my assessment!!! Still, I was blown away when you said the image on the left was shot at 12,800. The largest ISO I ever shot was at 2,000 and that showed minimal grain, but the "trick"/technique I learnt is letting in enough light from what was a relatively stationary scene to illuminate the sensor, thus preventing excessive grain. It's not necessarily your high ISO that produces the grain but how you "marry" shutter speed with aperture value!. Enjoyed your video, as usual. Cheers, Frederick Jansohn
Great video and advise about ISO...I begin to tremble whenever I push beyond ISO 400. Thanks for a dose of courage to push it!
I agree also especially considering the fact that there are very powerful softwares out these days to reduce noise even more without compromising the image quality.
Eye-so
Great video! Just discovered your channel. Getting back into photography now that I'm retired.
Liked and subbed!
Thank you so much for sharing your useful tips. Your landscape work is so beautiful. ❤❤❤
I've found recently that I really enjoy manual mode with auto ISO. I still get the creative control over SS & aperture, but without an additional setting to worry about. In the best case scenario the scene isn't noisy at all, but if it is, I can either use the newer denoising techniques or just embrace the photo with a bit of noise!
Great video and good advice. Actually Mark I'm so old I sometimes catch myself still saying ASA from the old film days. You are correct , go ahead and use the higher ISO. I was reluctant to do so but it made a noticable improvement in my photos. The high end I use is 3200. The technology is much better now so use it!
Hi Mark, great video. I typically say eye-soo. For the longest time I insisted on staying below ISO 400, and subsequently missed a lot of opportunities because I could not get the right settings. Now I set it to what it needs to be so that I get the shot. Maybe it is not portfolio worthy, but it is a reminder of what is possible if the conditions are different. When hand holding I often will set it to auto ISO. You mention IBIS, and how it has improved. My camera does not have IBIS, but if it did, could the lenses with image stabilization be used with IS turned on along side of the IBIS? I have never heard anyone talk about this. Thanks again.
Brilliant hoodie! Where did you get it from?
Wow the details in the water in the waterfall of the Olympic Park are just perfect. Exactly as I like them. Awesome.
What a great illustration of the difference. And wow, what a beautiful area to hike around in; love those foggy mountain spots. You can almost smell the air from the video
Camera, lenses, you need to know your equipment. I just shot a baptism in a church, no flash was allowed. Having a good lense with low aperture is a must. I don't like grainy pictures so I set my ISO range and I know well my lenses. Every situation is different. How good is your camera's stabilization system. Bottom line. Your technical knowledge is crucial. Great video. I always appreciate them.
Thanks for reminding me I should already know this, good presentation.
thanks for the info....I see that fototripper photobombed your video at 7:04.... 🙂
Good thoughts and definitely going to practice increasing my Eye-S-Oh to increase the shutter to help with increased detail I’m wanting especially when handholding my camera - thanks 📸
I probably say "EYE-SOH" most of the time, but I also remember when my film boxes had ASA/DIN on them! :) When shooting action (birds in flight) I'm still using 9-10 year old Nikons so I'm not shooting with the latest and greatest but those cameras are way ahead the 20 year old Nikons I used to shoot when it comes to usable higher ISO.
I was out shooting spring flowers this week and had to bump up my iso to get a shutter speed that would prevent the flowers blurring in the breeze. Especially tough with close-up shots. By the way, eye so is correct.
The main issue I'm finding with ISO atm (pretty new to photography) is the dynamic range impact. It can be a struggle to not just be blowing out the sky and I know bumping the ISO up makes the dynamic range worse! Mainly shooting things where I want a good Shutter Speed (like sport or wildlife) so it's pretty much the most extreme circumstances possible, must have high shutter speed and can't just bracket the shots!
Beautifil photo samples and great advices on using ISO ! Thanks a lot !
More and more people need to understand about ISO I came from the film days I had no idea you could use higher IS0. No no problem bumping it up now.
I started buying and using digital cameras back in 1994 (Apple Quicktake 100) and analog to digital processing in today’s camera do a much better job of eliminating noise in the shadows at higher ISOs and todays sensors have greater dynamic range. 12 and 14 bit sensors also do a better job of dealing with noise than the 8 bit sensors of earlier cameras did. Earlier cameras just didn’t have fast enough processors to deal with noise whist shooting at high frame rates.
The biggest problem with noise is in cross-lit or back lit sunny scenes outdoors which are exposed for accurate highlights with solid white around 245-250 and only specular reflections allowed to ‘clip’ at 255. When exposure is biased for the highlights the darkest shadows don’t reflect enough photons to register any voltage in sensor sites and what gets amplified is any residual noise from previous exposures. The problem of shadow noise would increase with prolonged shooting due to the sensor heating up and that also doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue with new cameras.
That’s interesting, I immediately saw which was the better image before you even zoomed in and I’m only viewing this on my phone. The more detailed areas of the image on the left seemed to be lacking something. When it comes to analog photography film speed makes a massive difference, but developer does too. That left image looked like it could have been developed in Rodinal. 😃 I live in the U.K. where our cloud cover calls for 400 most of the time but 100 speed film looks a lot better when you can make it work.
i did a media photography/videography internship with a college when i got my first camera and i learned quickly not to be scared of higher iso (especially shooting apsc) as most of it was indoors with no extra lighting
it’s been a while since then and i’ve started to forget that, especially with a modern sony camera, i need not be shy with my iso lol
you are such an inspiration i hope to see you out there some day
Great video! I also of the opinion that the shutter speed is the most important, more than ISO. Great video!
I’m so old I still say “ASA”!
What happend to DIN? lol
OG
How about Gost
I forgot what ASA stands for in DSLR Photography
@@Triplebuc50it stands for American Standards Association in relation to sensitivity of light to film. 😊
I totally agree about shutter speed. Some other Shutter Speed/ISO considerations would be, dynamic range and subject sharpness. For an example, if you were photographing a propeller airplane in flight you would want the propeller to show motion and the airplane to be sharp.
I am just at a little over six minute and I already learned something that is very useful. Thank you, Mark 😊
I went to the zoo with my grandkids a month ago, and what do you do with the nocturnal or crepuscular creatures? You can't use flash, and who carries the two Ts -- tripod and tranquilising dart -- to the zoo with grandkids?
I so often use ISO 100 for grandkids and giraffes that I had to dig around menus to find how to lift my ISO to 3200 (or was it 6400?)
I probably say "eyeso" more often than I.S.O, from back when I used to just say "eyeso A.S.A". But when we first started using ISO ratings, I said I.S.O when I said it alone, not including the A.S.A bit, because as an engineering designer in those days, I thought of it as "International Standards Organisation", and was used to the various Australian and International standards which applied to aspects of my work.
@5:39 is there a lens or filter youre using in the forest, the mist and fog look dramatic
I tend to select my aperture and shutter speed for whatever artistic effect I am trying to achieve. I then treat ISO(eye-so) as a support of brightness control to get my desired exposure level
I feel lucky sometimes that I started shooting in the film days when using higher ISO film was commonplace, 400 was one of the most common films used, especially amongst landscape photographers like me living in an area which is more famous for being rainy and overcast than sunny, these days I shoot Fujifilm and their lowest native ISO is 200 anyway so I never use 100. Living in Europe I say EYE-SOH as I think that's the norm here, you rarely hear it being pronounced I.S.O over here.
Negative films are readily available and easy to shoot with but the most difficult was shooting transparencies and you have to very precise and careful about exposures because transparencies of low emulsion speed were preferred for in general, because of the huge enlargements and color reproductions of them were necessary for advertisements and books of high standards of photo prints! Negative films on the other hand has to undergo another process of prints to transparencies and then printed in books and magazines with a great amount of loss in the final prints from them! But transparencies have to undergo only a single time process to become a celluloid positive to project them in seminars and advertisements on screen, so they were so low in ISO because lower ISO of transparencies are meant to be giving large enlargements!
Cheers Mark, thank you for an awesome video, sometimes we forget how good camera's are now. Love the SSS, will help me greatly in remembering 👍
1:02 😂😂😂 About time you get some comic relief in your videos. 😂
Very good information. I also believe that most keep low ISO for safety/security/snobbery/vanity reasons. Best Regards, Jay
I like your statement very much. Too many photographers are fainthearted and poorly educated when it comes to higher ISO values, but it depends: point&shoot cameras with small sensors are not the best choice to crank up ISO. Your GFX will produce cleaner images just because of the bigger sensor. I also like to mention: As good as IBIS has become, it‘s no cure for moving objects, only to reduce my own motion - which is plenty to achieve.
I. S. O. started in the sixties but it was foreign. It stood for International Standards Organisation that represented the sensitivity of film. In Britain we used a different measure called ASA which stood for Advertising Standards Authority. The measurement of the sensitivity had a different numerical indicator to the foreign ISO and we'd set our camera for the ASA indicated on the cassette. We could at times alter this setting so long as we altered development appropriately. For example, Ilford FP 4 produced better results if rated at 100 ASA rather than 125, and then printed on multi-grade paper at grade 3.
Those Greenland iceberg images are just stunning, bravo!
I say eyeso. Great discussion today on a subject that I haven't commonly heard! Thank you Mark!
Nowdays the main reason I’m reaching to get down to iso 100 (160 for Fuji) is to actually preserve some shadows and blacks in the image., while still showing some motion or keeping up with flash sync. Which, you nailed it, it’s a shutter speed manager more than anything else
For my part it’s something like “eyessoh,” no acronym, full slur but all the phonemes present and distinct.
Thanks so much for this, I’ve been under the ISO (and previously ASA) 100 delusion in so many circumstances for 4+ decades.
Thanks Mark, excellent video you explained everything is easy to understand English for the pro or novice.
ISO is in fact an acronym or abbreviation for the International Organization for Standards. I know they are not in the correct order, but it wasn't my idea.
Looking forward to more of your videos.
I think ISO is a misnomer. We should call it SNR for signal to noise ratio. The best way to ensure noise in your photo is to not feed your sensor enough signal. Great video,Mark.
I don't care how you say it, you are so on the mark, Mark! ISO saves me trying to capture moving insects and flowers in the breeze. It's also so beneficial when I can't hold steady with a macro lens - too much spinal issues and arthritis in my hands. And, my ON1 software can clean it up, no problem.
Yea I believe a lot of photographers are still shell shocked from the DLSR world when if we went over 400 👀👀😬😬 things got scary quick!!!
I'm still suffering film range anxiety, 10, 12, 24 or 36 shots, and I've been using digital cameras for over 25 years.
@@geoffc1862 I’ve started my career digital but I’ve never been spray and pray. A large Majority of my shots are well thought out. I’ve also learned more to edit money work in front of the computer less time shooting.
I’m not a photographer, I do cinematography (where you absolutely want to be more careful with your ISO) but I did a wedding back in November where I did offer to do pictures aswell and where they wanted the pictures done wasn’t ideal on terms of lighting. Although, it was cloudy which I was happy about because the lighting was very diffused. But even shooting wide open on a Sony 50mm f1.8, I had to crank up my ISO…quite a bit. Came home to put them in light room and after I applied my color grading, I did notice such a SMALL amount of noise. I’m talking SOO small. But after the color grade…it looked…good? The wedding was a rustic vibe wedding and this almost looked like film grain so…I kept it. Let’s just say that customer was so happy they sent me way more clients
So true. The tools in post help me use my camera at higher iso values to make the images I want. Cameras are far better than most people acknowledge at high iso.
Yeah, you make good points. Have had many shots that seemed fine on the LCD. But then i get home, look at them on the computer, and realize i didn’t raise my SS high enough. Lots of great shots!
I recall the Northrups covering this topic some years ago. We often hear people say "high ISO causes noise". But in truth it is poor "signal to gain ratio" that causes noise, or in other words low light. Do that picture comparison you're talking about with a very well lit scene (one high, one low ISO), then do it with a very dimly lit scene and compare those results. You will see a dramatic difference. The truth though is that today's cameras just have better sensors and can compensate for low light with higher ISO much more effectively than old gear did. I think maybe people just getting into photography might not be as fussed as us older guys by this topic.
This idea is very much an example of the Dunning Kruger effect, eventually you realise that you should be prioritising the lowest ISO possible and finding other solutions to get the right exposure (longer exposures, better stabilisation, image stacking, adding light, tilt shift lenses enabling wider apertures)
The bit depth allowing gradients without banding starts becoming more important when you're doing higher end work, if you are truly content with high ISOs you shouldn't be using large sensor cameras, you are throwing away the one advantage they have which is signal to noise ratio.
I will often add grain in post, but have the colours and detail of base ISO.
In the examples in the video you can shoot multiple exposures that total the longer exposure you should be using, and mask in just the moving sections into the stacked image.
Also most high end sensors are quite invariant, meaning you can shoot at base and bump exposure in post without penalty, but with the highlight preserving advantage. Don't be afraid of shooting for the edit, your in camera shots don't have to be the exposure you want to end up with
Waaaay back in the early days of digital there was a huge penalty to pay for higher ISOs, heck I had a point and shoot where the noise at ISO400 was almost unusable. The idea of trying to stay as close to 100 as possible probably started then, no doubt aided by a film becoming very grainy at higher ISOs making it a logical assumption. I do remember feeling my mid 2000's DSLR was pretty much feature complete and the only thing that would make me want to upgrade would be lower noise higher ISO capability.
Oh and recently I have been shooting at 100 max and actually wanting for something lower! Somewhat different situation though, playing with a f/0.95 lens, and if you have one of those why would you shoot with anything else but wide open :)
This was a great video. Coming from the portrait world, where most of us use ISO 100 to 200, this helps me to see why I need to adjust my thinking when going out shooting in landscape. Question, do you have a formula that you use to calculate what to set your ISO to when shooting at different settings?
I shoot alot of wildlife in tough conditions. As camera sensors improve I switched to auto ISO and never looked back. I live above 1000 ISO most days in order to shoot high shutter speed in low light. Now, Nikon sensors are known as iso invariant. (actually split invariant). Which means I can shoot under exposed and move exposure up in post and it will be identical to shooting in the higher "correct"iso. Times have changed
I.S.O. Thanks so much Mark for your efforts in making us better photographers, you are so good at making a point that I understand.
I think for landscape work, you’re right. It’s hard to see the difference but for portrait work I can see the difference.
Nice and informative video....i think modern day camera today manage the noise way better now but in the past It was signitificaly visible at highter ISO .
Great video, I think too you can pump up those numbers to get the right image.
I know in photography we shouldnt tell each other what to do, but what stood out to me in most of your photos is that the perspective tilts down a little too much in my opinion. Maybe you should look up a bit more, for more comforting photos.
EYE-SOH - Great video. I regularly shoot at ISO 800-1600.
Great insights to give me confidence in "taking the shot" regardless of ISO. I'd like to know more about how you process high ISO shots and your thoughts on ETTR.
Basically always ETTR when you can. Boosting iso on modern (~2012+ Sony) sensors is just as good as boosting in post, short of hitting second base iso. You lose a stop of fynamic range per ISO stop because you throw away the brightest stop on the sensor. Cinema style cameras do better and shoot at ASA 800, really just 100 but underexposed by 3 stops so that you get 7-8 stops of highlights above middle grey instead of ~4 of stills cameras. Most noise in photos is individual light photons, so the more of those you have, the more tonality you have to work with for editing or such.
Thanks for sharing the I.S.O. info. I used Nikon DSLR cameras for as long as I can remember and always tried to keep the ISO as low as possible. Now using a high MP count mirrorless camera I have been able to shoot with a much higher ISO but rarely in the past have I went as high as 500. I thought the more MP in the sensor the more noise? Thanks Mark.
Noticed what looked like Gavin Hardcastle in some of the footage. Did you do a trip with him?
Great video Mark! I think the idea that high ISOs will degrade your image somewhat is a leftover truism from the "old" film photography days. Shooting with an ISO 1000 film would make your images look like they were shot through a screen door. Modern digital cameras ( and software) do a great job with higher ISOs. That and increasingly better dynamic range is where I'd like to see camera manufacturers put their emphasis when releasing new models.
Informative video once again. To your pronunciation of ISO question - I say I.S.O. Probably because i used to say A.S.A in the film days so the cadence was the same.
ISO levels vary in different cameras depending upon the sensor size. For travel and on the go photography I use a Lumix 2500 (1 inch sensor) which is great in decent lighting but you get above ISO 800 it's noticable. I can shoot ISO 3200 on my full frame Lumix S5 and it's hard to tell from ISO 100. I like shooting auto ISO on both cameras but cap the maximum ISO at 1600 on the 1 inch sensor camera and 6400 on the full frame, that way I can shoot in A, S or M mode without worrying about messing with the ISO settings.
Good stuff!!!
I so happy when you release a new video.
❤️
when I take photos around dusk, I select a minimum shutter speed of 125 to eliminate motion blur. You might be able to do something about noisy high ISO photos but you can do nothing about motion blur.
When I take bird photos with my Canon 5D mk III, birds flying around a tree, birds in the shade had artifacts as the ISO moved up for the higher shutter speed. This effect was less noticable with the Canon R5.
Great video!!!' I'll refer to the surf photos as an example. When you are presented with a situation where shutter speed is a key factor it would seem shutter priority (or manually set shutter and aperture) would be used. So, do you actually "bump up" the ISO or to you allow auto ISO to do its thing? Yep, I'm still in a learning phase.
Great video! It would be nice if you would give the shutter speed and aperture during your narration.
I started selling cameras in 1980, when film-speed ratings were changing from A.S.A. (American Standards Association) to I.S.O. (International Standards Organization), so for me, the name referred to more than film sensitivity, but the reason D.I.N. (the much more arbitrary film speed rating system that was then used in Europe) was eliminated. Thus, I'll probably always say "I.S.O."
As an amateur of three years, at first I would stick as close to ISO 100 as possible for nearly every image but now I have more knowledge I have no problems going as high as 3200 with an elderly Nikon D3300. Even relatively elderly cameras can cope pretty well with high ISO, it’s a case of finding out how far you can push it 😉 I’m getting into wildlife photography more and high ISO is a must for getting the desired shutter speed. A basic understanding of the exposure triangle is a must but knowing how far you can push things with your kit is just as important, especially if you don’t use post processing apps to correct issues. I would strongly recommend beginners out there to NOT rely on apps to correct bad settings, learn how to get as good an image as possible in camera even if it means hundreds of failures along the way, we all learn from our mistakes. Don’t be scared to up your ISO 😉
on 0:38 you said it wrong, the percieved difference from 5MP to 10MP is much more than between 50MP and 60MP, because 10/5 = 2 and 60/50 = 1.2
how do these high iso photos turn out when printed on big canvas? are they still sharp or is the noise more noticeable when printed vs digital?
Great video. How fast is your shutter speed typically to keep the leaves sharp in the forest? Also, what do you normally have your aperture set to? Definitely eye so.
Awesome video as always Mark
Thanks Mark. I became a free ranger a few years ago, I set my SS and Aperture to fit the scene, then review the ISO (I say Eye-So) . If it is too high/low, adjust, rinse, repeat.
I say ISO from my film days in the late 70s. If my shutter speed needs to go high, my ISO goes high. And if I have a little noise, that doesn't bother me. I either fix it in post or leave it in and still enjoy my image. Especially the very large black bear in the early morning standing on his hind legs looking straight at the camera. It's all about enjoying the moment. Thanks for the video, I enjoyed watching it.
Camera specific in most cases.
If I shoot at ISO 800 on my Fuji XT4 then there is so much noise - it’s like you can see through the subject.
yes I always find the threshold in my cameras to know where I can push them
Agreed on moving water Mark, the creamy look has been done to death. Here in the UK Editors are looking for the best print quality that means your base ISO, with certain exception,s.
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. Source - Photography life . Finally since it’s not an acronym , like I.S.O . , and rather a name that was set , it’s best to go with “ Eye So. I say EyeSo .
Hello Mark love your landscapes amazing images, the first example you showed the first image at ISO 100 to me looked to have better colour and contrast only slightly but still perceptible. I totally agree with you about being able to push ISO these days with better cameras and also the denoise feature in Lightroom. One gripe I do have though is please stop using pros do this pros know this, I have shot alongside people who are supposed to be pros and are clueless I have also shot along side some of the best club photographers in the UK and the are streets ahead. If this video had been from anybody else I would have probably clicked not interested just my little gripe keep up the great work.
I flip-flop between I.S.O. and Eye-Soh, too. I totally forgot about A.S.A. until I bought a "new copy" of a Canon A-1, my very first camera from the Eighties. I find my long repressed high I.S.O fears from film a DSLR days cropping up again. 🤣
Great video! I remember when I first started I was terrified of raising the ISO super high but now Im so free with it.😂 btw, love the hoodie. got one myself and its one of my favs
The other thing is that even if you have to boost the ISO to a high value and you notice the grain like I do on my camera, Lightroom's denoise tool is brilliant. I've started doing a lot of my underground shots handheld (unless I have to lightpaint) as the results are now essentially the same as they would be on a tripod with ISO 100.
I always search for what the noise level is that I can live with on each device. With my canon R10 APSC camera it’s bellow ISO 3200 denoise is a great tool in post but the lower the level the better. The max ISO I’d go is 5400 but I’d try to avoid this unless necessary.
I have been doing photography for about 2 years now as a hobby. I started at 100 as everyone does. Its now very rare that I go out of 800. Sometimes 1600 if its low light. Thats the base ISO of my camera (A6700) and I get the best photo's out of 800 on it. I still clean it up a little using Lightroom, but only if im cropping or pixel peeping. Faster shutter will get shaper images.