Hi guys, there have been a few people correcting me on the statement that "ISO refers to the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to light". You are correct. Admittedly, for the life of me, I cannot understand why I went with that word in the script because I'm trying to make the opposite point that dialing up the ISO only amplifies the brightness as stated from 1:56 - 3:06 I hope I was clear enough in that section.
There's a bunch of weeds to be waded through here, due to the wrong conceptualisation of ISO that is common. The statement that ISO 'amplifies the brightness' is also wrong, I'm afraid, but not as wrong as saying it's 'the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to light'. The key point to understand is that 'brightness' is irrelevant to the output of your camera, so no 'amplification of brightness' is needed, nor does it occur. That's because the output of a camera isn't light, its a statement of locations in a colour space. The relevant term is 'lightness', not 'brightness'. This is all from colour theory, developed originally for the printing industry. Lightness (the 'L' in the Lab colour space) runs on a fixed scale from 'black' to 'white' and determines how a human observer should see it, not an absolute amount of light. Some people get worried about unfamiliar terms, but the important realisation is that the input and output are different things, and using the same word ('i.e. 'brightness') for input and output just confuses them, and leads directly to this fallacy that 'brightness' needs 'amplifying', from which most of the misunderstandings about ISO derive.
@@BobN54 I’m in a wavelength of getting better in photography not in a perception of science 😜for lightness of me your input is irrivalent. I’m going to present an argument and statement according to Adobe’s subscription based model vs Affinity Serif’s pay-as-you-go model. And community driven open source software. Which camp are you in? I remember when Apple came with their own SoC M1. You would argue Adobe would be forerunner as they have ressources. What happened one bug to another. It hurts me when Adobe is promoted as such. You reading this because you waist my time with technicalities and suspectiously add revenue from Adobe. Instead of concentrating on title of this video you all derailed to bs. But I do want to send some love to Mads Peter Iversen for excellent contents. Though this video might have an Adobe add and “I’m an Engineer” corrections.
@@mico5003 HI. I really have difficulty comprehending what you're trying to say. This is nothing about 'perception of science', it's about basic understanding of photography - the true explanations of why things are as they are. Simply, if you want to know what 'ISO' is, you might as well know the right answer, not the wrong one. I have no idea at all what all the stuff about Adobe has to do with all this.
Another excellent video. Just want to say Mads that you are one of the best photography educators I've come across on UA-cam. You clearly have a wealth of knowledge, but more importantly you really know how to explain things. I also appreciate that you generally avoid the 'this is why you are a terrible photographer' approach that I see more and more of. Will certainly be signing up for your Photoshop course, once I can set aside the time to work through it! All the best, and thanks!
8:15 looks like quite a lot of noise in my opinion, but this kinda seems almost like a trick in a way: photos of landscapes with a lot of texture like this one can kinda mask a lot of the noise.
Probably the best analogy I have ever heard, and I am into loud hard amplified amp running, subwoofers with a 3000 watt sound system in my camper van kind of guy !
I shoot with a Nikon D7200 camera and it has pretty decent dynamic range. When I shoot with my Tamron 150-600 lens in manual mode with auto-ISO (max to 2200), a trick I've learned is by using -0.7 to -1.0 exp. comp lowers my ISO down a little and I can bring back some shadow details in post.
I've revisited some old images with Adobe's Denoise and the different made was incredible Mads and definitely belays any fears about bumping up the ISO. Alyn's video on invariant camera was really informative and definitely a recommwatch for anyone wanting to know more about this subject
I would say that the key here is to shoot at the lowest/cleanest ISO possible, but don't risk blur (unintended blur that is) in an effort to get a cleaner image. Yes it's a compromise but as someone once told me, we can fix noise, we can't really fix motion blur (at least, not usually, although there are some tools that can help with slight blur from camera shake, but when given the choice, I'd increase the ISO in exchange for a cleaner image out of camera, since denoising has gotten so good). This is not to say to use excessively high ISOs. Use the cleanest/lowest ISO you can for the situation (if you're handholding, then you may need to increase it -- if you're on a tripod, then usually shutter speed is not a concern and you can use a low ISO, assuming that nothing is moving in the scene). As for shooting below the base ISO, I think this depends on the camera. I just checked my Nikon Z7 II and while there may be a slight advantage shooting at say the equivalent of ISO 32 vs the native ISO 64, it's not all that visible even at 800% in the shadows. So it will depend on the camera's sensor as to whether shooting below the native/base ISO is worth it or not, and in most cases you will be compromising something as a result, or room for error when using extened ISOs (lower-end) may be smaller. That being said, I do know (through testing) that I can pretty much under expose by about 2 stops from base ISO and bring up the exposure in post (to minimize noise) with no real side effects (so for example, if an exposure called for ISO 200, I could really do ISO 64 and just bring it up in post with a potentially cleaner image).
Vintage and older digital cameras aside, the de-noise software only emboldens my conviction to stick with the µ4/3 system platform, as it already produces great image quality, for challenging scenes, one can simply de-noise in post. Which results in a relatively smaller overall kit for a half the cost, or a third at best, coupled with the latest technologies… 🤔
A point to clarify is that a sensor used in any model of camera is only ISO invariant (no change of noise level relative to an ISO value) within a range of ISO values, it's usually stair stepped going between increasing ISO values. The larger / wider the range of identical noise levels as you increase the ISO, the more invariant that sensor is within that ISO range.
Is rather open the aperture , or and use a tripod and / or flash than bump up the iso/asa , iv played this game since film was the medium , one thing iv learnt , people hate noise and washed out colours that come with it
Have you ever used dark frame subtraction to eliminate noise? You take an exposure the same length of time at the same iso with the lens cap on right after you capture the picture which should give you a dark frame with sensor noise only.
@@robertruszkiewicz8126simply load one frame/picture, load the dark frame to another layer, and use DIFFERENCE blend mode. Lookup astrophotography dark frame subtraction, there are programs that will do this automatically available for free.
Great video, thanks Mads. I didn’t know about stacking into a smart layer and then blending. Great tip! I use On1 for denoise and I think it works better than LR.
This seems quite a complicated technical issue, but for someone like me - a simple soul, I get the basic idea. ISO as related to the digital sensor is a bit similar to ISO using film but different. But from a photography point of view it works more or less the same? Have I got it right?
I would say so. Depriving the sensor or film of enough light will reduce the quality of the picture. The effect is the same. As you can guess, in film, there is a chemical reaction to light on the emulsion. Too little light (raising the ASA/ISO to a higher level), doesn't give the film or sensor enough time to react. As you can see in the examples provided, the pictures where the ISO was very high, the quality was crap, not very good. I would think he would use the Sony A7S3, with a sensor built just for low light photography. The pixel density isn't as high, 16mp or so, but you will get a better picture.
The best way to get as little noise as possible, even with high ISOs, is the ETTR technique (Expose To The Right). For this you NEED to learn how to read histograms and use them to get your exposure correct, which is in this case ETTR. There are lots of videos on YT about this. Most important to understand is that not high ISO causes noise but a lack of light on your sensor does, in other ways underexposure and therefore not enough photons on your sensor. The result of a lack of photons is a bad signal to noise ratio on the sensor and THAT causes the noise, NOT the ISO settings.
I usually always use 100 iso (ASA), but I've been shooting for 40 years and am a stickler for detail (I am industrial photog).. But if you have lighting problems only then do you use higher iso. My favorite camera back in those days was my Leica R8 and my Sinar 4x5. I recently bought a nikon z7 but I use it for snapshots. I mainly use a Fuji Film camera for work.
I did a graduation shoot for my friend's daughter this summer, and the first 20% or so of shots I took I had absent-mindedly left it on ISO 3200 (I'd forgot that my brother was using my camera to take pictures indoors at a party we were hosting, and thought I was on 100). I was mad at myself when I saw all the noise in Lightroom when I was editing them and hit the "Denoise" button thinking it wasn't going to do anything. POOF it all went away, as though I'd taken the shot with my ISO all the way down. My mind was blown.
They say that the three sides of the exposure triangle are equally important. When shooting wildlife, though, I find that ISO is the least important leg. Shutter speed and aperture are paramount. Either clean up the high-ISO noise in post, or live with it.
using a Nikon D780 of Z6ii the noise level is the same at ISO 400 and 1000 and up to ISO1000 is well within range of most cameras at ISO100 This fixation of must keep ISO100 is a real handicap using modern digital cameras.
Good topic, I'm a beginner, I'm trying to learn with the iPhone 14 Pro and Sony ZV-E10 camera (with Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens) and I realize that noise is the enemy of even expensive cameras and I want to make very clean videos and photos without any noise, of course, with an additional denoizer plugin.
From my understanding all camera shoot at base ISO the change is done on your photo not the sensor. Also a lot of DSLR have noise reduction in camera but by default it’s turned off. Turning it makes a big difference.
Taking pictures at a higher iso is fine in theory but the problem Is you are restricted to whatever is your camera is capable of as some budget or older cameras are more limited in their capabilities
Hi Mads thanks for the refresher. Very easy to understand for us technically challenged photography artists. Aperture for the depth of field required artistically. Shutter speed to freeze or blur motion as required artistically. ISO to control brightness usually only required if the previous settings cause clipping on the histogram that may result in the inability to reclaim detail in post. Great balance between technical, artistic and just enjoying the experiences. Great channel. Practical, valuable and inspirational content. Thank you.
Out of all the setting ISO really doesn't matter... because out of the three shutter speed and aperture allow you to make creative decisions about the picture you are taking, ISO does not... it only decides how much noise you have to have. Make your creative decisions first and then change your ISO to fit that. Of course you can make alter your creative decisions and play with different apertures and shutter speeds to try to get an optimal image with less noise, but it's important to get 'The Shot' first. If I am "freezing" action, I am often starting at 1/2000s for a shutterspeed (anywhere up to like 200mm), and then if I want to ensure DOF so that my subject is in focus even if I am moving fast (e.g. driving in a vehicle), F8 is usually good. From there I can get 'a shot' after getting that you can experiment. Do you reduce shutter speed to 1000? Do you try at F4.... do you do both and allow you to quarter your ISO.... well thats all stuff you can do once you have the shot, and once you have your creative constraints in place. Recently when shooting humming birds, I needed to keep the shutter speed at 1/2000 because it gave the right amount of detail, but also some movement in the wings.... aperture slowly got wider and wider.
You introduce how to get rid of noise, it works. What i suggest is to make you keep or even boost your noise for better photos. Why? The noise is Natural, in Sound, in Picture. If you want to get rid of it you get an unnatural polished sound or photo, result is the sound or photo is loosing its life/Soul. When u get older at some point u might understand what i try to say. Just like why people like vinyl records, because they have noise/Life/Soul in them. With the cd’s the trend was look hear how noiseless sound. That killed the records. Now pros understood it and synthetisers have noise sounds to add LIFE to music.
Mads, can you please explain, what settings you changed on your computer to get the job done faster in photoshop? I think I have some kind the same issue. Maybe it would even be interesting to more people. Unfortunately not all can just buy a new laptop and if there is away to solve the problem it would be awesome. Thanks a lot.
I turned off the native GPU so that only the strong one was running. Be sure to Google how to do that. Alternatively, you may be able to force Lightroom/CameraRaw to use the strong one via the settings. It's Googlable ;)
The one shot that i really noticed you getting it wrong was at 10:40. you underexposed the photo because you didnt use a high enough iso, which in the end you try to correct in post which introduces so much more noise than exposing it correctly with a higher iso in the first place.
@@MadsPeterIversen no, the adding exposure in post is not possible without introducing more noise because the pixel wasnt even there in the first place. try it out and stop spreading misinformation
This has been the best video on ISO so far. Modern cameras though are incredible. My A7IV feels light years ahead of my a7iii in noise performance. I’m now pretty comfortable pumping the ISO to 6400 or even 8,000 now.
Great video and content. I was in Iceland for my 7 th visit last year and I was at the same places that you took your pics. Have you ever taken puffin pics at Bakkageroi. I have some great pics of puffins there. Thank you for you info on ISO. Ben
Question about ISO, in video using the native 12800 on A7S3 is a lot better than using 8000, does this apply to photos too or no? - also considering 640 and 12800 are native is there a bit difference between 640 and 12800 with a quality ND filter in output photo and video quality?
A good, informative video. But I must point out something. I go back about 60 years with photography. With film we had ASA and DIN. Pronounced A-S-A and D-I-N. They were replaced with ISO. Back then it was pronounced I-S-O by all my instructors and photographers I knew. Along comes digital and a new younger group of photographers that think of it as a word, EYESO. I live in the U-S-A. What about those in the E-U or U-K? It is not USAH, YUK or YEOU. In the end, how it is pronounced doesn't really matter as long as people understand what it is and how to apply ISO. But it does drive some of us ancient ones crazy!
People often think that ISO invariant cameras are inherently better which is not always true. Usually it just means that the sensor has only one actual gain value and any other "ISO" setting just means that the camera multiplies or divides the data by appropriate value. Which, while convenient (you don't have to worry about underexposing), does not necessarily mean that a sensor with multiple different gain values couldn't achieve better results.
I noticed weird lines in the star photos after AI denoise…I have seen the same in some of my photos. Did you notice that and if so did you figure out why or how to get rid of it?
Really sure that DXO and Topaz - and not Adobe - have been revolutionizing denoising for quite a few years now!! Yes, Adobe may have caught up with their most recent release - better late to the party than never!! Using DXO PhotoLab Elite gives a huge sensor upgrade to Micro 4/3; enabling that platform to be highly competitive - the main reason I use Panasonic G9 for Landscape/Scenic photography. Do not fear the ISO!!
Thanks for this. Interesting note on “invariance” that I’ll have to look into, if my eye can discern within a relevant window of ISO values on my camera. However, I’m not really keen on regarding ISO as an acronym - I realise the International Organisation for Standards exists, and covers many fields, and that many people commonly pronounce it “eye ess oh” like an acronym, when related to camera sensitivity (I do still think of it as “sensitivity” in film terms, but glad to know the clarification of amplification) but although this is commonly done, it isn’t technically correct. Rather than an acronym, it’s an abbreviation originating from the Greek “isos” for equal - presumably the 3 elements of the exposure triangle coming together to the resultant exposure. Therefore, whilst I never quibble someone saying I S O, “eyesso” is the accurate. I hadn’t appreciated the International Standards Organisation, but think this distinction still stands. The Greek term is also where the standards organisation drew its acronym from. Just a friendly FYI, hopefully not to be received as too much of a “jobsworth” contribution.
I'm an engineer. There is a mistake on the video. Although in analogic photography the ISO is the sensitivity to light, in digital it's not the case. ISO at digital is merely a gain on the sign generated. The final brightness of the salts (proportional to the chemical reaction advance) is affected by the apperture, time o exposure (both affectig the amount of photons reaching the film) and iso (which is the capability of the film to absorve those photons. However, the sensitivity of a sensor never changes and once it is high you get iso invariance and iso or post gain are equal (in results not in practical usage as higher iso could make it possible to see dark at composition). Films really change the iso make them to capture more or less light during the exposure. Besides, the iso variant is not only better to increase on location but also the amount of noise will vary depending on different ranges. Some of those sensors produce non linear results and strange and stargged noise distribution too
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here, but I don't. What exactly is the mistake and where do I say it? If it's the case it's of course good to get it corrected!
@@MadsPeterIverseniso in digital is a value amplification. I.e. the same amount of light is always received by a digital sensor regardless of exposure. In other words the exposure curve in iso terms is linear in digital. In film iso is reactivity to the variability of light received. In other words iso for film and exposure are tied at the hip in an exponential curve. I.e. more light compounds the reaction. It is why film and digital are opposite when it comes to the expose for highlights, expose for shadows paradigm between the two mediums. Film cant resolve if enough light has not been received to catalyze the reaction whereas digital just amplifies the limited light that was received. In digital the opposite sort of occurs when too much light is received. The digital sensor becomes super saturated with light up to maximum values of say 256, rendering highlight detail lost. The chemical reaction of film on the other hand is an exponential curve, where more light has diminishing returns on the reaction, thus preserving details at much higher levels of over exposure versus a corresponding digital sensor set at an “equivalent” amplification value (iso + exposure). I hope that makes sense 😅
when you increase the gain by increasing the ISO, you also increase the noise which is why I keep the ISO low. I can't afford a $2500 camera so I have to live with the sensor I've got.
As you say Its best to use the lowest ISO that is the correct ISO for the image you are trying to capture; the lowest possible may well turn out to be 1600 or higher.
Really not always true. Astrophotography is very common where you don't see anything at the terrain and it's better to use higher iso before cliping some highlights. This way you can not only compose but also check the quality of the very dark regions. Otherwise, you'll find out only during post. Specially, today mostly of the good sensors are iso invariant for large range
During the day, when the sun is shining, always set iso to 100, in cloudy weather and low light, to iso 400, and at night, you can set it from 500 to above, 600, 800, 1000, and so on.
ISO should be at the lowest possible for the situation, if the light and conditions permit it for landscapes I'm sticking to ISO 64 on my main body and ISO 100 on my secondary body for their dynamic range there, if I need to up it I know I get completely acceptable images at ISO 6400 on my main and 3200 on my secondary.
These days cameras are so good that I rarely consider ISO. My first consideration is aperture, Unless my subject is moving. Then shutter speed will be my primary consideration. I'll let the ISO fall where it will unless it is outrageously high.
Exposure compensation is more a tool for variations of the scene within an exposure, say your photographing birds in the trees and the sky is bright, to avoid clipping the sky dial back (eg -1) on exposure compensation to preserve them, or, and handle this with care and at a native ISO, if you have a sensor that can tolerate over exposure without clipping highlights then set to (eg +1), the effect will be to lower the noise of a post corrected exposure.
For some sensors the ISO changes the dynamic range. A sensor might have a higher dynamic range at ISO 800, depending on your goals you might choose the dynamic range over less noise. I think there are also sensors where the noise increases when going BELOW a certain ISO. Know your gear :)
It is refreshing to see what dull pointless pictures you take while trying to capture something that is worth showing on the internet 😁 Don't get me wrong, it reminds me of the fact that youtubers show just the best of the best pictures they take. Maybe you should do a video about failed photos.
If by "low" you mean the values below base ISO.... those are similar to higher ISOs I think, in that you can end up with more noise actually in some cases when using the "boosted" low ISO values. If by low you mena base ISO, then yes, one should strive to use the lowest ISO possible (but not the "boosed" low ISO, like ISO 50 on some models, who have a base ISO of 100 for example).
@@HR-wd6cw You have base ISO and you have high and low ISO settings. Iike your camera have 100 base ISO but also a low 50 ISO, written as L50. Soo you have not tested this. It have nothing to do with boosted. Well it have, no more noises, it have lesser artifacts, more highlight and shadow details. As higher ISO raises brightness, with lesser exposure, Lower ISO decreases brightness with MORE longer exposures. In other words it gains more lightinformations than base ISO Very beneficial and very little used and mentioned.
I have heard (and I need to fact-check this, but it sounds logical) that noise is always present in the image but becomes visible in underexposed photos when you need to correct in post-processing, so a high iso (gain) setting will not (only) be the cause of noise in your photo. If you expose well (to the right in your histogram) and the correction in post-processing is not necessary, you will hardly see any noise even at high iso. These kinds of technical things in photography are fun to figure out. So I also wonder if this has something to do with the fact that most modern cameras have iso-less sensors,...
Wish I would have understood this better when shooting on our whale watching tour a few days ago. With the rough seas and being in a zodiak, I struggled to get as clean of images (in focus) as I would have liked. I definitely did get plenty of decent ones but would have liked to have done better.
Nice video but remember your viewers are mainly amateur photographers and photoshop or lightroom are way too expensive for them, you should really try other more affordable software.
Lightroom with Photoshop costs about the same as a Netflix subscription... I honestly don't find them to be that expensive. I sometimes do videos on Skylum Luminar, but then people get angry because it's not the Adobe programs... Even if the Adobe programs are too expensive, it's fairly easy to convert the editing tricks to other programs ;)
Hi guys, there have been a few people correcting me on the statement that "ISO refers to the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to light". You are correct. Admittedly, for the life of me, I cannot understand why I went with that word in the script because I'm trying to make the opposite point that dialing up the ISO only amplifies the brightness as stated from 1:56 - 3:06 I hope I was clear enough in that section.
Slowing the shutter speed or opening the aperture also amplify the brightness. All three control the exposure. Hope that helps
There's a bunch of weeds to be waded through here, due to the wrong conceptualisation of ISO that is common. The statement that ISO 'amplifies the brightness' is also wrong, I'm afraid, but not as wrong as saying it's 'the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to light'. The key point to understand is that 'brightness' is irrelevant to the output of your camera, so no 'amplification of brightness' is needed, nor does it occur. That's because the output of a camera isn't light, its a statement of locations in a colour space. The relevant term is 'lightness', not 'brightness'. This is all from colour theory, developed originally for the printing industry. Lightness (the 'L' in the Lab colour space) runs on a fixed scale from 'black' to 'white' and determines how a human observer should see it, not an absolute amount of light. Some people get worried about unfamiliar terms, but the important realisation is that the input and output are different things, and using the same word ('i.e. 'brightness') for input and output just confuses them, and leads directly to this fallacy that 'brightness' needs 'amplifying', from which most of the misunderstandings about ISO derive.
@@BobN54 I’m in a wavelength of getting better in photography not in a perception of science 😜for lightness of me your input is irrivalent. I’m going to present an argument and statement according to Adobe’s subscription based model vs Affinity Serif’s pay-as-you-go model. And community driven open source software. Which camp are you in? I remember when Apple came with their own SoC M1. You would argue Adobe would be forerunner as they have ressources. What happened one bug to another. It hurts me when Adobe is promoted as such. You reading this because you waist my time with technicalities and suspectiously add revenue from Adobe. Instead of concentrating on title of this video you all derailed to bs. But I do want to send some love to Mads Peter Iversen for excellent contents. Though this video might have an Adobe add and “I’m an Engineer” corrections.
@@mico5003 HI. I really have difficulty comprehending what you're trying to say. This is nothing about 'perception of science', it's about basic understanding of photography - the true explanations of why things are as they are. Simply, if you want to know what 'ISO' is, you might as well know the right answer, not the wrong one. I have no idea at all what all the stuff about Adobe has to do with all this.
@@BobN54 i was hoping you’ll get the joke.
The car radio analogy is literally the best description of what noise in photography is that I have ever heard!
A great summary of ISO and some amazing examples.
Thanks a lot, Nigel! 🙏
Excellent analogy about comparing ISO with the noise when turning up a radio.
Another excellent video. Just want to say Mads that you are one of the best photography educators I've come across on UA-cam. You clearly have a wealth of knowledge, but more importantly you really know how to explain things. I also appreciate that you generally avoid the 'this is why you are a terrible photographer' approach that I see more and more of. Will certainly be signing up for your Photoshop course, once I can set aside the time to work through it! All the best, and thanks!
8:15 looks like quite a lot of noise in my opinion, but this kinda seems almost like a trick in a way: photos of landscapes with a lot of texture like this one can kinda mask a lot of the noise.
Probably the best analogy I have ever heard, and I am into loud hard amplified amp running, subwoofers with a 3000 watt sound system in my camper van kind of guy !
I shoot with a Nikon D7200 camera and it has pretty decent dynamic range. When I shoot with my Tamron 150-600 lens in manual mode with auto-ISO (max to 2200), a trick I've learned is by using -0.7 to -1.0 exp. comp lowers my ISO down a little and I can bring back some shadow details in post.
I've revisited some old images with Adobe's Denoise and the different made was incredible Mads and definitely belays any fears about bumping up the ISO. Alyn's video on invariant camera was really informative and definitely a recommwatch for anyone wanting to know more about this subject
I would say that the key here is to shoot at the lowest/cleanest ISO possible, but don't risk blur (unintended blur that is) in an effort to get a cleaner image. Yes it's a compromise but as someone once told me, we can fix noise, we can't really fix motion blur (at least, not usually, although there are some tools that can help with slight blur from camera shake, but when given the choice, I'd increase the ISO in exchange for a cleaner image out of camera, since denoising has gotten so good). This is not to say to use excessively high ISOs. Use the cleanest/lowest ISO you can for the situation (if you're handholding, then you may need to increase it -- if you're on a tripod, then usually shutter speed is not a concern and you can use a low ISO, assuming that nothing is moving in the scene).
As for shooting below the base ISO, I think this depends on the camera. I just checked my Nikon Z7 II and while there may be a slight advantage shooting at say the equivalent of ISO 32 vs the native ISO 64, it's not all that visible even at 800% in the shadows. So it will depend on the camera's sensor as to whether shooting below the native/base ISO is worth it or not, and in most cases you will be compromising something as a result, or room for error when using extened ISOs (lower-end) may be smaller. That being said, I do know (through testing) that I can pretty much under expose by about 2 stops from base ISO and bring up the exposure in post (to minimize noise) with no real side effects (so for example, if an exposure called for ISO 200, I could really do ISO 64 and just bring it up in post with a potentially cleaner image).
Your shares are wonderful. Your store will help more people take better photos.
Good explanation on ISO
Vintage and older digital cameras aside, the de-noise software only emboldens my conviction to stick with the µ4/3 system platform, as it already produces great image quality, for challenging scenes, one can simply de-noise in post. Which results in a relatively smaller overall kit for a half the cost, or a third at best, coupled with the latest technologies…
🤔
A point to clarify is that a sensor used in any model of camera is only ISO invariant (no change of noise level relative to an ISO value) within a range of ISO values, it's usually stair stepped going between increasing ISO values. The larger / wider the range of identical noise levels as you increase the ISO, the more invariant that sensor is within that ISO range.
Gday mate,
I can’t tell you how long I’ve been trying to get my head around this and I now finally get it! Thank you 🙏🏾
Is rather open the aperture , or and use a tripod and / or flash than bump up the iso/asa , iv played this game since film was the medium , one thing iv learnt , people hate noise and washed out colours that come with it
Have you ever used dark frame subtraction to eliminate noise? You take an exposure the same length of time at the same iso with the lens cap on right after you capture the picture which should give you a dark frame with sensor noise only.
Engaging idea! Could you expand your statement how to use it exactly in PS / LR please?
@@robertruszkiewicz8126simply load one frame/picture, load the dark frame to another layer, and use DIFFERENCE blend mode.
Lookup astrophotography dark frame subtraction, there are programs that will do this automatically available for free.
Great video, thanks Mads. I didn’t know about stacking into a smart layer and then blending. Great tip! I use On1 for denoise and I think it works better than LR.
That's interesting, even better than the new AI denoise?
I'd say so, but care is needed with the sharpening options. Its fast and you get a preview before committing. I think they do a free trial.
This seems quite a complicated technical issue, but for someone like me - a simple soul, I get the basic idea. ISO as related to the digital sensor is a bit similar to ISO using film but different. But from a photography point of view it works more or less the same? Have I got it right?
I would say so. Depriving the sensor or film of enough light will reduce the quality of the picture. The effect is the same. As you can guess, in film, there is a chemical reaction to light on the emulsion. Too little light (raising the ASA/ISO to a higher level), doesn't give the film or sensor enough time to react. As you can see in the examples provided, the pictures where the ISO was very high, the quality was crap, not very good. I would think he would use the Sony A7S3, with a sensor built just for low light photography. The pixel density isn't as high, 16mp or so, but you will get a better picture.
The best way to get as little noise as possible, even with high ISOs, is the ETTR technique (Expose To The Right). For this you NEED to learn how to read histograms and use them to get your exposure correct, which is in this case ETTR. There are lots of videos on YT about this. Most important to understand is that not high ISO causes noise but a lack of light on your sensor does, in other ways underexposure and therefore not enough photons on your sensor. The result of a lack of photons is a bad signal to noise ratio on the sensor and THAT causes the noise, NOT the ISO settings.
I usually always use 100 iso (ASA), but I've been shooting for 40 years and am a stickler for detail (I am industrial photog).. But if you have lighting problems only then do you use higher iso. My favorite camera back in those days was my Leica R8 and my Sinar 4x5. I recently bought a nikon z7 but I use it for snapshots. I mainly use a Fuji Film camera for work.
I did a graduation shoot for my friend's daughter this summer, and the first 20% or so of shots I took I had absent-mindedly left it on ISO 3200 (I'd forgot that my brother was using my camera to take pictures indoors at a party we were hosting, and thought I was on 100). I was mad at myself when I saw all the noise in Lightroom when I was editing them and hit the "Denoise" button thinking it wasn't going to do anything. POOF it all went away, as though I'd taken the shot with my ISO all the way down. My mind was blown.
They say that the three sides of the exposure triangle are equally important. When shooting wildlife, though, I find that ISO is the least important leg. Shutter speed and aperture are paramount. Either clean up the high-ISO noise in post, or live with it.
Excellent video...very helpful...might be my eyes but i couldn't find the mpb link 🤔
Thanks for the notice! Completely forgot, that's what happens when you upload videos after 4,5 hours of sleep and a week's workshop :P
@@MadsPeterIversen no problem...hope you get some rest! Best wishes!
Thanks for the education Mads!
using a Nikon D780 of Z6ii the noise level is the same at ISO 400 and 1000 and up to ISO1000 is well within range of most cameras at ISO100 This fixation of must keep ISO100 is a real handicap using modern digital cameras.
Sir. Very informative video. I learned many things. Thank you.
Thank you Mads. Another excellent video.
Great explaination.
Good topic, I'm a beginner, I'm trying to learn with the iPhone 14 Pro and Sony ZV-E10 camera (with Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens) and I realize that noise is the enemy of even expensive cameras and I want to make very clean videos and photos without any noise, of course, with an additional denoizer plugin.
Another great video Mads.
A very interesting tutorial on ISO. with great examples.
Look forward to the next one.
From my understanding all camera shoot at base ISO the change is done on your photo not the sensor. Also a lot of DSLR have noise reduction in camera but by default it’s turned off. Turning it makes a big difference.
Very informative. Great video. helps out so much. Thanks
Taking pictures at a higher iso is fine in theory but the problem Is you are restricted to whatever is your camera is capable of as some budget or older cameras are more limited in their capabilities
Is the stacking technique (~14:30) an good alternative to programs like Starry Landscape Stacker?
Hi Mads thanks for the refresher. Very easy to understand for us technically challenged photography artists. Aperture for the depth of field required artistically. Shutter speed to freeze or blur motion as required artistically. ISO to control brightness usually only required if the previous settings cause clipping on the histogram that may result in the inability to reclaim detail in post. Great balance between technical, artistic and just enjoying the experiences. Great channel. Practical, valuable and inspirational content. Thank you.
Hello, what is the noise reduction software in your video？
Adobe CameraRaw (same as Lightroom) :)
thanks~~hhh~@@MadsPeterIversen
Great video - how did you change the graphics thing - mine is shockingly slow?
Out of all the setting ISO really doesn't matter... because out of the three shutter speed and aperture allow you to make creative decisions about the picture you are taking, ISO does not... it only decides how much noise you have to have. Make your creative decisions first and then change your ISO to fit that. Of course you can make alter your creative decisions and play with different apertures and shutter speeds to try to get an optimal image with less noise, but it's important to get 'The Shot' first. If I am "freezing" action, I am often starting at 1/2000s for a shutterspeed (anywhere up to like 200mm), and then if I want to ensure DOF so that my subject is in focus even if I am moving fast (e.g. driving in a vehicle), F8 is usually good. From there I can get 'a shot' after getting that you can experiment. Do you reduce shutter speed to 1000? Do you try at F4.... do you do both and allow you to quarter your ISO.... well thats all stuff you can do once you have the shot, and once you have your creative constraints in place. Recently when shooting humming birds, I needed to keep the shutter speed at 1/2000 because it gave the right amount of detail, but also some movement in the wings.... aperture slowly got wider and wider.
You introduce how to get rid of noise, it works.
What i suggest is to make you keep or even boost your noise for better photos. Why? The noise is Natural, in Sound, in Picture. If you want to get rid of it you get an unnatural polished sound or photo, result is the sound or photo is loosing its life/Soul. When u get older at some point u might understand what i try to say. Just like why people like vinyl records, because they have noise/Life/Soul in them. With the cd’s the trend was look hear how noiseless sound. That killed the records. Now pros understood it and synthetisers have noise sounds to add LIFE to music.
Well done Mads ! Nice analogy with the “Car Radio volume noise” 👏👏…
Thanks a lot, Art :)
Great video, thanks for sharing
Hey, shout out to the 5DMII...still love that camera body, but the ISO leaves a lot to be desired (bought mine in 2014).
Nicely explained.
Mads, can you please explain, what settings you changed on your computer to get the job done faster in photoshop? I think I have some kind the same issue. Maybe it would even be interesting to more people. Unfortunately not all can just buy a new laptop and if there is away to solve the problem it would be awesome. Thanks a lot.
I turned off the native GPU so that only the strong one was running. Be sure to Google how to do that. Alternatively, you may be able to force Lightroom/CameraRaw to use the strong one via the settings. It's Googlable ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen thanks a lot, I will ask Google... ;-)
The one shot that i really noticed you getting it wrong was at 10:40. you underexposed the photo because you didnt use a high enough iso, which in the end you try to correct in post which introduces so much more noise than exposing it correctly with a higher iso in the first place.
Only if you're using an ISO variant camera ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen no, the adding exposure in post is not possible without introducing more noise because the pixel wasnt even there in the first place. try it out and stop spreading misinformation
This has been the best video on ISO so far.
Modern cameras though are incredible. My A7IV feels light years ahead of my a7iii in noise performance.
I’m now pretty comfortable pumping the ISO to 6400 or even 8,000 now.
I like the two videos of Simon d'Entremont on this topic, called "the truth about shooting at ISO 100". Still thanks Mads for your video.
Grate video well done
Very interesting. I just wonder one thing. Did you take multiple shots of the foreground on location, or did you copy them in the edit?
On location, if you copy them in the edit you'll just copy the noise pattern too and won't gain anything :)
Great video and content. I was in Iceland for my 7 th visit last year and I was at the same places that you took your pics. Have you ever taken puffin pics at Bakkageroi. I have some great pics of puffins there. Thank you for you info on ISO. Ben
Question about ISO, in video using the native 12800 on
A7S3 is a lot better than using 8000, does this apply to photos too or no? - also considering 640 and 12800 are native is there a bit difference between 640 and 12800 with a quality ND filter in output photo and video quality?
Great video, Mads! Maybe it worth to add that Denoise tool from ACR works only with RAW files.
Indeed! One can hope for an update in the future where it's not just RAW's
ISO is open to interpretation, as is aperture and shutter speed.
Good education
A good, informative video. But I must point out something. I go back about 60 years with photography. With film we had ASA and DIN. Pronounced A-S-A and D-I-N. They were replaced with ISO. Back then it was pronounced I-S-O by all my instructors and photographers I knew. Along comes digital and a new younger group of photographers that think of it as a word, EYESO. I live in the U-S-A. What about those in the E-U or U-K? It is not USAH, YUK or YEOU. In the end, how it is pronounced doesn't really matter as long as people understand what it is and how to apply ISO. But it does drive some of us ancient ones crazy!
You need to get out more! 😆
Exactly - I have the same gripe
People out here with $2,000-8,000 cameras acting like they have a 600 ISO limit. Put your money to use people.
People often think that ISO invariant cameras are inherently better which is not always true. Usually it just means that the sensor has only one actual gain value and any other "ISO" setting just means that the camera multiplies or divides the data by appropriate value. Which, while convenient (you don't have to worry about underexposing), does not necessarily mean that a sensor with multiple different gain values couldn't achieve better results.
I noticed weird lines in the star photos after AI denoise…I have seen the same in some of my photos. Did you notice that and if so did you figure out why or how to get rid of it?
Lots of movement in macro too, when you're shooting bugs.
What are your views on dxo pure raw 3 for denoising?
Haven't tried it ;)
Really sure that DXO and Topaz - and not Adobe - have been revolutionizing denoising for quite a few years now!! Yes, Adobe may have caught up with their most recent release - better late to the party than never!! Using DXO PhotoLab Elite gives a huge sensor upgrade to Micro 4/3; enabling that platform to be highly competitive - the main reason I use Panasonic G9 for Landscape/Scenic photography. Do not fear the ISO!!
I usually shoot at dusk or sundown. I keep a low shutter speed usually 1/100 but nothing is visible below 1600 ISO.. any tips
Good video
Thanks for this. Interesting note on “invariance” that I’ll have to look into, if my eye can discern within a relevant window of ISO values on my camera. However, I’m not really keen on regarding ISO as an acronym - I realise the International Organisation for Standards exists, and covers many fields, and that many people commonly pronounce it “eye ess oh” like an acronym, when related to camera sensitivity (I do still think of it as “sensitivity” in film terms, but glad to know the clarification of amplification) but although this is commonly done, it isn’t technically correct. Rather than an acronym, it’s an abbreviation originating from the Greek “isos” for equal - presumably the 3 elements of the exposure triangle coming together to the resultant exposure. Therefore, whilst I never quibble someone saying I S O, “eyesso” is the accurate. I hadn’t appreciated the International Standards Organisation, but think this distinction still stands. The Greek term is also where the standards organisation drew its acronym from. Just a friendly FYI, hopefully not to be received as too much of a “jobsworth” contribution.
ISO is not an acronym. Pretty sure that's an ISO standard. 😂
So would you recommend Auto ISO?
Depends on the scene. It's a tool in your toolbox :)
I'm an engineer. There is a mistake on the video. Although in analogic photography the ISO is the sensitivity to light, in digital it's not the case. ISO at digital is merely a gain on the sign generated. The final brightness of the salts (proportional to the chemical reaction advance) is affected by the apperture, time o exposure (both affectig the amount of photons reaching the film) and iso (which is the capability of the film to absorve those photons. However, the sensitivity of a sensor never changes and once it is high you get iso invariance and iso or post gain are equal (in results not in practical usage as higher iso could make it possible to see dark at composition). Films really change the iso make them to capture more or less light during the exposure. Besides, the iso variant is not only better to increase on location but also the amount of noise will vary depending on different ranges. Some of those sensors produce non linear results and strange and stargged noise distribution too
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here, but I don't. What exactly is the mistake and where do I say it? If it's the case it's of course good to get it corrected!
ISO is not the sensitivity to light. It’s the amplification of the light. That is why you see noise.
Yes!!! Because most of us come from a film background there are torturous attempts to use film emulsion analogies to digital tech.
@@MadsPeterIverseniso in digital is a value amplification. I.e. the same amount of light is always received by a digital sensor regardless of exposure. In other words the exposure curve in iso terms is linear in digital. In film iso is reactivity to the variability of light received. In other words iso for film and exposure are tied at the hip in an exponential curve. I.e. more light compounds the reaction. It is why film and digital are opposite when it comes to the expose for highlights, expose for shadows paradigm between the two mediums. Film cant resolve if enough light has not been received to catalyze the reaction whereas digital just amplifies the limited light that was received. In digital the opposite sort of occurs when too much light is received. The digital sensor becomes super saturated with light up to maximum values of say 256, rendering highlight detail lost. The chemical reaction of film on the other hand is an exponential curve, where more light has diminishing returns on the reaction, thus preserving details at much higher levels of over exposure versus a corresponding digital sensor set at an “equivalent” amplification value (iso + exposure). I hope that makes sense 😅
Mumbo jumbo.
I normally use light at first, second choice is larger aperture, ISO is the last choice
the famouse diablo youtuber.. finally a face behind the voice and accent
when you increase the gain by increasing the ISO, you also increase the noise which is why I keep the ISO low. I can't afford a $2500 camera so I have to live with the sensor I've got.
As you say Its best to use the lowest ISO that is the correct ISO for the image you are trying to capture; the lowest possible may well turn out to be 1600 or higher.
Really not always true. Astrophotography is very common where you don't see anything at the terrain and it's better to use higher iso before cliping some highlights. This way you can not only compose but also check the quality of the very dark regions. Otherwise, you'll find out only during post. Specially, today mostly of the good sensors are iso invariant for large range
Test Question - What was ASA/DIN
Sensor amplification. It should be called gain. ISO was used for similarity.
Nice pics
During the day, when the sun is shining, always set iso to 100, in cloudy weather and low light, to iso 400, and at night, you can set it from 500 to above, 600, 800, 1000, and so on.
What should I buy if I want an ISO_variant camera? Is it a secret?
Most DSLR systems are iso variant. There must be a list with which are variant and which are invariant.
ISO should be at the lowest possible for the situation, if the light and conditions permit it for landscapes I'm sticking to ISO 64 on my main body and ISO 100 on my secondary body for their dynamic range there, if I need to up it I know I get completely acceptable images at ISO 6400 on my main and 3200 on my secondary.
These days cameras are so good that I rarely consider ISO. My first consideration is aperture, Unless my subject is moving. Then shutter speed will be my primary consideration. I'll let the ISO fall where it will unless it is outrageously high.
What about dual iso cameras? Iso 800 in such case can be much better than 500...
Question: instead of increasing the ISO, why not use exposure compensation?
Exposure compensation is more a tool for variations of the scene within an exposure, say your photographing birds in the trees and the sky is bright, to avoid clipping the sky dial back (eg -1) on exposure compensation to preserve them, or, and handle this with care and at a native ISO, if you have a sensor that can tolerate over exposure without clipping highlights then set to (eg +1), the effect will be to lower the noise of a post corrected exposure.
I find when there is that much noise in the photo it softens the photo to a none useable photo?
For some sensors the ISO changes the dynamic range. A sensor might have a higher dynamic range at ISO 800, depending on your goals you might choose the dynamic range over less noise.
I think there are also sensors where the noise increases when going BELOW a certain ISO. Know your gear :)
It is refreshing to see what dull pointless pictures you take while trying to capture something that is worth showing on the internet 😁 Don't get me wrong, it reminds me of the fact that youtubers show just the best of the best pictures they take. Maybe you should do a video about failed photos.
My ISO depends strictly on whatever shutter speed I need for that shot. Plain and simple.
Usually i only use 100-800. If my cam has below 100 ill use it
Look at that worming! I was led to believe that was just a Fuji thing.
What software do you use for denoising?
I'm literally showing it in the video 😅
Great video
Dont get why Low Iso are not used more. It does encrease exposure, by lowering brigthness.
If by "low" you mean the values below base ISO.... those are similar to higher ISOs I think, in that you can end up with more noise actually in some cases when using the "boosted" low ISO values. If by low you mena base ISO, then yes, one should strive to use the lowest ISO possible (but not the "boosed" low ISO, like ISO 50 on some models, who have a base ISO of 100 for example).
@@HR-wd6cw You have base ISO and you have high and low ISO settings.
Iike your camera have 100 base ISO but also a low 50 ISO, written as L50.
Soo you have not tested this. It have nothing to do with boosted.
Well it have, no more noises, it have lesser artifacts, more highlight and shadow details. As higher ISO raises brightness, with lesser exposure, Lower ISO decreases brightness with MORE longer exposures. In other words it gains more lightinformations than base ISO
Very beneficial and very little used and mentioned.
@@Tbonyandsteak My mistake, I had used the term "boosted" instead of "extended ISO" which covers both ends (boosted usually implies the high end).
@@HR-wd6cw recommend test it against base ISO. You will be surprised.
@@Tbonyandsteak I will but I remember on one of my previous cameras, I did and couldn't tell much of a difference at all.
How do you know what ISO I use?
You still take the image using the lowest iso for the proper exposure.
I have heard (and I need to fact-check this, but it sounds logical) that noise is always present in the image but becomes visible in underexposed photos when you need to correct in post-processing, so a high iso (gain) setting will not (only) be the cause of noise in your photo. If you expose well (to the right in your histogram) and the correction in post-processing is not necessary, you will hardly see any noise even at high iso. These kinds of technical things in photography are fun to figure out. So I also wonder if this has something to do with the fact that most modern cameras have iso-less sensors,...
ISO does not mean Organization etc. It mean 'equal' and comes from the Greek word 'ισο'. Please check
I will always call ISO “eye so” thanks to ISO XO
Title: "Stop using the wrong ISO!"
Me: *"That's why I use Auto, heh."*
Wish I would have understood this better when shooting on our whale watching tour a few days ago. With the rough seas and being in a zodiak, I struggled to get as clean of images (in focus) as I would have liked. I definitely did get plenty of decent ones but would have liked to have done better.
nice
The new AI denoise function is miracle.
i have the sense that AI like stable diffusion may make ISO irrelevant.
Nice video but remember your viewers are mainly amateur photographers and photoshop or lightroom are way too expensive for them, you should really try other more affordable software.
Lightroom with Photoshop costs about the same as a Netflix subscription... I honestly don't find them to be that expensive. I sometimes do videos on Skylum Luminar, but then people get angry because it's not the Adobe programs... Even if the Adobe programs are too expensive, it's fairly easy to convert the editing tricks to other programs ;)
You're absolutely right, thank you for your answer.@@MadsPeterIversen
I thought this video was about ISO not how to fix noise. A change in title might help you get more views.