An ISO question

[Tannin]

Point one:

I honestly don't understand the claim that auto ISO is somehow "better" for sport and wildlife, let alone the weak excuse about "rapidly changing light conditions". Light conditions simply do not change rapidly and unpredictably enough while shooting wildlife to justify auto ISO, and although I lack experience shooting sport, I shouldn't imagine they do in that field either. If you are unable to change a basic setting like ISO rapidly enough to keep up with a cloud floating in front of the sun, just don't bother with wildlife photography, it's not for you. As for action sport work, I recommend sticking to chess.

ISO is a very important part of what you do, and it makes an irreversible difference to your pictures. Get the ISO more than a little bit wrong and it wrecks the picture. This is true enough of general photography that GET THE ISO RIGHT should be written in lipstick on your mirror, even if you have to buy some lipstick specially. With bird photography, you are very often making big crops, and GET THE ISO RIGHT isn't important, it is vital. Never mind the mirror, it should be tattooed somewhere close to your heart.

In nearly all circumstances, getting the ISO right is a human-level decision. The second-best response of a well-trained computer (such as the one in your camera) when asked to auto-set the ISO is to say "I'm sorry, I'm not as smart as a human and deciding what ISO to use is not in my pay grade". (If that's the second-best response, what is the best one? A really smart computer would say "This human is not very bright? Can't I work for somebody else?")

Can I imagine circumstances where auto ISO would be useful? Sure I can. I've probably even met such circumstances more than a few times during my decade-plus of photography with DSLRs - but I don't remember any, doubtless because the muscle memory built up by years of shooting in aperture priority dealt with the situation without any particular conscious effort. Let's face it, if pressing a button and turning a dial is too hard for you, you have worse problems to worry about than improving your photography.

But wouldn't auto ISO save some shots from being blurred by too little shutter speed? Sure it would. You will get so-so pictures spoiled by noise. A half-solution. Much better to set the ISO yourself and if you happen to set it too low, then you'll either get a clear dud (because of camera movement), or a perfect shot (because you happened to hold it pretty still and the IS system helped you out). Or, to say the same thing more simply, no chance of a perfect shot vs some chance of a perfect shot. Seems like an easy decision to me.


Point two:

Ignore all of the above and do whatever works for you.

[Gazza]

Point one:

I honestly don't understand the claim that auto ISO is somehow "better" for sport and wildlife, let alone the weak excuse about "rapidly changing light conditions". Light conditions simply do not change rapidly and unpredictably enough while shooting wildlife to justify auto ISO, and although I lack experience shooting sport, I shouldn't imagine they do in that field either. If you are unable to change a basic setting like ISO rapidly enough to keep up with a cloud floating in front of the sun, just don't bother with wildlife photography, it's not for you. As for action sport work, I recommend sticking to chess..

Gosh, that reads a bit harsh...

Now, I haven't tried this auto/manual thingy yet (keen to), but what about that troublesome 'really need a pic of' bird that flys from a nicely lit perch into the middle of a tree?...or that player out in the center of the field running into the shadow of the grandstand? I assume you need to expose for your subject, not just a quick snap shot...

I don't think it's just slow moving clouds that we need this quick action for, is it? (going to find that chess board now...)

[jim]

With your camera in manual and with auto iso, it will set the appropriate iso for your choice of aperture and shutter. To be honest those are the values I want to be choosing for myself so I'm happy to relinquish control of the iso to the camera, provided only that I set a reasonable maximum iso. The only difficulty I see is that you can't see the iso in the viewfinder, so you might not realise that you are reaching the extremes of your chosen range. Or even exceeding them sometimes.

[Hamster]

I agree with you @arthurking83, especially
"Too many photographers don't understand what they are doing when they switch to 'manual mode'.
They seem to think that manual mode is some sort of elevated spiritual experience to come to terms with .. but they all still use the cameras built in light meter!
Wayy too much work for zero gain."
Tannin, following kids around in changing light is one example where manually changing ISO will not work. I am pinned to f4 with a 70-200 to get the DOF I want and need a minimum speed. I don't have time to look at the meter and flick up the ISO as my boy runs through a patch of shade, or for that matter during many other decisive and fleeting moments

One thing I see people saying is what @mdj101711 said, I.e. the reason we don't want auto ISO is to prevent the camera choosing a ridiculously high ISO and blowing out the picture.
The camera will choose the lowest ISO within a pre selected range to CORRECTLY EXPOSE the image. Why would it blow it out? That's like saying, I don't like auto gearboxes because I want to prevent the car selecting a ridiculously low gear and blowing my engine. And like an F1 driver has a semi auto box to allow the gear change to occur quickly at the decisive moment, I choose a semi auto setting on the camera so I can press the shutter at the decisive moment. (Ok, I may have gone too far with the analogies now )

[Hamster]

you might not realise that you are reaching the extremes of your chosen range. Or even exceeding them sometimes.

Set a range in the menu that you are happy with. The camera won't exceed this range. Job done.

[Hamster]

Oh, one thing I was going to say @arthurking83 is spot metering your subject may ensure it is correctly exposed, but how do you deal with other parts of the image that may then be over or under exposed? Surely a matrix approach is good to avoid blown highlights and still give you the latitude to adjust subject exposure to where you want it in pp. Sorry if I'm being to specific for your comment and that's not what you meant.
Personally, I use the rgb histogram to ensure the scene is captured within the limits of the dynamic range of the camera. But I start with a general metering measure unless I have to spot meter for a specific situation. Maybe we're talking different types of photography, I'm thinking more landscape.

[Gazza]

...The only difficulty I see is that you can't see the iso in the viewfinder...

Ya need a Canon....

[jim]

It would be jolly useful Gazza. All I can do is rotate the command dials until the exposure compensation thingie appears. When that happpens then either iso 64 is too high (!) or 3200 (which I usually set as the maximum) is too low. So that gives you some idea where you are. It all seems to work out ok in practice.

- - - Updated - - -

Set a range in the menu that you are happy with. The camera won't exceed this range. Job done.

Hamster if the parameters you set are insufficient for correct exposure, a Nikon camera will just take an underexposed or overexposed image. That's what I mean by exceeding your range.

[arthurking83]

.... The only difficulty I see is that you can't see the iso in the viewfinder, so you might not realise that you are reaching the extremes of your chosen range. Or even exceeding them sometimes.

Like Gazza said, this is camera dependent.
Nikon cameras like D300 type pro/semi pro models all have ISO value in the vf LCD.
Some models also tell you if you have set ISO to auto too, so instead of just indicating ISO, they light up ISO Auto(where the auto is listed under the ISO indicator).
Not sure what vf info the semi pro models like D7200 gives tho.

Oh, one thing I was going to say @arthurking83 is spot metering your subject may ensure it is correctly exposed, but how do you deal with other parts of the image that may then be over or under exposed? ...

I think it depends on how you like to shoot.
I've found matrix too hit and miss, so just stopped using it.
Even for landscapes, I do manual matrix metering in that I'll set the spot point over on the highlight, or shadow I want captured as well, then back onto the subject I'm more interested in for the exposure.
For highlights, I'll add a filter where practical, otherwise just expose a little darker on the subject(where practical) knowing that I can regain exposure latitude back in PP on both exposure points.

Of course there are times when you're simply going to blow highlights or lose shadow detail no matter what .. the metering type used makes no difference, that's just a dynamic range issue for that sensor.

I think my main gripe with matrix is that neither the metering system, nor the camera's other features really understands that a white subject is white, grey, black or pink!
And I don't trust them to predict what it is that it sees.

eg. if you just meter on a white cloud with zero compensation(ie. neutral) the exposure the camera will output will be that ubiquitous 18% grey value that it's calibrated to do so.
But I don't want grey clouds, I want white ones, so I always meter on a cloud, pop exposure compensation +ively up to about +0.7 or +1.0 Ev, which then meters that part of the subject matter as white instead of grey.
Take a shutter speed reading and then balance the use of filter, and exposure latitude as best as I can for the scene.

Sometimes there are parts of a scene that simply are impossible to capture correctly. eg. the sun. if you try to capture a scene with the sun in it, and any shadowy areas as well, and those dark areas are important, then the sun blowing out really doesn't matter much.
It's the sun, and my choice is to always allow it to blow out(usually).
I know my methods are slow, and it is done deliberately so.

[jim]

Erm, yes I'm an idiot* my viewfinder does display the iso, whether in auto or manual mode. How did I not notice that?


*Try to act a little surprised by this revelation.

[Gazza]

Erm, yes I'm an idiot* my viewfinder does display the iso, whether in auto or manual mode. How did I not notice that?


*Try to act a little surprised by this revelation.

Still, I think ya need a Canon.... (I was surprised)

[Hamster]

Hamster if the parameters you set are insufficient for correct exposure, a Nikon camera will just take an underexposed or overexposed image. That's what I mean by exceeding your range.

Ah ok, gotcha. Canon is the same, so one has to keep an eye on things to make sure that one isn't asking the impossible.

[Hamster]

I think it depends on how you like to shoot.
I've found matrix too hit and miss, so just stopped using it.
Even for landscapes, I do manual matrix metering in that I'll set the spot point over on the highlight, or shadow I want captured as well, then back onto the subject I'm more interested in for the exposure.
For highlights, I'll add a filter where practical, otherwise just expose a little darker on the subject(where practical) knowing that I can regain exposure latitude back in PP on both exposure points.

Of course there are times when you're simply going to blow highlights or lose shadow detail no matter what .. the metering type used makes no difference, that's just a dynamic range issue for that sensor.

I think my main gripe with matrix is that neither the metering system, nor the camera's other features really understands that a white subject is white, grey, black or pink!
And I don't trust them to predict what it is that it sees.

eg. if you just meter on a white cloud with zero compensation(ie. neutral) the exposure the camera will output will be that ubiquitous 18% grey value that it's calibrated to do so.
But I don't want grey clouds, I want white ones, so I always meter on a cloud, pop exposure compensation +ively up to about +0.7 or +1.0 Ev, which then meters that part of the subject matter as white instead of grey.
Take a shutter speed reading and then balance the use of filter, and exposure latitude as best as I can for the scene.

Sometimes there are parts of a scene that simply are impossible to capture correctly. eg. the sun. if you try to capture a scene with the sun in it, and any shadowy areas as well, and those dark areas are important, then the sun blowing out really doesn't matter much.
It's the sun, and my choice is to always allow it to blow out(usually).
I know my methods are slow, and it is done deliberately so.

Sounds good, and like you say, is a different means to the same end.
I use evaluative for the scene, knowing that it might blow out the white clouds or white surf on the waves. I then check the histogram to see if there are any blown highlights and use exposure compensation to bring those down. If I'm doing aerials I may just put -1ev compensation without checking the histogram as that is usually about right.

[John King]

deleted.

[Tannin]

Hamster if the parameters you set are insufficient for correct exposure, a Nikon camera will just take an underexposed or overexposed image. That's what I mean by exceeding your range.

Ah ok, gotcha. Canon is the same, so one has to keep an eye on things to make sure that one isn't asking the impossible.

Not sure how this applies to auto-ISO (never used it in my life) but Canon cameras have a function called Safety Shift, which you can turn on or off as you please. If switched on, it automatically compensates for out-of-range exposures by adjusting a different parameter. (You can choose which one.) For example, in Av mode at f/4, if the metered exposures requires more than 1/8000th, the camera will use f/5.6 instead. Or it can adjust the ISO. It's similar in Tv mode.

[jim]

Don’t think Nikons have that. But what would I know? I couldn’t even see the iso displayed in the viewfinder.

- - - Updated - - -

Don’t think Nikons have that. But what would I know? I couldn’t even see the iso displayed in the viewfinder.

[Tannin]

Try closing one eye.

Try closing one eye.

[tandeejay]

I've been doing a bit of photography at church where there is stage lighting, and I initially started out using Aperture priority mode with Auto ISO, but I have recently changed to using manual with manual ISO, and found I'm getting much better and more consistent results. I was finding the high dynamic range between the people on the stage lit with lights and the background was just confusing the camera, and it was more often than not over-exposing.

I'm with AK on this - it depends on the situation

[jim]

Id have thought that since iso is a fairly predictable parameter (by which I mean that you'll pretty much always want it as low as possible, not counting Lo-1 or whatever rubbish settings) it would make sense to let the camera set it, while you pick the aperture and shutter speeds that suit the photo you want to take. So leave it in manual with auto iso, and if the camera is metering wrong set some exposure compensation, which will result in the camera varying the iso accordingly.

And there you go! General all-purpose settings for all occasions!

[ameerat42]

...which will result in the camera varying the iso accordingly.

And there you go! General all-purpose settings for all occasions!

Or, in short, "GAPS for all..." - Just don't fall through the gaps

This could be another Jim's franchise