| snowqueen |
| (Queen of the castle) |
| 12/07/2008 20:36 |
|
iso
|
Im so stupid!!...when taking photos in auto should the iso be set to auto? ruined lots of photos today because the iso was set to something different and i know it wasnt me! lol! honest..........
| Malcolm_Stewart |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/07/2008 20:48 |
|
Re: iso
|
Quote:
Im so stupid!!...when taking photos in auto should the iso be set to auto? ruined lots of photos today because the iso was set to something different and i know it wasnt me! lol! honest..........
It probably depends on what sort of camera you were using, and whether you want big pictures.
I normally have the ISO set to 200 for general snaps in good light, and to 800 when I'm shooting faster moving stuff, or using a long lens for example.
What do you think is wrong with your pictures? They may be recoverable.
| snowqueen |
| (Queen of the castle) |
| 12/07/2008 20:53 |
|
|
|
Re: iso
|
its a nikon d80....they appear to be not very good focus and have noise........they were shot in large image..., i had continuous shooting mode . .. . . .
| Malcolm_Stewart |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 12/07/2008 21:09 |
|
Re: iso
|
There are programs which can deal with noise (e.g. Noise Ninja and others which I can't remember) up to a point. You might be able to get away with the poor focus by not printing too large (and that would help with any noise problems). If you're going to do this more often, it might be worth getting a faster lens such as the 50 f1.8 Nikkor AF, if you were shooting with the kit lens or something similar.
(Check the details as I'm not an expert on Nikon and lens/body compatibilities.)
| beejaybee |
| (Marvin) |
| 12/07/2008 21:23 |
|
|
Re: iso
|
Quote:
when taking photos in auto should the iso be set to auto? ruined lots of photos today because the iso was set to something different and i know it wasnt me!
Set the ISO to 200. Leave it there but watch the readout of aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder - if you don't like a wide open aperture & slow shutter speed bump the ISO up. But set it back to 200 when you've finished.
Never trust automation, learn to do the job of setting the exposure yourself. When you've got an interaction between auto shutter speed and auto aperture and auto ISO it's very hard for me to believe that the damn camera would ever get the effect I wanted!
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 12/07/2008 21:34 |
|
Re: iso
|
Auto exposure and auto ISO are totally separate things. It's good to keep the ISO as low as possible to prevent grainy images but sometimes, especially when you're working quickly and the light is variable, it can be useful to use the auto ISO thingy to minimise the chances of you losing pictures due to, most typically, shutter speeds that are too slow for hand-holding.
Can you post an image along with the EXIF data (aperture, shutter speed and ISO) so that we can see what really happened?
| snowqueen |
| (Queen of the castle) |
| 12/07/2008 23:12 |
|
|
|
Re: iso and photo
|
An image from my disasterous days shooting! haha doesnt really show up much on this size, as for information i think you can get it from the photo on my flickr???
| alanS |
| (Dr Dust) |
| 12/07/2008 23:13 |
|
Re: iso
|
I'm not too sure what the problem you encountered is but I think that you should look at the effect that the ISO setting, aperture size and shutter speed have on exposure. You need to get a good exposure and this is a combination of the ISO setting, aperture size and shutter speed. If you can obtain a good exposure ideally you should probably use a lower ISO setting if at all possible to minimise noise, an aperture size which gives you the depth of field you want and a shutter speed which is fast enough to capture your subject and obtain a blur free image. If your camera is set up so that a good exposure is possible and you the alter one of these three settings (ISO, aperture or shutter speed) you will probably need to alter another setting to maintain a good exposure.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to play with these three settings and note the effect upon the exposure meter when looking through the viewfinder.
If for example you are taking a hand held shot in low light with your ISO set to 100 and your aperture set to f4 you may need a shutter speed of 1/6 second to achieve a good exposure and this may be too slow to obtain a blur free image. Keeping the ISO set to 100 and increasing the aperture to f1.4 might give you an acceptable exposure at 1/13 second. If you increase the ISO to 400 you may find that you'll get a good exposure at f4 with a shutter speed of 1/6 and at f1.4 and 1/50.
If you can study the effect that ISO, aperture and shutter speed have on exposure and if you can appreciate the different effects that all of these settings have I think that you will be more in control and more likely to get a shot that you are happy with.
| beejaybee |
| (Marvin) |
| 12/07/2008 23:28 |
|
|
|
Re: iso
|
Quote:
If for example you are taking a hand held shot in low light with your ISO set to 100 and your aperture set to f4 you may need a shutter speed of 1/6 second to achieve a good exposure and this may be too slow to obtain a blur free image. Keeping the ISO set to 100 and increasing the aperture to f1.4 might give you an acceptable exposure at 1/13 second. If you increase the ISO to 400 you may find that you'll get a good exposure at f4 with a shutter speed of 1/6 and at f1.4 and 1/50.
Eh?
ISO 100, 1/6 sec, f/4 = ISO 100, 1/50 sec, f/1.4 = ISO 400, 1/25 sec, f/4 = ISO 400, 1/200 sec, f/1.4
ISO X shutter speed in sec / f ratio squared = constant depending on light level
in this case
100 x 1/6 / 4x4 = 1
100 x 1/50 / 1.4x1.4 = 1
400 x 1/25 / 4x4 = 1
400 x 1/200 / 1.4x1.4 = 1
But for the image posted the correct exposure was very probably approx. 1/250 sec at f/11 at ISO 200 by the "sunny 16 rule".
Who needs a meter? Well, I do - but my "guess" is almost always within half a stop in nice easy situations like this! And it's useful to be able to estimate, as a gross discrepancy with the meter reading shows up anything going wrong with the meter.
| snowqueen |
| (Queen of the castle) |
| 12/07/2008 23:36 |
|
|
|
Re: iso
|
Oh my god now im really more confusted! lol! I have alot to learn,
thanks guys, i will re read all and put to practice........
and who knows maybe i will get there one day!
| alanS |
| (Dr Dust) |
| 12/07/2008 23:50 |
|
Re: iso
|
"eh?"
I'm sure that the op got the message. I think that it's important to realise that there is a relationship between these settings and exposure. The best way to see this will probably be to have a play.
| alanS |
| (Dr Dust) |
| 12/07/2008 23:53 |
|
Re: iso
|
Just play with the settings and see the effect and it'll all make sense.
| El Sid |
| (Going potty) |
| 14/07/2008 09:49 |
|
|
Re: iso
|
Quote:
....they appear to be not very good focus and have noise........i had continuous shooting mode . .. . . .
When you cay continuous shooting do you mean the frame drive (which allows the taking of several frames per second) or continuous auto focus which allows the focus to follow a moving target?
If it's the latter that may explain focus issues. With most AF SLRs when in single shot mode the shutter is locked until the camera has achieved focus. When in continuous AF mode though this "safety" lock is disabled and the shutter can be released even if the subject is not in focus. Dependent on the model some systems are even sensitive enough to react to a bit of motion in the photographer not the subject. Also using the camera with all AF points active in this mode can confuse it somewhat if there are to many potential focus points of equal contrast in the 'finder and the AF tends to hunt somewhat.
With continuous AF I generally find sticking with one, preferably the centre, AF point is preferable - and even then a percentage of the pix will be off-focus because the AF has lost tracking somewhat...
Not sure about noise though, even at high ISO bright conditions like those in your sample pic tend to mean noise is minimised. I've certainly used my EOS D30, not a particularly noise free camera, at ISO800 in good light without major noise issues - while my 20D can easily go to 1600 under the same conditions.
PS don't pixel peep........ noise always looks awful at actual pixel level (100%), try viewing at 50% or 'print' size (if using print size check the output resolution under Image Size is set to something sensible like 240 or 300dpi - many cameras output JPEG images to PhotoShop at monitor resolution, usually 72dpi...).
| bassman |
| (newbie) |
| 14/07/2008 11:35 |
|
Re: iso
|
I have been using a D80 for a while now and initially had a similar problem in that the lens tended to focus on prominent objects in the photo which were at different distances from the intended point of interest.I notice that there are a few such objects in your photo which appear to be in focus where as the young lady is not 100% in focus.
I now take most of my photos in reasonable to good light at 100 iso in programmed auto using 3d matrix metering and single area auto focus and this is proving excellent.You could use the focus lock to ensure the main area is in focus or use the wider angled part of your zoom lens as this will give a greater area of focus.Good luck Barry