this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

24 readers
1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Although the megapixel fetish race is the one that gets the most attention, I think the ISO equivalent is also pretty amusing (in a "shakes head, looks baffled" kind of way).

Now, I should preface all this by mentioning that I don't have a "genre" of photography. I just photograph whatever attracts my attention at any given time, and that can be day or night.

Recently I saw a camera review in which the reviewer was showing pictures captured at ISOs that would have been considered witchcraft even ten years ago. They looked like garbage - noisy as anything and generally an aesthetic mess. But apparently the fact that they were taken at stratospheric ISO levels means that the whole world must see them because, I don't know, reasons.

Although I've used cameras that are well known for good high ISO performance, a look through my Google photos collection shows me that I almost never go beyond ISO 3200, and I would guess that less than 5% of my (tens of thousands of) photos are shot at that sensitivity. On a usual day, I find that if I have a fast lens (F2 or quicker), I can get almost anything I want to shoot without going past ISO 800, or 1600 in a pinch.

I'd be interested to hear from people who do use these 5-or-6 digit ISOs on a regular basis, and what they shoot that necessitates these ISOs. Let's hear some thoughts.

โ€‹

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

And sometimes, the thing you can control is ISO. If the choice is push the ISO or not take the shot, you push the ISO.