«

I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great deal.

I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the
ISO setting.

I am hoping that once I understand that, I will know the (potential)
disadvantages of always shooting at high ISO, if there are any.

Yes, I am aware that some shots can benefit from blurred motion (streams
& waterfalls), and a smaller lens aperture can yield greater dept of
field. But are there other factors, such as noise, that change when I
shoot at ISO 3200 rather than ISO 400?

If you know of a web site that explains this, referring me to it rather
than spelling it all out for a newbie is just fine with me.

Thank you.

Dave S.

Le 05/03/10 22:11, David a écrit :
> I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
> photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great deal.
>
> I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the
> ISO setting.
>
Changing the ISO settings just changes the gain in the analogic
electronic chain before quantization (conversion to digital format).

The main problem is that it also increases noise

"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hmrs29$grs$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
>photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great deal.
>
> I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the ISO
> setting.
>
> I am hoping that once I understand that, I will know the (potential)
> disadvantages of always shooting at high ISO, if there are any.
>
> Yes, I am aware that some shots can benefit from blurred motion (streams &
> waterfalls), and a smaller lens aperture can yield greater dept of field.
> But are there other factors, such as noise, that change when I shoot at
> ISO 3200 rather than ISO 400?
>
> If you know of a web site that explains this, referring me to it rather
> than spelling it all out for a newbie is just fine with me.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Dave S.

Google ISO and you should find more information than you ever want to know
about the subject.

You might also want to experiment with your camera at various ISO settings
to determine which ones are acceptable for the size prints you normally
make. The higher the ISO the more noise the pic will have. The larger the
print the more the noise shows.

I take a lot of wildlife photos and higher ISO settings can be a real help
when the subject is in deep shadow and I am hand holding a long telephoto
lens!

Ron

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:32:16 +0100, (E-Mail Removed)d wrote:

>Le 05/03/10 22:11, David a écrit :
>> I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
>> photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great deal.
>>
>> I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the
>> ISO setting.
>>
>Changing the ISO settings just changes the gain in the analogic
>electronic chain before quantization (conversion to digital format).
>
>The main problem is that it also increases noise

It doesn't increase noise per se, it only amplifies it along with the
available useful image data. There is also an interesting aspect to image
noise which the trolls in these newsgroups fail to understand. In many
subjects and compositions noise can greatly enhance the quality of a photo.
Noise is never a problem in the hands of an artist and a pro. They can use
it to their advantage whenever it presents itself. It seems to only be an
incessant problem in the minds of resident-trolls who don't know anything
about real photography. Their own minds' noise is preventing them from
understanding anything.

There is also an uncanny ability of the human mind and sensory system. If
you inject a known noise into an unknown noise source, it can actually
increase the perception of real detail and useful information. Using a
known noise to cancel an unknown noise. This works with many of your sense
systems. Sight, sound, and touch (it probably works with the sense of smell
and taste too). You can easily prove it to yourself the next time you have
an itch and scratch it to make it go away. This is precisely how it works.
If you have a sound signal in which there is too much noise to comprehend
what is being said, masked by all the noise, you can inject some
white-noise into the path and make the audible information understandable
again. The same also works for visual noise. One of my own discoveries
based on a situation I encountered once.

I was trying to listen to some distant shortwave radio stations one night,
but the station I wanted to hear had noise so bad I couldn't understand
what was being said. I decided to go to the kitchen to cook something but
turned up the volume first to see if the sound signal would clear up while
I was busy cooking. While in the kitchen I still couldn't understand what
was being said on the radio, the noise being amplified just as much as the
information it was masking. It was a little chilly in the house so I went
back toward the living-room, where the radio was, to turn on the fireplace
fan. A good source of white-noise. The fireplace fan being part-way between
the radio and the kitchen. Then headed back into the kitchen. Suddenly, the
sound from the radio was intelligible from the kitchen, the discussion from
the radio station clear as anything. I went back to sit by the radio
thinking the signal had cleared up. But no, the noise was still just as bad
as before. I went back to the kitchen and could hear the radio broadcast
clearly again. On a hunch I turned off the fireplace fan and went back to
the kitchen. The noise from the radio made the sound unintelligible again.
I went back and turned on the fireplace fan. Then went back to the kitchen
and could understand the radio broadcast clearly again. The noise levels
from the radio never changing. The white-noise from the fireplace fan was
masking the noise from the radio. I have since learned this works on images
too.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:17:13 -0600, NameHere wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:32:16 +0100, (E-Mail Removed)d wrote:
>
>>Le 05/03/10 22:11, David a écrit :
>>> I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
>>> photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great
>>> deal.
>>>
>>> I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the
>>> ISO setting.
>>>
>>Changing the ISO settings just changes the gain in the analogic
>>electronic chain before quantization (conversion to digital format).
>>
>>The main problem is that it also increases noise
>
> It doesn't increase noise per se, it only amplifies it along with the
> available useful image data. There is also an interesting aspect to
> image noise which the trolls in these newsgroups fail to understand. In
> many subjects and compositions noise can greatly enhance the quality of
> a photo. Noise is never a problem in the hands of an artist and a pro.
> They can use it to their advantage whenever it presents itself. It seems
> to only be an incessant problem in the minds of resident-trolls who
> don't know anything about real photography. Their own minds' noise is
> preventing them from understanding anything.
>
> There is also an uncanny ability of the human mind and sensory system.
> If you inject a known noise into an unknown noise source, it can
> actually increase the perception of real detail and useful information.
> Using a known noise to cancel an unknown noise. This works with many of
> your sense systems. Sight, sound, and touch (it probably works with the
> sense of smell and taste too). You can easily prove it to yourself the
> next time you have an itch and scratch it to make it go away. This is
> precisely how it works. If you have a sound signal in which there is too
> much noise to comprehend what is being said, masked by all the noise,
> you can inject some white-noise into the path and make the audible
> information understandable again. The same also works for visual noise.
> One of my own discoveries based on a situation I encountered once.
>
> I was trying to listen to some distant shortwave radio stations one
> night, but the station I wanted to hear had noise so bad I couldn't
> understand what was being said. I decided to go to the kitchen to cook
> something but turned up the volume first to see if the sound signal
> would clear up while I was busy cooking. While in the kitchen I still
> couldn't understand what was being said on the radio, the noise being
> amplified just as much as the information it was masking. It was a
> little chilly in the house so I went back toward the living-room, where
> the radio was, to turn on the fireplace fan. A good source of
> white-noise. The fireplace fan being part-way between the radio and the
> kitchen. Then headed back into the kitchen. Suddenly, the sound from the
> radio was intelligible from the kitchen, the discussion from the radio
> station clear as anything. I went back to sit by the radio thinking the
> signal had cleared up. But no, the noise was still just as bad as
> before. I went back to the kitchen and could hear the radio broadcast
> clearly again. On a hunch I turned off the fireplace fan and went back
> to the kitchen. The noise from the radio made the sound unintelligible
> again. I went back and turned on the fireplace fan. Then went back to
> the kitchen and could understand the radio broadcast clearly again. The
> noise levels from the radio never changing. The white-noise from the
> fireplace fan was masking the noise from the radio. I have since learned
> this works on images too.

At least that explains why you failed to see the noise in your last image.
The one you removed when you realised it had CA all of the place.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:32:16 +0100, (E-Mail Removed)d wrote:

>Le 05/03/10 22:11, David a écrit :
>> I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
>> photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great deal.
>>
>> I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the
>> ISO setting.
>>
>Changing the ISO settings just changes the gain in the analogic
>electronic chain before quantization (conversion to digital format).
>
>The main problem is that it also increases noise

It doesn't increase noise per se, it only amplifies it along with the
available useful image data. There is also an interesting aspect to image
noise which the trolls in these newsgroups fail to understand. In many
subjects and compositions noise can greatly enhance the quality of a photo.
Noise is never a problem in the hands of an artist and a pro. They can use
it to their advantage whenever it presents itself. It seems to only be an
incessant problem in the minds of resident-trolls who don't know anything
about real photography. Their own minds' noise is preventing them from
understanding anything.

There is also an uncanny ability of the human mind and sensory system. If
you inject a known noise into an unknown noise source, it can actually
increase the perception of real detail and useful information. Using a
known noise to cancel an unknown noise. This works with many of your sense
systems. Sight, sound, and touch (it probably works with the sense of smell
and taste too). You can easily prove it to yourself the next time you have
an itch and scratch it to make it go away. This is precisely how it works.
If you have a sound signal in which there is too much noise to comprehend
what is being said, masked by all the noise, you can inject some
white-noise into the path and make the audible information understandable
again. The same also works for visual noise. One of my own discoveries
based on a situation I encountered once.

I was trying to listen to some distant shortwave radio stations one night,
but the station I wanted to hear had noise so bad I couldn't understand
what was being said. I decided to go to the kitchen to cook something but
turned up the volume first to see if the sound signal would clear up while
I was busy cooking. While in the kitchen I still couldn't understand what
was being said on the radio, the noise being amplified just as much as the
information it was masking. It was a little chilly in the house so I went
back toward the living-room, where the radio was, to turn on the fireplace
fan. A good source of white-noise. The fireplace fan being part-way between
the radio and the kitchen. Then headed back into the kitchen. Suddenly, the
sound from the radio was intelligible from the kitchen, the discussion from
the radio station clear as anything. I went back to sit by the radio
thinking the signal had cleared up. But no, the noise was still just as bad
as before. I went back to the kitchen and could hear the radio broadcast
clearly again. On a hunch I turned off the fireplace fan and went back to
the kitchen. The noise from the radio made the sound unintelligible again.
I went back and turned on the fireplace fan. Then went back to the kitchen
and could understand the radio broadcast clearly again. The noise levels
from the radio never changing. The white-noise from the fireplace fan was
masking the noise from the radio. I have since learned this principle works
on images too.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:20:41 -0000, "Buttlvr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"NameHere" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:32:16 +0100, (E-Mail Removed)d wrote:
>>
>>>Le 05/03/10 22:11, David a écrit :
>>>> I know relatively little about the technical workings of digital
>>>> photography, and from what I have read here, some of you know a great
>>>> deal.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to understand what happens in my camera when I change the
>>>> ISO setting.
>>>>
>>>Changing the ISO settings just changes the gain in the analogic
>>>electronic chain before quantization (conversion to digital format).
>>>
>>>The main problem is that it also increases noise
>>
>> It doesn't increase noise per se, it only amplifies it along with the
>> available useful image data. There is also an interesting aspect to image
>> noise which the trolls in these newsgroups fail to understand. In many
>> subjects and compositions noise can greatly enhance the quality of a
>> photo.
>> Noise is never a problem in the hands of an artist and a pro. They can use
>> it to their advantage whenever it presents itself. It seems to only be an
>> incessant problem in the minds of resident-trolls who don't know anything
>> about real photography. Their own minds' noise is preventing them from
>> understanding anything.
>>
>> There is also an uncanny ability of the human mind and sensory system. If
>> you inject a known noise into an unknown noise source, it can actually
>> increase the perception of real detail and useful information. Using a
>> known noise to cancel an unknown noise. This works with many of your sense
>> systems. Sight, sound, and touch (it probably works with the sense of
>> smell
>> and taste too). You can easily prove it to yourself the next time you have
>> an itch and scratch it to make it go away. This is precisely how it works.
>> If you have a sound signal in which there is too much noise to comprehend
>> what is being said, masked by all the noise, you can inject some
>> white-noise into the path and make the audible information understandable
>> again. The same also works for visual noise. One of my own discoveries
>> based on a situation I encountered once.
>>
>> I was trying to listen to some distant shortwave radio stations one night,
>> but the station I wanted to hear had noise so bad I couldn't understand
>> what was being said. I decided to go to the kitchen to cook something but
>> turned up the volume first to see if the sound signal would clear up while
>> I was busy cooking. While in the kitchen I still couldn't understand what
>> was being said on the radio, the noise being amplified just as much as the
>> information it was masking. It was a little chilly in the house so I went
>> back toward the living-room, where the radio was, to turn on the fireplace
>> fan. A good source of white-noise. The fireplace fan being part-way
>> between
>> the radio and the kitchen. Then headed back into the kitchen. Suddenly,
>> the
>> sound from the radio was intelligible from the kitchen, the discussion
>> from
>> the radio station clear as anything. I went back to sit by the radio
>> thinking the signal had cleared up. But no, the noise was still just as
>> bad
>> as before. I went back to the kitchen and could hear the radio broadcast
>> clearly again. On a hunch I turned off the fireplace fan and went back to
>> the kitchen. The noise from the radio made the sound unintelligible again.
>> I went back and turned on the fireplace fan. Then went back to the kitchen
>> and could understand the radio broadcast clearly again. The noise levels
>> from the radio never changing. The white-noise from the fireplace fan was
>> masking the noise from the radio. I have since learned this works on
>> images
>> too.
>
>
>"Noise is never a problem in the hands of an artist and a pro"
>
>You lost me there.
>
>

That's because you're an idiot and a troll. There's nothing that anyone can
do about that.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:21:38 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>At least that explains why you failed to see the noise in your last image.
>The one you removed when you realised it had CA all of the place.
>

Oh look, it's the pretend-photographer off-topic troll again. What a
surprise. The only noise in that image was in your head. You can't even
tell what are and are not JPG artifacts in an image.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:27:47 -0600, NameHere wrote:

>>At least that explains why you failed to see the noise in your last
>>image. The one you removed when you realised it had CA all of the place.
>>
>>
> Oh look, it's the pretend-photographer off-topic troll again. What a
> surprise. The only noise in that image was in your head.

So you admit you didn't see it.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:50:47 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mar 5, 11:52*pm, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...@arumes.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:27:47 -0600, NameHere wrote:
>> >>At least that explains why you failed to see the noise in your last
>> >>image. The one you removed when you realised it had CA all of the place.
>>
>> > Oh look, it's the pretend-photographer off-topic troll again. What a
>> > surprise. The only noise in that image was in your head.
>>
>> So you admit you didn't see it.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Robert * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.arumes.com
>
>He was embarrassed by it. See how he tries to preach noise has an
>artistic value in many occasions.
>
>DanP

Damn, you blind and useless trolls never quit do you.