I'm sure Bob and others would have answered that question during your 'arguments'.
Unfortunately your question is not related to my original post because I do not use the exposure triangle, and in any case is way to broad a question because the answer depends on what you are photographing at the time and what your aim for the shot is.
Perhaps start your own thread in Beginners Questions with your question and I and I am sure others will be happy to help.
Jim
Can you expand on that a bit. How can you determine that the ISO settings work differently? What are the consequences for your setting it? Thanks
Sherm
I believe that a Google search on the subject will help you more than any explanations we can give you.
A google search for what?
I wasn't asking a question in my original post.
If it's a debate on what beginners should be told, please start it in Beginners' Questions Discussion. Leave BQ for answering beginners' questions.
Why should he do a google search? His post is accurate and corrects a very common misconception.
Is it possible to have too many arguments with me?
Mainly by understanding that if the photographer sets ISO first they are choosing the exposure the'll be using in advance, and it's usually a guess as to what the best exposure would be. Best to set exposure first, then ISO.
A Google search on the subject will turn up a majority of sources that are simply wrong. I know, I've done it.
And in any case, there are only two independent variables in play. There is another, but it doesn't find its way into the 'triangle'.
what if your using a nikon z9 that doesnt have a shutter or any other camera for that matter using electronic shutter. 😎
Simply consider exposure and ISO independently. Make every effort to maximize the exposure (Light+Aperture+SS) always satisfying any DOF, and motion blur requirements, and then consider ISO.
Whether your shooting full manual or semi-Auto with exposure compensation, once exposure is dealt with, you will then need to decide how much ISO is needed to get the job done…
For jpeg shooters, if there isn’t enough light to fully saturate the sensor at base ISO, it’s going to be increasing the ISO value to achieve the desired image brightness in-camera without clipping any important highlight detail. There are also some other options to consider - DR modes etc., but those are best left for a separate discussion.
For raw shooters, it could be much the same thing, but as most sensors are largely “ISO invariant” these days, you also have the option (for numerous reasons that we can discuss separately) of deferring some, or all, of the in-camera “brightening” (for lack of a better word) that the ISO setting represents, and applying (again, some or all) of any necessary “brightening” in post instead.
What on earth are you wafffling on about?? First you say it doesn't have a shutter, then you say it has an electronic shutter 😀 I don't believe your claim you are a professional photographer when you post waffling questions like that.
Every beginner I have come across so far has been able to understand that the concept and purpose of a camera's shutter is the same whether it is mechanical or electronic 😄
You asking that question indicates to me you might be the first beginner I have come across who doesn't understand that 😃
just came back from a camera club meeting and still trying to drain the energy off, full of conflict, the club is just going backwards atm.
I understand reasons for choosing aperture and shutter speed. Could you please explain how you arrived at Auto ISO limited to 1600 and why -1 EC? Is this specifically for events or for everything? How are you metering?
An electronic shutter doesn't quite control the exposure according to the classic definition. if H=Et, where H is exposure, E is plane of focus illuminance and t is exposure time, then that's not precisely what an electronic shutter gives you, because the it's not the 'exposure' to light that's being controlled. Rather, it's when the sensor actually records the light, which is a subtly different thing. However, in terms of practical outcomes there is no difference.
SNR in raw from cameras I use currently don't benefit from setting ISO higher.
Preserving highlights, under-ISO is better than under-exposure, SNR-wise.
Pre-metering, spot-meter from important highlights, centre-weighted, depending on the situation.
Do you think a wedding photographer who takes shots like that should be paid? I don’t think it’s a professional quality photograph.
I disagree with the premise of your question.
If you submit a landscape into a contest and the judge says there’s a distracting tree branch in the image… it doesn’t matter that the tree branch was there when you took the shot. The photograph, the result, that is what matters.
Yes, if it’s you daughter’s guitar recital and they will only let you stay in your seat and you can’t use a long lens so forth, you do the best you can, and you have the memory.
I’ve shot a lot of concerts, for years, and I’ve run into many limitations. But the client doesn’t care. The viewer doesn’t care. The photo stands alone. And that photo has a few problems, unfortunately. The light hitting her face is pretty good… that’s the good part. But the mic covers her face and focus appears to be on the mic and not her face. I think you could have cropped in a lot more. I know… it sucks to get criticism. I can’t stand being criticized. I’m not trying to put you down; I’m trying to help you get a better shot the next time. Get way closer, keep the screen and beeps off so no-one’s distracted, focus on the eyes, pay close attention to how the light hits the face, include both hands and the guitar, wait until she either approaches or backs off from the mic. The light is best at the mic so you want that instant when they approach or back off.
