Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting

Morton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and decreasing
> vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using a Canon Digital Elph
> SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is usually OK but
> occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high ISO setting was
> turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g. ISO 100 should
> theoretically give the best noise-free pictures. This camera has a shake
> icon for when the shutter speed is too slow, and can be set to bump up
> the ISO on one shot at a time by pressing one button.
>
> In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at 100 while
> watching out for slow shutter speeds?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Mort

I set my camera to 100. If a special situation should require something
higher I override it for that instance.
Dave Cohen
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

Dave Cohen wrote:
> Morton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and decreasing
>> vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using a Canon Digital
>> Elph SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is usually
>> OK but occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high ISO
>> setting was turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g. ISO 100
>> should theoretically give the best noise-free pictures. This camera
>> has a shake icon for when the shutter speed is too slow, and can be
>> set to bump up the ISO on one shot at a time by pressing one button.
>>
>> In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at 100
>> while watching out for slow shutter speeds?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Mort
>
> I set my camera to 100. If a special situation should require something
> higher I override it for that instance.
> Dave Cohen

Hi Dave and David,

Thanks for the good advice. It sounds logical, and paying attention to
the shake icon in poor light should not be difficult.

I'll try setting the ISO at 100 as my default setting, and bump up the
ISO manually and/or lean against a wall, as needed.

Mort
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

Morton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and decreasing
> vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using a Canon Digital
> Elph SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is
> usually OK but occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high
> ISO
> setting was turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g. ISO 100
> should theoretically give the best noise-free pictures. This camera
> has a shake icon for when the shutter speed is too slow, and can be
> set to bump up the ISO on one shot at a time by pressing one button.
>
> In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at 100
> while watching out for slow shutter speeds?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Mort

Mort,

With the small-sensor cameras I've used, the lowest ISO setting gives by
far the best results. I keep mine on the lowest ISO. If you therefore
need a low shutter speed, try and find a brace for the camera. Failing
that, if you have an inage which is very noisy, you can try
noise-reduction software (but don't overdo it), and/or convert the image
to monochrome where the grain (noise) can add character to the image.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

Morton added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> Hi,
>
> I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and
> decreasing vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using
> a Canon Digital Elph
> SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is
> usually OK
> but occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high
> ISO setting was turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g.
> ISO 100 should theoretically give the best noise-free
> pictures. This camera has a shake icon for when the shutter
> speed is too slow, and can be set to bump up the ISO on one
> shot at a time by pressing one button.
>
> In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at
> 100 while watching out for slow shutter speeds?
>
What lighting condition(s) are you shooting in, what subject(s) do
you shoot, etc.? Since you're a film photographer, you know the
rule of 16, namely shutter at the reciprocal of the ASA/ISO at
f/16, so at ISO 100 in bright daylight, your camera ought to be
able to do just fine. But, if you're shooting action and/or you
have a need to get more DOF, you might first try setting either
shutter or aperture priority mode instead of full auto or
programmed auto and see if you can get by at ISO 100. If not, then
try 200 then 400. I don't like auto ISO for exactly the reasons you
cite. Hope this helps some but I'd need more info to give a better
answer.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Surely you jest - and don't call me Shirley!" - from the movie
"Airplane!"
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

Morton added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

>> I set my camera to 100. If a special situation should require
>> something higher I override it for that instance.
>> Dave Cohen
>
> Hi Dave and David,
>
> Thanks for the good advice. It sounds logical, and paying
> attention to the shake icon in poor light should not be
> difficult.
>
> I'll try setting the ISO at 100 as my default setting, and
> bump up the ISO manually and/or lean against a wall, as
> needed.

Before I resorted to leaning against a wall, which is iffy at best,
I'd go to 200 or 400 and kill the noise in your fav graphics
editor. If the camera is reasonably noise-free, it should be no
problem. Again, I don't know if your subjects are moving or stock
still or how steady you are. e.g., in my film days circa 1970s with
a Nikon FTN and a 50mm lens, I could get at least reasonable
available light shots at 1/4 or 1/8 sec in places where I couldn't
use flash and the film of the day wasn't nearly high speed enough.
But now, at age 60, below 1/30 with my Rebel XT and I get
noticeable shake, so there's a lot of variables to consider.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Surely you jest - and don't call me Shirley!" - from the movie
"Airplane!"
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:18:50 -0500, Morton wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and decreasing
> vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using a Canon Digital Elph
> SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is usually OK
> but occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high ISO setting
> was turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g. ISO 100 should
> theoretically give the best noise-free pictures. This camera has a shake
> icon for when the shutter speed is too slow, and can be set to bump up
> the ISO on one shot at a time by pressing one button.
>
> In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at 100 while
> watching out for slow shutter speeds?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Mort

I don't see a major problem. Though I have encountered some winter
scenery this year where ISO 64 way too high to produce a useable shot - I
finally went to auto ISO for the day.
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

ray wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:18:50 -0500, Morton wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and decreasing
>> vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using a Canon Digital Elph
>> SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is usually OK
>> but occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high ISO setting
>> was turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g. ISO 100 should
>> theoretically give the best noise-free pictures. This camera has a shake
>> icon for when the shutter speed is too slow, and can be set to bump up
>> the ISO on one shot at a time by pressing one button.
>>
>> In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at 100 while
>> watching out for slow shutter speeds?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Mort
>
> I don't see a major problem. Though I have encountered some winter
> scenery this year where ISO 64 way too high to produce a useable shot - I
> finally went to auto ISO for the day.

Hi,

Thanks for all the nice replies. My Canon SD 850 says in its handbook
that at higher ISOs it automatically applies noise reduction. As I
understand it, that entails some loss of sharpness. I guess it is a
matter of weighing all the factors together, e.g. large DOF needed,
etc..moving versus stationary subjects,etc.. In the old days, with
Kodachrome ASA 10, it was 1/25 at f. 6.3 in sunlight, and cross your
fingers.

When I do lean against a wall, or use a beanbag, if it is a stationary
subject I use the selftimer to reduce vibration.

Thanks again.

Morton
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

Bob Williams added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

[snip]
> Keeping your camera at its lowest ISO setting will always give
> the lowest noise level.....BUT..... If you shoot in a low
> light situation you will pay a price, one way or another.
> "There ain't no free lunch". Low ISO will mean low shutter
> speed which can cause blur from camera or subject movement.
> You may end up with a well exposed, low noise, UNsharp image.
> Image stabilization helps but it has its limits too. If yo
> bump up the ISO to say 400 you can use a faster shutter speed
> to reduce motion blur, but the price you pay is more noise.
> As the old adage says, "You pays your money and you takes your
> choice". Bob Williams
>
Agreed, Bob. Image stabilization is to cameras what anti-lock
brakes is to cars. A Godsend and a great safety feature but not a
substitute for good operation practice.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Surely you jest - and don't call me Shirley!" - from the movie
"Airplane!"
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

Morton added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all the nice replies. My Canon SD 850 says in its
> handbook that at higher ISOs it automatically applies noise
> reduction. As I understand it, that entails some loss of
> sharpness. I guess it is a matter of weighing all the factors
> together, e.g. large DOF needed, etc..moving versus stationary
> subjects,etc.. In the old days, with Kodachrome ASA 10, it was
> 1/25 at f. 6.3 in sunlight, and cross your fingers.

Suggest you turn OFF the noise reduction! It is MUCH better to do
that while you're looking in PhotoShop, PSP, or whatever you use
than to have your camera blindly apply some arbitary smoothing
factor. I'm not at all saying you'll mangle your images, just that
you won't ever know what they looked like without the noise
reduction. BTW, noise reduction and retention of detail and
sharpness at any given ISO from 100 to 32000 is a tradeoff because
in general they are mutually exclusive.

> When I do lean against a wall, or use a beanbag, if it is a
> stationary subject I use the selftimer to reduce vibration.
>
Also, try spreading your feet apart a comfortable distance, pull
your arms in close to your sides, and hold the camera tight against
your head. And, if the subject isn't moving, try using your
camera's self-timer to avoid the shake inherent in pressing the
shutter button.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Surely you jest - and don't call me Shirley!" - from the movie
"Airplane!"
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:24:24 GMT, Dave Cohen <user.TakeThisOut@example.net> wrote:
: Morton wrote:
: > Hi,
: >
: > I'm an advanced photographer, who for reasons of age and decreasing
: > vision gave up on my SLR film outfit. I'm now using a Canon Digital Elph
: > SD-850. I can set the ISO values for automatic, which is usually OK but
: > occasionally results in very noisy pictures when a high ISO setting was
: > turned on. Setting the ISO manually for, e.g. ISO 100 should
: > theoretically give the best noise-free pictures. This camera has a shake
: > icon for when the shutter speed is too slow, and can be set to bump up
: > the ISO on one shot at a time by pressing one button.
: >
: > In general, is one better off with automatic ISO, or manual at 100 while
: > watching out for slow shutter speeds?
: >
: > Thank you.
: >
: > Mort
:
: I set my camera to 100. If a special situation should require something
: higher I override it for that instance.
: Dave Cohen

Outdoors you can do pretty much as you please. I set my camera to 200 because
I've seen no discernible difference in image quality between 100 and 200. I
don't believe my camera even has an auto-ISO setting.

Indoors is another matter. Modern Canon flash units are almost pathologically
averse to blown highlights. So if I use a low ISO setting, the flash exposes
for the highlights, and the picture is badly underexposed overall. I get much
better results by setting the ISO to 400 or even 800 (i.e., almost high enough
for an available light shot, depending on the lens). This reduces the overall
contrast of the scene, and I get much more even coverage from the flash. This
is especially true if I'm using bounce flash, with the counterintuitive result
that I often get more illumination with bounce flash than with direct flash.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

"HEMI - Powered" <Nyet.DeleteThis@Nada.EN> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns9A4C7FCB3C0A8ReplyScoreID.DeleteThis@140.99.99.130...
> Morton added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>> I set my camera to 100. If a special situation should require
>>> something higher I override it for that instance.
>>> Dave Cohen
>>
>> Hi Dave and David,
>>
>> Thanks for the good advice. It sounds logical, and paying
>> attention to the shake icon in poor light should not be
>> difficult.
>>
>> I'll try setting the ISO at 100 as my default setting, and
>> bump up the ISO manually and/or lean against a wall, as
>> needed.
>
> Before I resorted to leaning against a wall, which is iffy at best,
> I'd go to 200 or 400 and kill the noise in your fav graphics
> editor. If the camera is reasonably noise-free, it should be no
> problem. Again, I don't know if your subjects are moving or stock
> still or how steady you are. e.g., in my film days circa 1970s with
> a Nikon FTN and a 50mm lens, I could get at least reasonable
> available light shots at 1/4 or 1/8 sec in places where I couldn't
> use flash and the film of the day wasn't nearly high speed enough.
> But now, at age 60, below 1/30 with my Rebel XT and I get
> noticeable shake, so there's a lot of variables to consider.
>

I used to think my pictures from my younger days were OK taken at low speed,
but it was only because I was looking at 3½ x 5 prints, the same negatives
scanned and seen on a monitor lose the sharness I remembered. Maybe I was
looking more at the subject rather than the technical quality too. I am not
alone in this, I look at old magazines from the late sixties and early
seventies and the pictures are just as pathetic as my old pics which only
means one thing, we have come a long way since and we are more critical
about what we do.

Jean

Oh, I go for higher ISO rather than lower speeds IF I can't use a tripod,
software like Neat Image will do wonders.
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

jean added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>> Before I resorted to leaning against a wall, which is iffy at
>> best, I'd go to 200 or 400 and kill the noise in your fav
>> graphics editor. If the camera is reasonably noise-free, it
>> should be no problem. Again, I don't know if your subjects
>> are moving or stock still or how steady you are. e.g., in my
>> film days circa 1970s with a Nikon FTN and a 50mm lens, I
>> could get at least reasonable available light shots at 1/4 or
>> 1/8 sec in places where I couldn't use flash and the film of
>> the day wasn't nearly high speed enough. But now, at age 60,
>> below 1/30 with my Rebel XT and I get noticeable shake, so
>> there's a lot of variables to consider.
>>
>
> I used to think my pictures from my younger days were OK taken
> at low speed, but it was only because I was looking at 3½ x 5
> prints, the same negatives scanned and seen on a monitor lose
> the sharness I remembered. Maybe I was looking more at the
> subject rather than the technical quality too. I am not alone
> in this, I look at old magazines from the late sixties and
> early seventies and the pictures are just as pathetic as my
> old pics which only means one thing, we have come a long way
> since and we are more critical about what we do.
>
Mine are all 35mm slides, Jean, and I'm sure if I looked at them
today, I'd think they were pretty shaky. But, one can only do the
best one can do. I took Kodachrome with me when traveling around
Southern Europe on leaves and passes while I was in the Army
stationed in Bavaria and later when I went on vacations with my
wife. And, I took 160 ASA Ektachrome and 2X push-processing with
me when I knew I'd be shooting castles, museums, and the like
where neither flash - bulbs or the primative electronic flashes
of the day, circa 1970-1980 - nor tripods were allowed. Besides
often having color temperature problems even though I properly
used daylight and tungsten film, I had to either go for a very
low shutter speed or skip the shot. So, since slides were far
cheaper than prints, I did the 1970 version of today's "digital
is free" and took more pictures, not less. Still, they were not
all that bad.
>
> Oh, I go for higher ISO rather than lower speeds IF I can't
> use a tripod, software like Neat Image will do wonders.
>
--
HP, aka Jerry

"Surely you jest - and don't call me Shirley!" - from the movie
"Airplane!"
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting 

"HEMI - Powered" <Nyet.TakeThisOut@Nada.EN> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns9A4D9598ED2EReplyScoreID.TakeThisOut@140.99.99.130...
> jean added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>> Before I resorted to leaning against a wall, which is iffy at
>>> best, I'd go to 200 or 400 and kill the noise in your fav
>>> graphics editor. If the camera is reasonably noise-free, it
>>> should be no problem. Again, I don't know if your subjects
>>> are moving or stock still or how steady you are. e.g., in my
>>> film days circa 1970s with a Nikon FTN and a 50mm lens, I
>>> could get at least reasonable available light shots at 1/4 or
>>> 1/8 sec in places where I couldn't use flash and the film of
>>> the day wasn't nearly high speed enough. But now, at age 60,
>>> below 1/30 with my Rebel XT and I get noticeable shake, so
>>> there's a lot of variables to consider.
>>>
>>
>> I used to think my pictures from my younger days were OK taken
>> at low speed, but it was only because I was looking at 3½ x 5
>> prints, the same negatives scanned and seen on a monitor lose
>> the sharness I remembered. Maybe I was looking more at the
>> subject rather than the technical quality too. I am not alone
>> in this, I look at old magazines from the late sixties and
>> early seventies and the pictures are just as pathetic as my
>> old pics which only means one thing, we have come a long way
>> since and we are more critical about what we do.
>>
> Mine are all 35mm slides, Jean, and I'm sure if I looked at them
> today, I'd think they were pretty shaky. But, one can only do the
> best one can do. I took Kodachrome with me when traveling around
> Southern Europe on leaves and passes while I was in the Army
> stationed in Bavaria and later when I went on vacations with my
> wife. And, I took 160 ASA Ektachrome and 2X push-processing with
> me when I knew I'd be shooting castles, museums, and the like
> where neither flash - bulbs or the primative electronic flashes
> of the day, circa 1970-1980 - nor tripods were allowed. Besides
> often having color temperature problems even though I properly
> used daylight and tungsten film, I had to either go for a very
> low shutter speed or skip the shot. So, since slides were far
> cheaper than prints, I did the 1970 version of today's "digital
> is free" and took more pictures, not less. Still, they were not
> all that bad.

I did a lot of slides too and many of my race pictures looked good (well, I
remember they looked good projected on the screen), but when I scan them,
they are nowhere as sharp as the pictures I take now with what I have. Mind
you with the high frame rate of today's cameras, it is a lot easier to get a
good shot compared to cock and shoot. I relied more on my eyes to get a
good focus, now at my age, I rely on the camera to do it properly (which it
does).

Jean

PS I was (and still are) more into motorcycles than cars, capturing them on
film has remained the same.
 >> Stay informed about: Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting