DSLRUsers.com

I saw the auto ISO feature on my camera. Turned it on and played with it a bit, but It decided to take some indoor shots at 1600 which introduced a bit of grain.

Anyway, just wondering if anyone uses auto ISO, or what conditions you would consider using it, or if it is just worthless.

I consider it to be a PHD function: useful only for those who really haven't a clue how to use a DSLR and probably shouldn't be let near one..

beltbuckle, I turned this off on about day two.

It might have some use, in my view, if the selected ISO was shown in the viewfinder.

But I think it is important to know what ISO you are using, and if that needs to be changed, better you make the decision rather than the camera. If you were in aperture priority, for example, you may want to change the aperture before you would change the ISO, but the most important thing is that you want to make the decision.

That makes sense. That was what was bothering me with it; I didn't know what the camera was doing, and generally I would rather change the aperture or shutter speed before I would consider changing the ISO.

When I was playing with it, I downloaded my pics from the camera and didn't know it was using 1600. I turned it off and the pics were turning out much better with much less noise.

I also never use it, it takes control away form the photographer, a bit like program mode... I only ever use M manual and A aperture priority, I havent even experimented with any other positions on the dial in 10 months of
D70 use.

Gordon

Never even considered using auto iso, and like Gordon, M and A modes primarily.

I turned it off pretty soon after I got the camera since I didn't know the result. I principally use A and S modes, but even back when I used Auto mode i had Auto ISO turned off so I knew what ISO (200 generally) was set.

FWIW, I think the time to use auto ISO is when your lighting conditions are poor and you want to control your aperture and especially shutter speeds, to prevent camera shake and/or motion blur. In such cases, using auto ISO will possibly keep your noise levels as low as possible because it will only use as high an ISO setting as necessary, to properly expose the shot.

For example, you're shooting indoors with a 50mm and you want to keep the aperture at f/2.8 and the shutter at 1/60s or 1/125s or higher, to prevent motion blur. Set auto ISO to kick in at your minimum shutter speed and it will give you a couple more stops, assuming the light is sufficient to do so. I would generally advocate using the spot meter in such cases, to ensure the subject is well exposed, cutting down or eliminating noise on the subject.

A recent thread on Nikonians forums had me rethink the Auto ISO issue. I had previously grouped it with closest subject focusing and digital vari-programs, ie. in the "useless" category.

However, as Kerry summarised - it allows you to restrict shutter speeds when shooting in aperture priority. Since I shoot AP 99% of the time, this extra bit of control was welcome. Shooting in Manual you gain the best of both worlds - if you select a shutter speed at or above the limit you set in the custom menu, the Auto ISO kicks in with regards to ISO value. However selecting a shutter outside of the limit set in the menu, you gain full manual control of your exposures.

As a side effect of using it, I've learned to pay more attention to the viewfinder ("Auto ISO" flashing indicator), and also learned to better estimate exposures. Consequently, my images have gained better precision on exposures (down to 1/6th of a stop; instead of 1/3 or 1/2 previously). After re-evaluating it, it's staying on in my camera from now.

The only reason it would swing to ISO1600 is if the device behind the viewfinder is at fault. Typically incorrect aperture and shutter speed combinating or attempting to operate in light levels too low to sensibly contemplate shooting.

KerryPierce wrote:FWIW, I think the time to use auto ISO is when your lighting conditions are poor and you want to control your aperture and especially shutter speeds, to prevent camera shake and/or motion blur.

In those instances, I'll switch to M or S, and keep my eye on the exposure readings the camera's giving me. Shooting raw can also be useful in these circumstances.

It's actually quite interesting. I sat there with it ON and just kept the aperture the same and slowly cranked the shutter up from 1/15th to 1/60th and then onto about 1/200th and noticed no change in the exposure meter, dead on 0. Then after that it started to go into -EV by a few stops, which must be where the AUTO ISO can no longer compensate. I guess it can be quite handy as already pointed out when you want a certain amount of aperture to maintain dof, and a fairbit of shutter speed to reduce blur.

gstark wrote:In those instances, I'll switch to M or S, and keep my eye on the exposure readings the camera's giving me. Shooting raw can also be useful in these circumstances.

Hi Gary,

I've used auto ISO sparingly. I generally run 400 to 800 without worry, but have used auto in all the manual modes. It's faster and probably more precise than manual ISO and a true no-brainer when you have specific shutter and aperture settings that you want to use. Of course, if you're not shooting quickly or in varying lighting conditions, it's not much of a help either.

I assume when you mention raw, that you're mentioning it for artifact reduction.

Kerry,

KerryPierce wrote:I assume when you mention raw, that you're mentioning it for artifact reduction.

Not just; I almost always shoot raw. My criteria - as a systems analyst - is that if I don't collect anmd store the data in the first instance, then there's no way possible that I can use it, should I need to, further down the track.

I don't see the capture of the photographic data as being any different: try to adjust a mis-applied wb setting on a jpg and you'll quickly understand the problem.

Given that using raw imposes no real penalty other than storage (ok, a small speed penalty if shooting in continuous mode) and that storage is as cheap as sand, why should I not shoot in raw?

gstark wrote:Given that using raw imposes no real penalty other than storage (ok, a small speed penalty if shooting in continuous mode) and that storage is as cheap as sand, why should I not shoot in raw?

I don't know, Gary. I think you should shoot whatever makes you comfortable. Raw hadn't been mentioned before your post, so I assumed you mentioned it for the artifact reduction possibilities over jpg. But, if one shoots raw all the time, you're already at that stage.

To me, it's like using auto ISO or aperture priority mode. I use what I think is best for my style of shooting and the difficulty of the shot.

KerryPierce wrote: Raw hadn't been mentioned before your post, so I assumed you mentioned it for the artifact reduction possibilities over jpg.

But within the context of auto ISO, there may be a higher likelihood that you'll be shooting jpg too. And within that context, you're losing the capability of recovering a less than ideally exposed image due to the the loss of that raw data.

Putting it another way, shooting raw, I can probably extend my effective ISO range by two stops; shooting auto ISO and/or jpg, that's a lot more difficult to accomplish.

gstark wrote:

KerryPierce wrote: Raw hadn't been mentioned before your post, so I assumed you mentioned it for the artifact reduction possibilities over jpg.

But within the context of auto ISO, there may be a higher likelihood that you'll be shooting jpg too. And within that context, you're losing the capability of recovering a less than ideally exposed image due to the the loss of that raw data.

Putting it another way, shooting raw, I can probably extend my effective ISO range by two stops; shooting auto ISO and/or jpg, that's a lot more difficult to accomplish.

Huh? Don't quite understand your point Gary...

Why is there a likelihood that you'd be shooting JPG if you use Auto-ISO?
If you use RAW and also use Auto-ISO with a sensible shutter speed trigger (e.g. 1/60s or 1/30s), it will save you many troublesome manual ISO adjustments in low light conditions and you will gain a lot more than 2 stops capability...
As long as you remain aware (and therefore in control of) the engagement of Auto-ISO (which is pretty evident when it happens), I really don't see the problem... Things would be much better if the actual ISO setting was displayed in the viewfinder instead of on the top LCD, but that's bearable...

I just see Auto-ISO as an extended level of the Aperture mode - instead of reducing the shutter speed even further it increases the ISO without me having to manually do it...

Of course, you need to use common sense and make a decision to use flash when necessary instead of allowing Auto-ISO to take over, but I don't think that's too hard to do...

For situations like the Jenolan Caves, I deliberately switched off Auto-ISO in favour of longer exposures, but that was because I knew that every shot was going to be from a tripod...

The reason I initially started using Auto-ISO was that (like a few others) I had taken night shots on high ISO and had forgotten to switch it back and botched up a few other photo sessions... Using Auto-ISO stops me doing that (for the most part)...

gstark wrote:
Putting it another way, shooting raw, I can probably extend my effective ISO range by two stops; shooting auto ISO and/or jpg, that's a lot more difficult to accomplish.

I don't think there is any doubt that shooting raw gives you the best image to work with, when compared to jpg. Post processing has its own steep learning curves and skill level requirements and is a separate, but equal, can of worms. I do have doubts about auto ISO making it more difficult, especially under the circumstances previously mentioned. Motion blur and camera shake are far more destructive to the average image, than noise or jpg artifacting, IMO.

Being that dslr dynamic range is finite, the best overall exposure will provide the cleanest image, IME. Underexposures taken during a bracketing sequence have always given me more noise artifacts than the images that were closest to proper exposure in the same sequence.

leek wrote:

gstark wrote:

KerryPierce wrote: Raw hadn't been mentioned before your post, so I assumed you mentioned it for the artifact reduction possibilities over jpg.

But within the context of auto ISO, there may be a higher likelihood that you'll be shooting jpg too.

Huh? Don't quite understand your point Gary...

Why is there a likelihood that you'd be shooting JPG if you use Auto-ISO?

BNecause you're relegating youiself back to a PHD mode. Abdicating one element of control, as it were.

That's how I see it, anyway.

KerryPierce wrote: Underexposures taken during a bracketing sequence have always given me more noise artifacts than the images that were closest to proper exposure in the same sequence.

Absolutely, but so what? Isn't it better to have that "must have" image, with noise, rather than not having it at all?

Personally, I think that a lot of people become too hung up over noise; there are ways that it can be reduced through pp, and with a camera like the D70, unless your image is somewhat underexposed, the levels of noise evident in typical images are no worse than what many of us would be used to seeing from images made using a lower ISO in a film camera.

None of which takes into account the possibility that in many images, the noise may even add to the ambience expressed within those images.

Within this thread, I must say that nobody has, as yet, demonstrated to me a need to use auto-ISO.

While I remember ...

KerryPierce wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that shooting raw gives you the best image to work with, when compared to jpg.

When would another method give you a better choice? What other choices do we have?

gstark wrote:BNecause you're relegating youiself back to a PHD mode. Abdicating one element of control, as it were.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Hmmm... maybe that's just the purist coming out in you Gary...
One could say the same about Auto-focus or internal metering (and maybe VR should be considered cheating too?)...

I don't think I lose any control by using auto-ISO sensibly - I just find it more convenient than manually changing ISO.

As with all tools, the benefits or otherwise of Auto ISO will depend on the skill of the operator with that tool, and also his/her knowledge of what the tool actually does. So, there is no right or wrong answer, just the best answer for an individual's circumstances.

What this tool does is to increase the ISO is situations where THE CAMERA thinks that it will achieve a better exposure. Unfortunately, increasing the ISO increases noise.

To quote an example from Thom Hogan:

"In Manual exposure mode, the ISO is changed if the shutter speed and aperture combination you pick won't achieve a proper exposure (manual exposure bar at 0). For example, if you were at ISO 200 and set f8 at 1/125 but the meter thought the exposure should be f5.6 at 1/125, the camera will boost the ISO one stop to 400..."

In Thom's example, THE CAMERA gives you more noise as opposed to a (metered) underexposure, or a slower shutter speed, or a wider aperture. I think that noise is the worst of these options.

If the photo were taken in RAW, the underexposure, if it did not suit the image, could be fixed in a jiffy in PP.

For what it is worth, Thom Hogan recommends against using Auto ISO because you never know exactly what ISO the camera is using, at least not until it is too late.
Trevor

gstark wrote:Absolutely, but so what? Isn't it better to have that "must have" image, with noise, rather than not having it at all?

What has that got to do with anything I've said? I don't have much of a posting history here, but I've always maintained the same stance, identical to your premise. I don't know how you'd get anything other from anything I've posted. But, that is not to say that I would advocate or approve of not 'trying' to get the best exposures possible.

Personally, I think that a lot of people become too hung up over noise; there are ways that it can be reduced through pp, and with a camera like the D70, unless your image is somewhat underexposed, the levels of noise evident in typical images are no worse than what many of us would be used to seeing from images made using a lower ISO in a film camera.

I agree. Some folks do place far too high a premium on image noise, among other esoteric things, rather than image "quality".

I often speak blasphemy, in this regard. My interest in photography is for the artistic outlet that it provides. My top ten priorities have to do with capturing the image as I envision it while taking the shot. I don't really care much about noise, raw, jpg, 16bit/8bit, combed vs uncombed histograms or much of the other technical stuff that doesn't have a significant impact on my ability to do what I desire. If I capture the shot, the way I intended, that other stuff is not material. If I don't, then I screwed up. NBD. I'm learning and having fun while doing it. That's all that really matters to me.

In that respect, I'm quite pleased with my efforts thus far. Some folks like my work, others do not. Such is the life of a wannabe artist.

Within this thread, I must say that nobody has, as yet, demonstrated to me a need to use auto-ISO.

heh, well, if you're looking for a salesman, you'll have to look elsewhere. I stated my opinion on the matter and folks are free to accept or reject my reasoning as they please. I certainly don't think I'm any kind of authority on the matter. I use what works for me and reject that which doesn't, as should anyone.

gstark wrote:While I remember ...

KerryPierce wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that shooting raw gives you the best image to work with, when compared to jpg.

When would another method give you a better choice? What other choices do we have?

Actually, I tend to believe that a better choice is film, specifically medium and large formats.

KerryPierce wrote:

gstark wrote:While I remember ...

KerryPierce wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that shooting raw gives you the best image to work with, when compared to jpg.

When would another method give you a better choice? What other choices do we have?

Actually, I tend to believe that a better choice is film, specifically medium and large formats.

As the owner of a Bronica ETRs and an old Speedgraphic, plus being the past owner and user of a nice Nagaoka 5x4, I can't disagree.

However, none of those offer the convenience of digital, let alone the negative effect on the wallet that shooting on something like a Nagaoka can have.

KerryPierce wrote:

gstark wrote:Absolutely, but so what? Isn't it better to have that "must have" image, with noise, rather than not having it at all?

What has that got to do with anything I've said? I don't have much of a posting history here, but

Why are you being so defensive here?

I'm certainly not attacking you, nor anyone else. I'm simply stating how I view these things, and you are free to accept or reject my POV.

gstark wrote:As the owner of a Bronica ETRs and an old Speedgraphic, plus being the past owner and user of a nice Nagaoka 5x4, I can't disagree.

However, none of those offer the convenience of digital, let alone the negative effect on the wallet that shooting on something like a Nagaoka can have.

Ah, yes, the realities of life. Convenience and cost are the 2 little things keeping me shooting with the d70.

Some are saying that the d2x is as good as MF. Well, I suppose that could be true, but I'd be a little surprised. Still, I don't think there's much doubt that it surpasses 35mm in most respects, if not all. I'm keeping my eye on it to see how it shakes out. It's expensive, but not nearly so expensive as it would be to replace my system with M or L format bodies and lenses and then deal with film again....

Ain't it grand that we can have a vigorous and lively debate on something as mundane (and esoteric) as whether we use Auto ISO!!!!!!!

Geez, never mind about artistic interpretations or predilictions!!!

gstark wrote:Why are you being so defensive here?

heh, I already explained that. I don't have much history here and don't want to have anything I might say, misunderstood. This thread took a left turn, which I found confusing, and it kept taking turns that further confused me.

Absolutely, but so what? Isn't it better to have that "must have" image, with noise, rather than not having it at all?

I had no idea what prompted you to say this and still don't. The same applies to the introduction of raw vs jpg into the thread. In my mind, those are issues quite separate from auto ISO use.

I'm certainly not attacking you, nor anyone else. I'm simply stating how I view these things, and you are free to accept or reject my POV.

I didn't think you were attacking me. I just found it a curious statement and couldn't figure out how I might have given the impression that I might disagree with it. So, I thought it best to clarify my position on some of those issues.

Greg B wrote:Ain't it grand that we can have a vigorous and lively debate on something as mundane (and esoteric) as whether we use Auto ISO!!!!!!!

Mundane Esoteric

Greg, this is serious stuff here.......

KerryPierce wrote:This thread took a left turn, which I found confusing, and it kept taking turns that further confused me.

Please accept thread turns - left, right, about about-face - as the norm here. The discussion is free and vibrant, which many (myself included) seem to enjoy.

The challenge is to (obviously) keep up.

Absolutely, but so what? Isn't it better to have that "must have" image, with noise, rather than not having it at all?

I had no idea what prompted you to say this and still don't. The same applies to the introduction of raw vs jpg into the thread. In my mind, those are issues quite separate from auto ISO use.

I accept that you may have that perspective. To me they're all (well, most) parameters that are intimately associated with the exposure of the image, but certainly they're all intimately associated with how the image will look when all is said and done.

To my mind, if I compromise on any one of those parameters - or if I abdicate control of any one of them - then I'm potentially losing not just my control of how the final image might look, but also I'm losing the potential to perhaps make it the best it can possibly be. JPG vs raw is the most obvious example of this, but with all of the other factors, I like to know precisely what is going on at that moment of exposure.

Putting this another way, when I used to shoot weddings, I would know, throughout the event, exactly what images I had on my film. I was fully in control, and I was fully cogniscant of every aspect of the images I was making.

By way of contrast, a couple of years ago I tired shooting some car racing using a CP5700. The 5700 is a great camera, but it's entirely out of its element in many situations, and this was one such event. I found it most frustratinmg to put the camera in its (so-called) continuous mode, press the shutter to take what I thought might be three or four images in quick succession, only to find out that the period during which the three or four exposures were made extended to something like 20 or 30 seconds after I squeezed the shutter!

While I certainly (and thankfully) had the option of immediate image review, for the first time ever, I simply had no idea of what the hell the camera was doing, nor what images I had made, at the moment of exposure.

So, and getting back to the point, I am very uncomfortable with any aspect of the image making process that removes any element of control from my hands. I see all elements of exposure as being of equal importance; subrogating any of them to some unknown engineer whom I've never met and who has no idea of what I'm trying to do is not exactly a desirable option for me.

auto iso?
no i don't use it. for me i shoot sports try to keep everything below 400. sure they're lots of noise removal programs which do a great job reducing noise. but i find it very slow to work with it it increases my pp time which is quite long when you doing 1000 pics after an event.

gstark wrote:
Please accept thread turns - left, right, about about-face - as the norm here. The discussion is free and vibrant, which many (myself included) seem to enjoy.

The challenge is to (obviously) keep up.

Well, my daddy always said, "If you can't run with the big dogs, you'd best stay on the porch." I've never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I never listened to him much. No reason to start now. I'll try to keep up, but won't make any promises.

I accept that you may have that perspective. To me they're all (well, most) parameters that are intimately associated with the exposure of the image, but certainly they're all intimately associated with how the image will look when all is said and done.

Of course, you're correct. Part of my problem is that I'm used to dealing with a lot of novice users and tend to post in a single issue frame of mind.

To my mind, if I compromise on any one of those parameters - or if I abdicate control of any one of them - then I'm potentially losing not just my control of how the final image might look, but also I'm losing the potential to perhaps make it the best it can possibly be. JPG vs raw is the most obvious example of this, but with all of the other factors, I like to know precisely what is going on at that moment of exposure.

So, and getting back to the point, I am very uncomfortable with any aspect of the image making process that removes any element of control from my hands. I see all elements of exposure as being of equal importance; subrogating any of them to some unknown engineer whom I've never met and who has no idea of what I'm trying to do is not exactly a desirable option for me.

This makes complete sense to me. I started back in 1970, with a full manual camera. I did weddings, portraits and such, for a couple of years, with both 35mm and MF. I don't recall having nearly so many issues as are common now, but I do recall not having nearly the capability as now.

I remember when I first got the d70, how much I longed for the old days of being able to spin the aperture ring and SS dial, while watching the light meter needle and focus screen in the viewfinder. Or using a light meter on the subject, to get everything perfect.

My longing didn't last far into my first real shooting session with the d70. The incredible increase in speed, over what I can recall from the manual days, is well worth, to me, giving up control of the more base issues involved. To me, it's no different than using AF or any of the other auto features. They have their uses, especially when speed is important.

I don't feel that I have less control than I ever had, I simply feel that I have a lot more options at my disposal and that the technology has given me much more freedom to explore my artistic limitations. Of course, one might argue that the old manual cameras were more than sufficient to fulfill that task.

KerryPierce wrote:This makes complete sense to me. I started back in 1970, with a full manual camera. I did weddings, portraits and such, for a couple of years, with both 35mm and MF. I don't recall having nearly so many issues as are common now, but I do recall not having nearly the capability as now.

When we did weddings and portraits (and many other things) we kept a lot of the processing in-house, both for B&W and colour.

My recollection is that the issues of getting good exposure, composition, focus, colour balance, etc were just as critical then as they are now. For me one of the biggest issues was composition - I had a number of people working for me, shooting weddings on Saturday afternoons.

Getting them to understand the concept of looking through the viewfinder and examining the components of the image they're about to photograph was like extracting an honest and direct answer from a politician!

But I think that we are focussing more on them because (a) we have a lower contrast range with a digital SLR than we do with film, and thus errors become more noticeable, and (b) we now have the capability of looking very closely at our images.

Whereas with film, focussing errors could easily be hidded through the miracle of small enlargements, with digitial one of the first things we do is rush to examine the image through each and every one of its component pixels. That level of examination was rarely applied to images in the days BD, and it's one of the reasons why so many of us are now buying premium Nikkor lenses, where before, even a Sigma would have sufficed!

I don't feel that I have less control than I ever had, I simply feel that I have a lot more options at my disposal and that the technology has given me much more freedom to explore my artistic limitations. Of course, one might argue that the old manual cameras were more than sufficient to fulfill that task.

The lack of control isn't a factor of digital photography: as you point out, we have far greater control today than was the case 30 years hence: can you recall even contemplating using ASA1600 in the mid 70's?

So yes, we have more options at our disposal, and the biggest problem I'm finding is my lack of skill; the camera lets me make the mistakes I create (and then some) which is exactly how I want it to be. It's hard enough dealing with those, let alone the ones that the Nikon engineers can throw my way!

gstark wrote:Getting them to understand the concept of looking through the viewfinder and examining the components of the image they're about to photograph was like extracting an honest and direct answer from a politician!

You were obviously far more advanced than I ever was. I had no informal, let alone formal training. Looking back, I'd have been one of the blockheads that would probably have driven you insane. I did weddings for people that couldn't afford a real photographer. You get what you pay for.

But I think that we are focussing more on them because (a) we have a lower contrast range with a digital SLR than we do with film, and thus errors become more noticeable, and (b) we now have the capability of looking very closely at our images.

I've rejected the notion of pixel peeping for my own work flow. I don't enjoy post processing and find it tedious. Trying to learn photography and post processing at the same time, is beyond my meager abilities. So, I concentrate on getting the image that I want, at the time of exposure.

I've also rejected the notion that I'm good enough to shoot weddings and such. I gave up photography in the late 70s, because I coudn't afford to take the numbers of photos that I wanted and pay for the processing. I didn't return to photography until digital became affordable, about 5 years ago. So, I still have much to learn.

Whereas with film, focussing errors could easily be hidded through the miracle of small enlargements, with digitial one of the first things we do is rush to examine the image through each and every one of its component pixels. That level of examination was rarely applied to images in the days BD, and it's one of the reasons why so many of us are now buying premium Nikkor lenses, where before, even a Sigma would have sufficed!

Quite true. Only wannabe pretenders buy anything other than Nikkor! But, if you use small apertures and print small, you can fool most folks with those unmentionable lenses.

The lack of control isn't a factor of digital photography: as you point out, we have far greater control today than was the case 30 years hence: can you recall even contemplating using ASA1600 in the mid 70's?

No. I can recall playing with asa400 B&W and pushing it, but never for anything that was considered important. The results of some of those pushed films would have put many modern photogs over the moon.

So yes, we have more options at our disposal, and the biggest problem I'm finding is my lack of skill; the camera lets me make the mistakes I create (and then some) which is exactly how I want it to be. It's hard enough dealing with those, let alone the ones that the Nikon engineers can throw my way!:)

heh, I don't know how I'd know the difference. If I ever got to the point where I could count my mistakes by using only my hands and feet, I'd be happy. Until then, I'm quite satisfied blaming everything on the camera.

i dont know about the auto ISO feature, never looked at it. I always shoot in the Green Auto Mode, and my ISO thingo says 1600, is it bad?

might be the lenses cap still on hehe

the silence is deafening, i WAS joking

darb wrote:the silence is deafening, i WAS joking

I think that we know you and your work too well not to have realised that you were joking...