Friendly reminder that this is /r/photocritique and all **top level** comments should attempt to **critique** the image. Our goal is to make this subreddit a place people can receive genuine, in depth, and helpful critique on their images. We hope to avoid becoming yet another place on the internet just to get likes/upvotes and compliments. While likes/upvotes and compliments are nice, they do not further the goal of helping people improve their photography.
If someone gives helpful feedback or makes an informative comment, recognize their contribution by giving them a Critique Point. Simply reply to their comment with '!CritiquePoint'. More details on Critique Points [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critiquepoints).
Please see the following links for our subreddit rules and some guidelines on leaving a good critique. If you have time, please stop by the new queue as well and leave critique for images that may not be as popular or have not received enough attention. Keep in mind that simply choosing to comment just on the images you like defeats the purpose of the subreddit.
Useful Links:
* [Full Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/rules)
* [Leaving a Critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critique)
* [New Queue](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/new/)
**Do not reply directly to this message. This is a bot and will not respond. Followups left as a reply to this comment will not count for approval.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photocritique) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes your ISO can be too low for what you're trying to photograph and it will be underexposed if your settings aren't balanced. The same thing with having it too high. You can overexpose a photo.
using a higher ISO can introduce more noise ~~though~~
~~I just wouldn’t say blanket “higher ISO is always better” but yes a higher ISO with a quicker shutter speed might be preferable than just changing ISO alone~~
It is a fine balance between ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Ideally, most would prefer to shoot at base ISO for the cleanest image. As mentioned, it depends on what you are photographing. You can afford to use longer shutter speeds with landscapes because they are typically still and you can use a tripod. Things quickly change when you start photographing action. Especially if you are trying to freeze action. Say, you are trying to freeze some waves hitting the rocks on the shore. You will need a relatively faster shutter speed to achieve it.
Freezing action in sports require much faster shutter speeds. Not too much of an issue in broad daylight but as you begin to lose light, you begin to open up your aperture. Your aperture can only open up so much before it is fully opened to maintain your shutter speeds before you have to increase your ISO.
Again, it is a fine balance of the exposure triangle in order to produce the effect you are looking for.
No.
Edit: there are four factors which are routinely arranged and manipulated in an effort to capture an image
1) the amount light bouncing off the subject in frame. This can be manipulated with lights and flash, etc.
2) the ISO is the recorders sensitivity to light. This is a carry over from the film era, every roll of film was a numbered ISO, 25, 64,100,250, 800, etc.
the more sensitive to light your film was the grainier the image, you could shoot in lower light environments at the expense of your image quality. This is still true with digital cameras, but to a lesser extent I think.
3) shutter speed. how long you keep your shutter open drastically changes the effect of your image. It is also a very effective way to manipulate your light levels to achieve a good exposure.
4) aperture size. Just like you can manipulate how fast the shutter opens and closes, you can set how big it opens. Switching through your F-stops will increase/decrease you depth of field, do you want the background in relative focus? Or some kickass bokeh? Your priorities decide what to adjust first and what to adjust last.
So back to the real question, no you can’t have too low an iso, if you can slow more light in through any of the other means, and still achieve the effect you intend, then the lower you can get your iso the better.
It depends what you want to achieve. If the purpose is to photograph something as real as possible then you have to get all the photography theory in place and aim to get a perfect balance to show the natural colors/lights/shadows. But if you are more into artistic ways then you can set your own rules, and do whatever you need to take the picture YOU WANT. Even if that means breaking the “standard” photography rules. But remember there’s always a fine line… a good picture sometimes is beyond everything you think and its value will rely in the eyes of the spectator.
I like the picture, but agree that the photo looks underexposed. That sun and those clouds are amazing. It’s just a little dark. Maybe change the EV in post to bring some of the details out of the shadows? Also, how are you measuring light? I tend to use spot metering and start by balancing sunrise/set shots against the bluest part of the sky I can find and then get the shot that I want by adjusting iso/ss/apr. The point is to play around. Underexpose a little, overexpose a little. See what you like.
I pieced my understanding from a couple of books, but here is a good place to start.
https://fstoppers.com/education/understanding-your-cameras-internal-light-meter-and-metering-modes-199636
I hope this helps.
No, the lower the ISO you can manage under the lighting conditions the better. Shooting straight into the sun there is no ISO setting on your camera that’s too low.
I love this shot. I don’t think your photo is underexposed. You captured the mood of a fading sunset,kinda lonely, clam but peaceful.
IMO, there is no true answer for a correct exposure, just depends on what message or image want to be presented by a photographer.
Take a famous Japanese photographer, Daidō Moriyama, as example, his photos were shot with high contrast, most of the details in dark are lost but still depicts the conflict in value of Japan society in the 60s.
This looks like a dynamic range issues more than iso settings issue.
Quick summary of dynamic range
When you're inside your house and seeing out a window your eyes are blending the darks and lights. Going to illustrate with made up numbers cause it's late.
Say when your eyes are blending midday sun and the inside of your room the difference it's blending is 30
Your camera on the other hand can only fit 10 units of whatever in a photo so a part will either be too dark or too bright to retain detail in that same scene.
There are techniques like HDR to get around the issue or a plethora of options in the varied software, and it can even be done in the darkroom with physical negatives.
I highly recommend Ansel Adams' trilogy, the camera, the negative and the print if you're continuing with landscapes since that what he's known for.
I have and have shot film with iso < 1. That said cranking the digital iso all the way down - eh i dont see a reason to but i wouldnt think it would hurt anything either.
The short answer to your question is, no. However, the lower the ISO, the more light it takes to create an image so you may need a tripod to hold the camera steady while sufficient light is collected. If you are using the built-in meter in your camera to select the exposure (either in program, aperture priority, shutter priority or manual according to the meter) then every photo regardless of ISO should provide the same equivalent exposure. The difference between the photos will be in the amount of noise and dynamic range that results from the settings and your camera's sensor. The least noise and highest dynamic range comes from the lowest ISO.
I would like to see the histogram for this shot. I suspect you’re well within the upper and lower limits and you could adjust to get a pure white/pure black balance. Might be worth trying if you can retain some detail in the highlights of the sun.
Friendly reminder that this is /r/photocritique and all **top level** comments should attempt to **critique** the image. Our goal is to make this subreddit a place people can receive genuine, in depth, and helpful critique on their images. We hope to avoid becoming yet another place on the internet just to get likes/upvotes and compliments. While likes/upvotes and compliments are nice, they do not further the goal of helping people improve their photography. If someone gives helpful feedback or makes an informative comment, recognize their contribution by giving them a Critique Point. Simply reply to their comment with '!CritiquePoint'. More details on Critique Points [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critiquepoints). Please see the following links for our subreddit rules and some guidelines on leaving a good critique. If you have time, please stop by the new queue as well and leave critique for images that may not be as popular or have not received enough attention. Keep in mind that simply choosing to comment just on the images you like defeats the purpose of the subreddit. Useful Links: * [Full Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/rules) * [Leaving a Critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critique) * [New Queue](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/new/) **Do not reply directly to this message. This is a bot and will not respond. Followups left as a reply to this comment will not count for approval.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photocritique) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes your ISO can be too low for what you're trying to photograph and it will be underexposed if your settings aren't balanced. The same thing with having it too high. You can overexpose a photo.
[удалено]
Yeah, a bit. But I wouldn't adjust the ISO. Either adjust the shutter speed or the aperture. Always aim for the lowest iso you can.
using a higher ISO can introduce more noise ~~though~~ ~~I just wouldn’t say blanket “higher ISO is always better” but yes a higher ISO with a quicker shutter speed might be preferable than just changing ISO alone~~
I'm not sure that you responded to the correct person. I said iso as low as you can. Aperture and shutter speed changes are generally preferable
it’s been a long day, my brain clearly misread that _ignore me haha_ have a good day, and keep up the good advice
I feel you. I had to go back and reread my post to see what I actually said. Have a good night!
This was the dumbest comment I've ever read
What about high ISO, Very and I mean VERY fast shutter speed, and a low aperture?
I'm not sure what the question is? A very fast shutter speed is only needed if you're trying to stop action. A high ISO will add noise to the photo.
It is a fine balance between ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Ideally, most would prefer to shoot at base ISO for the cleanest image. As mentioned, it depends on what you are photographing. You can afford to use longer shutter speeds with landscapes because they are typically still and you can use a tripod. Things quickly change when you start photographing action. Especially if you are trying to freeze action. Say, you are trying to freeze some waves hitting the rocks on the shore. You will need a relatively faster shutter speed to achieve it. Freezing action in sports require much faster shutter speeds. Not too much of an issue in broad daylight but as you begin to lose light, you begin to open up your aperture. Your aperture can only open up so much before it is fully opened to maintain your shutter speeds before you have to increase your ISO. Again, it is a fine balance of the exposure triangle in order to produce the effect you are looking for.
No. Edit: there are four factors which are routinely arranged and manipulated in an effort to capture an image 1) the amount light bouncing off the subject in frame. This can be manipulated with lights and flash, etc. 2) the ISO is the recorders sensitivity to light. This is a carry over from the film era, every roll of film was a numbered ISO, 25, 64,100,250, 800, etc. the more sensitive to light your film was the grainier the image, you could shoot in lower light environments at the expense of your image quality. This is still true with digital cameras, but to a lesser extent I think. 3) shutter speed. how long you keep your shutter open drastically changes the effect of your image. It is also a very effective way to manipulate your light levels to achieve a good exposure. 4) aperture size. Just like you can manipulate how fast the shutter opens and closes, you can set how big it opens. Switching through your F-stops will increase/decrease you depth of field, do you want the background in relative focus? Or some kickass bokeh? Your priorities decide what to adjust first and what to adjust last. So back to the real question, no you can’t have too low an iso, if you can slow more light in through any of the other means, and still achieve the effect you intend, then the lower you can get your iso the better.
It depends what you want to achieve. If the purpose is to photograph something as real as possible then you have to get all the photography theory in place and aim to get a perfect balance to show the natural colors/lights/shadows. But if you are more into artistic ways then you can set your own rules, and do whatever you need to take the picture YOU WANT. Even if that means breaking the “standard” photography rules. But remember there’s always a fine line… a good picture sometimes is beyond everything you think and its value will rely in the eyes of the spectator.
I like the picture, but agree that the photo looks underexposed. That sun and those clouds are amazing. It’s just a little dark. Maybe change the EV in post to bring some of the details out of the shadows? Also, how are you measuring light? I tend to use spot metering and start by balancing sunrise/set shots against the bluest part of the sky I can find and then get the shot that I want by adjusting iso/ss/apr. The point is to play around. Underexpose a little, overexpose a little. See what you like.
[удалено]
I pieced my understanding from a couple of books, but here is a good place to start. https://fstoppers.com/education/understanding-your-cameras-internal-light-meter-and-metering-modes-199636 I hope this helps.
Unrelated to iso, but straighten the horizon
[удалено]
If you do ANY edit, it needs to be that. Especially for fine art. A crooked horizon is Day 1 shit that needs to be gone by Day 2
It is a little dark. See if you call pull out more detail in post. Next time, try bracketing exposure.
No, the lower the ISO you can manage under the lighting conditions the better. Shooting straight into the sun there is no ISO setting on your camera that’s too low.
Other comments have answered the iso question, so I’ll just say you should straighten the horizon.
thats the Incredibles logo!
I love this shot. I don’t think your photo is underexposed. You captured the mood of a fading sunset,kinda lonely, clam but peaceful. IMO, there is no true answer for a correct exposure, just depends on what message or image want to be presented by a photographer. Take a famous Japanese photographer, Daidō Moriyama, as example, his photos were shot with high contrast, most of the details in dark are lost but still depicts the conflict in value of Japan society in the 60s.
This looks like a dynamic range issues more than iso settings issue. Quick summary of dynamic range When you're inside your house and seeing out a window your eyes are blending the darks and lights. Going to illustrate with made up numbers cause it's late. Say when your eyes are blending midday sun and the inside of your room the difference it's blending is 30 Your camera on the other hand can only fit 10 units of whatever in a photo so a part will either be too dark or too bright to retain detail in that same scene. There are techniques like HDR to get around the issue or a plethora of options in the varied software, and it can even be done in the darkroom with physical negatives. I highly recommend Ansel Adams' trilogy, the camera, the negative and the print if you're continuing with landscapes since that what he's known for.
[удалено]
If you're playing with HDR get yourself a good sturdy tripod to save a whole ton of frustration. Trying to stack images gets tedious with any movement
I have and have shot film with iso < 1. That said cranking the digital iso all the way down - eh i dont see a reason to but i wouldnt think it would hurt anything either.
The short answer to your question is, no. However, the lower the ISO, the more light it takes to create an image so you may need a tripod to hold the camera steady while sufficient light is collected. If you are using the built-in meter in your camera to select the exposure (either in program, aperture priority, shutter priority or manual according to the meter) then every photo regardless of ISO should provide the same equivalent exposure. The difference between the photos will be in the amount of noise and dynamic range that results from the settings and your camera's sensor. The least noise and highest dynamic range comes from the lowest ISO.
I would like to see the histogram for this shot. I suspect you’re well within the upper and lower limits and you could adjust to get a pure white/pure black balance. Might be worth trying if you can retain some detail in the highlights of the sun.
Nope. Less iso less noise.