Advice

I took these pics on the aperture setting and as the woods dark the ISO sensitivity was 1600.
They ok but would like them better more crisp if you get my meaning.
What does the ISO actually do as in if bright day what would you want and dark woods what would be best.
What setting would you use as I can never get good pics in woods. I just had a play around and tried to find best setting.
Thanks guys

Hey KC - instead of explaining ISO again, take a look at the following guide - it has all the info you need But i will say you really dont need such a high ISO value for daytime photography!!

http://www.yophotographer.com/page.php?t=58

The sharpness of your image and the quality will have a little something to do with your ISO as this is the trade off with using higher values. To add to this, your choice of lens will impact the final image directly as far as sharpness is concerned - some are better than others


Asfor asking for what kind of setting - well thats like asking how long a piece of string is - Photography is down to interpretation and the variables in the particular envirmoent your shooting.

A good starting point is the "Sunny 16" rule. Start with you camera on the following setting :

Aperture: F16
Shutter: 1/200
ISO: - to match shutter speed as closely as poss - so in this instance 200




HTH

Shame about the ISO etc. as that second picture is quite nice and it could look so much better, possibly with a hint of golden or warmer sunlight had been taken in the early morning or evening. I'd actually go back to that scene with a tripod!

DC has linked to an explanation. I haven't read it but would guess it explains something like as we increase ISO, the apparent sensitivity of the camera image sensor increases. It gives us more flexibility because if it is more sensitive we can now use faster shutter speeds or smaller apertures. It means we can photograph in lower light and no need for a tripod or freeze action.

If we can do all that then we have to ask, why isn't the camera more sensitive in the first place and no need for all this messing? Well if we think of it a bit like our portable radio or hifi system at home. If we turn up the volume do we get to hear it any clearer? The answer is yes to a degree. It can get better - so think of this optimal level as the point where you camera is set as 'normal' when it comes from the factory, probably ISO100 or 200 . But when the amplifier starts to overload the speakers the sound gets distorted and fuzzy, it's loud but the sound is distorted. The portable radio (akin to a compact camera with a small sensor) distorts quite quickly as it gets louder, the bigger hifi (a DSLR with bigger sensor) copes with a bigger sound and takes longer to get distorted but it distorts when we get up to a high volume. So by increasing the ISO we make the sensor seem more sensitive by amplifying the light signal. However, the trade off is it soon gets distorted, overloaded and loses quality and ability to aticulate the true signal it is processing. The result is the fuzziness and grain, inability to render colours properly, hot spot pixels etc.

I'm not clear what camera you are using, but on a compact ISO250 is probably the highest ISO that is useable without noise noticeably starting to degrade an image, and a current starter DSLR probably around ISO400/640. Individual taste and objectives will determine what is acceptable but ISO1600 would be unusual.

That wood picture I would have thought could have been taken at ISO 200 maybe using a tree as support in the absence of a tripod. If you were trying to get the dogs in action shots then yes, can understand why ISO1600 would seem necessary.

Hope that helps.

Thanks guys going to make some time for me and my camera and start playing with some settings.

Excellent replies above. Just wanted to say I rather like the second one anyway!

xx