it's the little things

[chuasam]

I've always wondered why are novice photographers afraid of "noise/grain," motion blur, and pictures that don't have lots of DOF?

I manage volunteer photographers at a dance society and I find that a lot of them are afraid of just bumping the ISO way high and wide open and let the shutter drag a little to get motion blur.

They want everything sharp, without noise, and DOF for all the people. It leads to clear images that don't really capture the feel of the moment.

 

[john.margetts]

It's not just novice photographers, a lot of quite experienced photographers are proud of their pictures being 'tack sharp'. I don't like noise much (grain is another matter, in film shots I do like grain) but I do use motion blur and deliberate lack of focus.

 

[chuasam]

Oh I don't use high ISO for the sake of high iso but I have found them to use an on camera flash ruining the ambient light and the background for the purpose of getting the people in the photos to be bright and sharp.
I guess some people like that but the misanthrope in me couldn't care less about the people posing away.

 

[Derrel]

My experience is that far too many people are afraid of ISO levels that are above 100. Bumping the ISO up from 100 to 400,or to 500 or to 640 can tremendously extend the range of a Speedlight, can boost shutter speed to safe levels, and can allow a person to close down their lens two full stops to two and two-thirds, to get better depth of field. The old idea of " keep the iso as low as possible" , is truly misguided when it is not understood fully, and in context.

It is no longer the year 1998. It's about time that many people start learning that higher ISO levels have potentially huge benefits.

The same goes for motion blur, and digital grain,which are really not big deal-breakers.

 

[tirediron]

"Keep the ISO as low as you, but raise it high enough to get the shot!"

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

to the original post, perhaps folks are remembering film days where typically, ISO 400 was grainy. until fuji had a major breakthrough with NPH 400 that had much less grain and could handle multiple light sources without the expected bad white balance. example here: 1979 CBX 1000 6 cylinders and 24 valves. owned for 27 years. Nikon N90S, 85mm f1.8, Fuji NPH 400 film (how many ebay pictures are this good? though, i doubt this is why it sold for almost 3X the purchase price!)
i shot almost 30 weddings with that excellent film. still have some in the deep freezer!
last year, i volunteered to shoot a college donation/dedication where pros were also hired. one of them approached me and offered advice/info; he was shooting ISO 3200. that helped me adjust what i was doing. but the main thing i had to get over was my old preconceived notions about grain at speeds over 800.
now then, people tell me that i need to turn off 'auto ISO'. but i find setting the aperture (i knew i needed to really stop down to get acceptable DOF on this next example) and letting the camera set the shutter based on focal length (this is cool!) and the iso usually works out.
for example, i saw this critter in the pet store and with ISO set on auto, the cameral selected ISO 6400. where's the problem with grain? nada! LOL this is amazing. _HOM9476 Bearded Dragon - where will sensor sensitivity be in a few years?

being humble can help others. so for the forum folks for whom this can help, here goes.
you fellows helped me solve a problem i've had. (sorry, john if this is hijacking another thread)
i don't want to say that i mastered film, but for 3 decades, i've had a good handle on the three variables of aperture, shutter and flash. enter digital, now we have a constant that became a variable: ISO.

so, i might take a few pictures w/o flash and they're fine. then, i decide to add a touch of 'fill' flash with the popup and it totally screws up the shot. now i know why. i've been shooting with iso set at automatic and when i turn on the flash, my default of iso 100 is respected and what i hoped would be fill, becomes THE light. so, if i continue to to let the cameral set the iso, i need to read what it set, force it and then use the flash.
thanks, fellows. i've learned a ton just from a few days here...

 

[greybeard32 4]

Iso, noise, sharpness, contrast, soft focus, etc. etc. are all tools for creating. I've seen noisy photos that the noise added to the overall feel. But, I've also seen pictures of machinery or landscapes that had to be tack sharp and noiseless to work. "If it looks good, it is good." (I stole this from Duke Ellington and just changed (sounds) to (looks)). I do, however, like to take my photo's as sharp and as noise free as possible and then add noise or blur in PP if I think it adds.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

this is the second posting that i have seen from you that attempts to elevate our creativity above technology and paramaters. thank you for this. i need this too. 'pixel peeping' and getting the best lens can be detrimental to creating art. keep pushing us off of our right engineering brains!

Iso, noise, sharpness, contrast, soft focus, etc. etc. are all tools for creating. I've seen noisy photos that the noise added to the overall feel. But, I've also seen pictures of machinery or landscapes that had to be tack sharp and noiseless to work. "If it looks good, it is good." (I stole this from Duke Ellington and just changed (sounds) to (looks)). I do, however, like to take my photo's as sharp and as noise free as possible and then add noise or blur in PP if I think it adds.

 

[greybeard32 4]

this is the second posting that i have seen from you that attempts to elevate our creativity above technology and paramaters. thank you for this. i need this too. 'pixel peeping' and getting the best lens can be detrimental to creating art. keep pushing us off of our right engineering brains!

Iso, noise, sharpness, contrast, soft focus, etc. etc. are all tools for creating. I've seen noisy photos that the noise added to the overall feel. But, I've also seen pictures of machinery or landscapes that had to be tack sharp and noiseless to work. "If it looks good, it is good." (I stole this from Duke Ellington and just changed (sounds) to (looks)). I do, however, like to take my photo's as sharp and as noise free as possible and then add noise or blur in PP if I think it adds.

I am not opposed to sharp lenses by any stretch of the imagination as long as you don't look at them as an end in themselves. I do my share of "pixel peeping" and fine focus adjusting and sometimes I get carried away with the technical end. I'm just old and have seen a lot of things come and go and one thing has always stayed constant and that is "if it looks good it is good".

 

[Derrel]

The way we look at photographs is mostly learned and there is some cultural influence on how we look at pictures, literally. In Western cultures sharpness is prized and softness is not. Blurriness is generally associated with poor images and poor technical quality. In Western cultures out of focus foreground objects are reviled, but in Japan out of focus foreground bokeh even has its own name.

Among the visually sophisticated viewers of the world, motion blur is accepted and understood and the feelings it conveys are accepted and agreed upon, in a positive way. Among the untrained, a blurry image is often viewed as merely that: a bad, blurred image. Motion blur is now in the year 2016 much much less common than it was in the 1920s through 1950s when film speeds were low and in which in even marginal light motion blurring was expected or even unavoidable.

As far as shallow depth of field goes, many people simply want to see everything in more or less good focus. This slavish use of f/1.4 inside of 6 feet in modern portraiture looks as cliché today as it ever did. And yet we have hundreds of thousands of newly minted photographers who love to shoot everything quote wide open baby.

The knee-jerk aversion to a slight bit of digital noise in a photo is something that really perplexes me. I suspect the reason noise is so hated these days is that very few images are seen in printed form, but instead are viewed rather large, on high-definition computer and television screens, where noise shows up quite readily.

 

[nerwin]

I'd rather have a noisy photo where the subject is in focused and not blurry than a low noise photo where the subject is unfocused and blurry because the because the shutter speed was too low. Ok ok, so you could underexpose it and raise the exposure in Lightroom, but you will just introduce noise and perhaps even more noise.

 

[greybeard32 4]

My experience is that far too many people are afraid of ISO levels that are above 100. Bumping the ISO up from 100 to 400,or to 500 or to 640 can tremendously extend the range of a Speedlight, can boost shutter speed to safe levels, and can allow a person to close down their lens two full stops to two and two-thirds, to get better depth of field. The old idea of " keep the iso as low as possible" , is truly misguided when it is not understood fully, and in context.

It is no longer the year 1998. It's about time that many people start learning that higher ISO levels have potentially huge benefits.

The same goes for motion blur, and digital grain,which are really not big deal-breakers.

I use to have "fear of high ISO" until I started setting my D7000 to MANUAL and setting my ISO to AUTO. I don't really pay that much attention to the ISO anymore. If the noise gets in the way I clean it up in LR.

 

[DanOstergren25]

I think it's because there are too many facebook groups and forums filled with photographers who know a little and think they know everything about photography, who voice their criticism and opinions as if what they say is fact and they are god's gift to photography. They're the first to leave harsh critique with little to no explanation behind their opinions other than "noise is bad and there's an eyelash that's not in focus, this is all wrong".

If you look past my sarcasm I think you'll see a little bit of truth.

 

[Gary A.]

Interesting discussion. I like the idea of using ISO/Soft Focus/Low Shutter Speeds/Noise as creative tools. I don't have the expertise to use them in that fashion ... maybe low shutter speed. I, on occasion, will purposely dial in a low shutter to capture blur motion.

For me, I've always used photography to tell a story ... a literal story of what was unfolding in front of me. I have never really thought of photography as a medium to tell an abstract story, using the camera to tell a fictional tale. I use ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed/Focal Length/Focus/Camera Position as adjectives highlighting what I think are the important elements and points in that story. Using these tools as the principal story, using these tools to create a story, (as opposed to capturing a story), is novel to me. Granted, this can all be easily performed in post, but I want to create with the camera and fine tune in post.

I need to give this some thought.

As to the OP ... I guess there is a lot of misinformation or misdirection given to those just starting out in photography. I'm not very active on social media, but I suspect that is where it is coming from.

 

[fmw]

I think everybody is right. There is no right or wrong. All that matters is making an interesting image. But I don't see anything wrong with "tack sharp" images.