Why use High ISO and High Shutter speed at same time?

[vadim2200]

I went through many other photos and checked that they were all in manual mode and ISO and Aperture were pretty consistent (only would change on environment changes) so to make his life easier he only controlled exposure with shutter (thats my guess). I notices few low light images where iso was low, and shutter dropped to 1/5.
Anyway, thank you all for your input.

 

[ronlane]

1/1600 and ISO 1600. I guess I've been shooting HS Sports in low light situations too long because I don't see that as that high of an ISO. Specially on today's full frame bodies. Heck, I would love to shoot in lighting that good for my sports stuff.

 

[jcdeboever]

I was reviewing photos from my wedding long time ago that was taken by very expensive photographer. After reviewing images that were taken indoor during summer with lots of ambient light I noticed that he was using
Shutter Speed 1600 F2.8 ISO 1600 with 85mm 1.2
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B41XMEyWgOBhSkdILTFPQjMxOVU
taken with Canon 5d Mark 2

So why would he use this high ISO, why not just to lower SS, or is it because it gives images slight grainy effect?

Were you happy with them? Are you still married?

 

[greybeard]

He probably had it set to Aperture priority, cranked the ISO to the top acceptable setting, set the aperture for the DoF he wanted, and shot away not worrying about his camera settings. He knew that with these settings he could "capture the moment" without worry about motion blur.

 

[fmw]

don't disparage him, tho. how many times have you forgotten to reset something that ruined a shot? better a bit of grain than a mistake. also, it takes a while to accept that today's 1600 is less grainy than the best 400 films.

It is appropriate to expect a professional to do a competent job for his or her payment. A wedding is a one time event. If the photographer fails to provide competent images he or she deserves more than disparagement.

 

[DanOstergren]

Regardless, however, there is no excuse for bad photography.

Agreed, but the example posted is not an example of bad photography because it's not a bad photo. I think it's quite good actually.

don't disparage him, tho. how many times have you forgotten to reset something that ruined a shot? better a bit of grain than a mistake. also, it takes a while to accept that today's 1600 is less grainy than the best 400 films.

It is appropriate to expect a professional to do a competent job for his or her payment. A wedding is a one time event. If the photographer fails to provide competent images he or she deserves more than disparagement.

Right, but shooting at ISO 1600 does not equate to being incompetent or unprofessional. At the end of the day the photo is still good, so any disparagement in this case appears more like jealousy and pettiness...

 

[DanOstergren]

I boost the ISO for my photos because I prefer to be able to have very fast shutter speeds, especially when shooting an event and not having a tripod or monopod.

 

[Destin]

I'd say he likely had it set to aperture priority mode and ISO 1600 so that WHEN the lighting conditions deteriorated he wouldn't end up with too slow of a shutter speed. This is common practice, and while it sometimes leaves you with photos with a higher than idea ISO in well lit areas of the venue, with modern cameras this isn't really an issue.

Another possibility is that he was bouncing flash off of a high ceiling or far away wall, and needed that high of an ISO to keep his flash recycle times fast.

 

[adamhiram]

Just to add my 2 cents here... I tend to either shoot in aperture priority or manual mode and ride the shutter speed to adjust exposure. One of the biggest mistakes I consistently make is setting my ISO too low and ending up with too slow shutter speed on some shots as I lose light. I can definitely understand why the photographer would have ISO set that high, especially for event photography where obsessing over settings can mean missing shots. Also, as has been mentioned multiple times already, ISO 1600 really isn't that high on most modern cameras these days, even consumer-level ones.

 

[Derrel]

The OP mentioned the guy was "expensive"...that does not directly correlate with "good", or "excellent", or masterful. There is more than one way to shoot any gig.

And AGAIN....jeepers...this is a modern Canon Ful-frame, at ISO 1,600, with an f/1.2 L-grade prime lens...ISO 1600 is you expose generously, in even marginal lighting, will be FINE on an individual close-range shot. it will probably look as good as 120 6x6 VPS shot at ISO 100 (down-rated from ISO 160) and cropped to a wall, 30,40 years ago.

 

[robbins.photo]

Just to add my 2 cents here... I tend to either shoot in aperture priority or manual mode and ride the shutter speed to adjust exposure. One of the biggest mistakes I consistently make is setting my ISO too low and ending up with too slow shutter speed on some shots as I lose light. I can definitely understand why the photographer would have ISO set that high, especially for event photography where obsessing over settings can mean missing shots. Also, as has been mentioned multiple times already, ISO 1600 really isn't that high on most modern cameras these days, even consumer-level ones.

Depends a lot on the camera and your shooting style. For me my camera has two command wheels. So given what I shoot I've found it best to set auto-iso on - and I usually give it a max of 6400. On my D600 I know I can shoot at ISO 6400 and compensate for the noise in post without much difficulty.

In manual mode one command dial controls the aperture, the other the shutter speed - so I can easily adjust either to get the results I want. If need be I can open the aperture and decrease the shutter if I really think I need a lower ISO. I generally don't though, I know I can get the results I want at 6400 and be able to get them to look the way I want in post. So for the most part I don't worry about ISO all that often.

When I shot a camera with only one control wheel, my method was different. I'd select aperture priority mode and if needed set a minimum shutter speed, or I'd choose shutter priority depending on my shooting situation. Again I prefered using auto ISO, and setting the max to the level of ISO at which I knew the camera would still produce images that weren't to noisy to be cleaned up in post.

 

[greybeard]

Just to add my 2 cents here... I tend to either shoot in aperture priority or manual mode and ride the shutter speed to adjust exposure. One of the biggest mistakes I consistently make is setting my ISO too low and ending up with too slow shutter speed on some shots as I lose light. I can definitely understand why the photographer would have ISO set that high, especially for event photography where obsessing over settings can mean missing shots. Also, as has been mentioned multiple times already, ISO 1600 really isn't that high on most modern cameras these days, even consumer-level ones.

If your camera will let you, set the ISO to Auto and the exposure to Manual. You can then set your shutter speed fast enough to needs and not really worry about ISO. Only problem can be that you can sometimes overexpose so you have to watch your exposure needle when you are in brighter light.

 

[fmw]

Regardless, however, there is no excuse for bad photography.

Agreed, but the example posted is not an example of bad photography because it's not a bad photo. I think it's quite good actually.

don't disparage him, tho. how many times have you forgotten to reset something that ruined a shot? better a bit of grain than a mistake. also, it takes a while to accept that today's 1600 is less grainy than the best 400 films.

It is appropriate to expect a professional to do a competent job for his or her payment. A wedding is a one time event. If the photographer fails to provide competent images he or she deserves more than disparagement.

Right, but shooting at ISO 1600 does not equate to being incompetent or unprofessional. At the end of the day the photo is still good, so any disparagement in this case appears more like jealousy and pettiness...

You are judging a small jpeg on the internet. Not exactly the way to judge image quality.

 

[DanOstergren]

Regardless, however, there is no excuse for bad photography.

Agreed, but the example posted is not an example of bad photography because it's not a bad photo. I think it's quite good actually.

don't disparage him, tho. how many times have you forgotten to reset something that ruined a shot? better a bit of grain than a mistake. also, it takes a while to accept that today's 1600 is less grainy than the best 400 films.

It is appropriate to expect a professional to do a competent job for his or her payment. A wedding is a one time event. If the photographer fails to provide competent images he or she deserves more than disparagement.

Right, but shooting at ISO 1600 does not equate to being incompetent or unprofessional. At the end of the day the photo is still good, so any disparagement in this case appears more like jealousy and pettiness...

You are judging a small jpeg on the internet. Not exactly the way to judge image quality.

And those saying the photographer should be disparaged are doing exactly the same, but to me it's worse because they're ignoring the image and judging only based on the camera settings.

On the matter of judging a small jpeg on the internet, that's also exactly what every person who leaves critique in response to practically every photo posted to this forum is doing as well, but all of a sudden actually viewing the photograph is no longer a good way to judge a photograph here? I often shoot at ISO 800 and sometimes over 1200 on my old 5D just to get a fast shutter speed, so by this logic it's already decided that I'm unprofessional and incompetent based on my camera settings and not the photograph itself.

 

[DanOstergren]

Just to add my 2 cents here... I tend to either shoot in aperture priority or manual mode and ride the shutter speed to adjust exposure. One of the biggest mistakes I consistently make is setting my ISO too low and ending up with too slow shutter speed on some shots as I lose light. I can definitely understand why the photographer would have ISO set that high, especially for event photography where obsessing over settings can mean missing shots. Also, as has been mentioned multiple times already, ISO 1600 really isn't that high on most modern cameras these days, even consumer-level ones.

In other words, the exact opposite of being incompetent and unprofessional.