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

[unpopular]

I do not agree with the "any means to a good image" approach when discussing technical matters. Simply because poor technique worked once does not mean it will work every time.

Leaving the ISO high is poor technique, but only in theory. It is far better to adjust ISO based on the lowest possible setting given the lighting conditions. In the real world, however, the best practices aren't always going to be the most suitable given the circumstances. That's what I was trying to say here.

 

[robbins.photo]

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.

Dan, I don't think "logic" is what's being applied here. Sounds a lot more like "he didn't use the settings I always use, therefore.. WRONG! Some folks have a difficult time understanding that not everybody shoots exactly the same way they shoot.

Personally I think the guys choice of settings were pretty good - ISO 1600 on a full frame sensor is a breeze as far as noise reduction. Falling off a log easy. The fast shutter speed ensures no motion blur, no camera shake, etc. Not sure why these settings would lead any reasonable person to conclude the guy didn't know what he was doing. Makes perfect sense to me why he'd choose them.

 

[unpopular]

I suppose if SNR isn't important then shooting at an arbitrarily high ISO is an a-ok approach.

 

[robbins.photo]

I do not agree with the "any means to a good image" approach when discussing technical matters. Simply because poor technique worked once does not mean it will work every time.

Leaving the ISO high is poor technique, but only in theory. It is far better to adjust ISO based on the lowest possible setting given the lighting conditions. In the real world, however, the best practices aren't always going to be the most suitable given the circumstances. That's what I was trying to say here.

Ok, all you kids on the dance floor, I just got done monkeying around with my ISO settings while I was shooting the couple over there at table 7, now I need to reset them so I need everybody to freeze in place while I get all this crap readjusted for exactly the perfect settings for this individual shot. Then if the couple at table 8 is having a nice moment we'll need to do it all over again while I adjust and readjust constantly....

Or.. hmm.. I can just bump up my ISO to a point where I know I can very easily get rid of any noise in post, use a fast shutter speed and be able to capture everything without monkeying around with buttons and dials and settings and such.

Hey.. I could actually be paying attention to what's going on around me in this fast paced event and looking for moments to capture, as opposed to spending 90% of my time buried in camera settings...

Nahh.. that would never work... Because I'm sure the very first questions my clients are going to ask on every single picture is, what ISO was this shot at?

 

[unpopular]

Or you could try reading the comment you're replying to.

 

[robbins.photo]

I suppose if SNR isn't important then shooting at an arbitrarily high ISO is an a-ok approach.

Ok, well not a professional photographer.. but I'm willing to wager not one of them who has produced a usable image for the client has been asked, can you tell me what the Signal to Noise Ratio is on this shot?

 

[robbins.photo]

Or you could try reading the comment you're replying to.

You might try backing up your assertion that "poor technique" was involved here, or that 1600 ISO is "arbitrarily high" on this particular model of camera.

 

[unpopular]

well, I am not a professional photographer either, but if you're charging money to paying customers it's probably prudent to ensure the highest quality product possible.

Ideally this would be the lowest signal to noise ratio. As I said, in practice this might not really be possible.

 

[unpopular]

iirc iSO 1600 is four stops above the base ISO, which IIRC is 100.

OP states that they were shot at 1/1600.

Photographer could have shot at 1/100 at iso 100 and would have had a better signal.

In an ideal world that's what he or she would have done, adjusting ISO according to lighting conditions.

again, the key word there is *ideal*.

 

[robbins.photo]

well, I am not a professional photographer either, but if you're charging money to paying customers it's probably prudent to ensure the highest quality product possible.

Ideally this would be the lowest signal to noise ratio. As I said, in practice this might not really be possible.

Not a pro myself, but you know what, again no one has ever once asked me about signal to noise ratio. They look at the picture, if it looks good, they like it. If it doesn't, they don't.

I can shoot at 1600 all day, in fact I routinely shoot well above that. Most folks can't tell the difference between the stuff I shoot in the 100-400 range to the stuff I shot at 1600, and a lot of people can't even tell when I'm shooting all the way up at 6400.

Doesn't take a ton of post processing or a major amount of editing chops to get rid of a bit of noise, and at 1600 there really isn't much to get rid of on most modern FF cameras anyway.

I can't imagine any layperson being able to tell the difference between a shot taken at 100 ISO and one taken at 1600 ISO without EXIF data once a minimal amount of post processing is done.

 

[Derrel]

iirc iSO 1600 is four stops above the base ISO, which IIRC is 100.

OP states that they were shot at 1/1600.

Photographer could have shot at 1/100 at iso 100 and would have had a better signal.

And HUNDREDS of shot opportunities throughtout the day, where the subjects would be blurred, or could be blurred; and loads of snap-shooting opportunities where the camera itself was whirled onto a subject and shot more or less instantaneously...yeah ISO 100...the Fool's Holy Grail with a Canon 5D- Mark III...shoot at the lowest ISO, for the best signal-to-noise ratio, and the shittiest, blurred shots.

This photographer of those "dancing and squatting and whirling fellows" was he? The kind that holds the camera one-handed, aims it willy-nilly, and clicks off of 3- to 5-shot bursts, while loudly proclaiming, "Oh, YEAH, YEAH baby!--Fab, simply fab-U-lous!" Did he shoot one-handed, or quickly, and fluidly? Were his pitures GOOD, excellent, spectacular?

What if he drove to the wedding at 35 kilometers per hour? Would that make his pictures suck?

Seriously: if you've EVER shot a real photojournalism-type event (wedding, meeting, conference, family reunion, Comic-Con,convention, whatever...) then you KNOW why ISO 400 was and still is king...shooting at ISO 100 ALL THE TIME at events is...the Fool's Holy Grail.

JFC...the photographer used a FF Canon and an 85/1.2-L lens....and the PICTURE shown looks more than adequate. Sticking with ISO 100...foolish.

 

[Destin]

iirc iSO 1600 is four stops above the base ISO, which IIRC is 100.

OP states that they were shot at 1/1600.

Photographer could have shot at 1/100 at iso 100 and would have had a better signal.

In an ideal world that's what he or she would have done, adjusting ISO according to lighting conditions.

again, the key word there is *ideal*.

For event photography, I'd completely disagree. Shooting that photo at 1/100 and ISO 100 would open you up to motion blur, and if something worth capturing happened in a darker part of the room, you'd completely miss it due to poor settings. Locking into a higher iso here gives you insurance against missing shots in darker corners of the room.

There are times where the most ideal settings are those that buy you some insurance. Shooting at ISO 100 for indoor event photography with a modern camera is likely irresponsible and opens the door to motion blur and ruined photos.

 

[robbins.photo]

In an ideal world that's what he or she would have done, adjusting ISO according to lighting conditions.

again, the key word there is *ideal*.

And I guess this is where you and I diverge. In an IDEAL world my wedding photographer is concentrating on capturing the important, key moments of the event.

Not screwing around constantly with their camera settings trying to appease some guy on the internet who's got a bug on about signal to noise ratios.

Hey, could just be me.

 

[unpopular]

iirc iSO 1600 is four stops above the base ISO, which IIRC is 100.

OP states that they were shot at 1/1600.

Photographer could have shot at 1/100 at iso 100 and would have had a better signal.

In an ideal world that's what he or she would have done, adjusting ISO according to lighting conditions.

again, the key word there is *ideal*.

For event photography, I'd completely disagree. Shooting that photo at 1/100 and ISO 100 would open you up to motion blur, and if something worth capturing happened in a darker part of the room, you'd completely miss it due to poor settings. Locking into a higher iso here gives you insurance against missing shots in darker corners of the room.

There are times where the most ideal settings are those that buy you some insurance. Shooting at ISO 100 for indoor event photography with a modern camera is likely irresponsible and opens the door to motion blur and ruined photos.

You must go to some pretty wild wedding receptions to demand 1/1600s!

 

[unpopular]

In an ideal world that's what he or she would have done, adjusting ISO according to lighting conditions.

again, the key word there is *ideal*.

And I guess this is where you and I diverge. In an IDEAL world my wedding photographer is concentrating on capturing the important, key moments of the event.

Not screwing around constantly with their camera settings trying to appease some guy on the internet who's got a bug on about signal to noise ratios.

Hey, could just be me.

The ideal photographer would deliver both.

Again. *Ideal*. Get a dictionary if you have to. I'm done with this debate because we're not actually debating anything at all.