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

[Destin]

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

You're missing the point. 1/1600th wasn't needed right then. But if something happened accross the room in a darker area your shutter speed could quickly drop to 1/400th. If you'd already been at 1/100th as you'd suggested, then congratulations you just missed a shot because your shutter speed dropped to extremely low levels.

 

[Derrel]

Stilllllllllll not understanding the basic, overarching idea idea here, are you? JFC...what would his speed be at that ISO at f/5.6? Can you grasp the way exposure works, or the way BITINGLY sharp image are achieved, reliably, over hours and hours under pressure? Do you have a clue as to what ISO 1600 looks like from an L-glass prime and a 5D-III or a Nikon 24MP Sony-sensored camera? Apparently not, since you keep advocating for "ISO 100".

Let me do the math for you...

ISO 1600?f/2.8 at 1/1600; f/4 at 1/800; f/5.6 at 1/400, f/8 at 1/200.

ISO 800? f/2.8 at 1/800; f/4 at 1/400; f/5.6 at 1/200, f/8 at 1/100.

Iso 400? f/2.8 at 1/400; f/4 at 1/200; f/5.6 at 1/100; f/8 at 1/50 second.

ISO 200? f/2.8 at 1/200; f/4 at 1/100; f/5.6 at 1/50; f/8 at 1/25 second

ISO 100? f/2.8 at 1/100; f/4 at 1/50; f/5.6 at 1/25; f/8 at 1/13 second.

ISO 100 is freaking *****ridiculous***** for an event.

Shutter speeds of 1/400, and 1/200 are into the blurred image zone at the extremities if the people are moving, if the boquet is moving, if you use a 70-200 lens, and so on. Most people think 1/200 or 1/250 leads to "sharp" images at events. Ahhhhhh, NO, quite often it is marginal.

If he had an OFF-camera HSS flash or Monolight flash triggered by radio (Pocket Wizard, or cheap MIC remote) and any type of OFF-camera flash, or flash aimed off of walls or ceilings in abig church....ISO 1600 becomes the DEFACTO starting point.

Have you NOT seen how to shoot at f/2.8 with a long lens and a HSS flash off-camera? At shutter speeds in the 1/1600 to 1/1200 range, at f/2.8 to f/4, in brighter light?

Look up Denis Reggie, and foofing, and long-throw flash... and give up the ISO 100 Holy Grail pontification

 

[unpopular]

Ideally you would select the lowest gain for a given exposure.

These are not ideal situations, and therefor may not call for an ideal ISO.

Can I make it any simpler than that?

 

[Derrel]

Let me see: the TYPICAL d-slr wedding is 1,400 to 2,200 shots, in what? Five hours? Stop with the idea of the "lowest gain".

The idea of a professional shooter is to get to f/5.6, and have some DOF, and to GET THE SHOTS, not to waste time and mental effort while dicking around, adjusting "gain" all day long.

End of my participation in this thread...you seem to be on a total wind-up in this thread.

"Ideal ISO"?? Are you kidding us? How about, "The best picture"? The sharp, non-blurred one.

ALSO, have you ever shot a wedding and had to process 1,400 to 2,200 images, with ISO levels ALL OVER the map? And different color richness levels, due to ISO yo-yoing? Apparently not. PICK a baseline that is safe--and STAY with it. jeeeze.....

TIme to leave this to professional and serious shooters, you know, the practically-minded shooters who understand the realities on the ground. There is no "ideal ISO". But there is a blurry, crappy picture concept. And ISO 100 creates a Looooooot of those kinds of blurry, crappy pictures.

 

[rambler]

The high ISO would allow a faster shutter speed at a wide open aperture than a lower ISO at the same aperture. Also, the photographer would have the camera all set if a sudden fast moving candid shot opportunity suddenly came into view.

 

[thereyougo!]

Wow. I mean no disrespect to the OP, but I'm glad I wasn't the photographer at his wedding.

OP - if you can, ignore the settings. Your wife will be rolling her eyes at all this if she is happy with the photos. Our wedding photographer used selective colour and my wife loved it. I didn't, but apart from the fact that was before I really got into photography, turning round to your wife when she is cooing over something that is naff to you, is a great way to make divorce lawyers rub their hands with excitement. Judge them on how they capture the moments on the day and judge them on how you both feel, not how you as a photographer feel, that just feels cold, icy cold.

Honestly you're coming across as the professional chef invited to a wedding breakfast who wonders out loud how he wouldn't have cooked the beef this way, he would have done them another way.

My wife already thinks I'm a freaky nerd. I would never ever go through our wedding album and say - "oooh I wouldn't have shot that like that, or I'd have used f/8 on that one...etc..." I'd be sleeping in the outhouse...

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

fred, of course complaining is appropriate if the pics are bad. my point is not to knock him for keeping a couple of settings fixed.

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.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

his d600's auto iso mode will keep the shutter speed above the rule based on focal length for hand held. it also allows for faster or slower settings to that rule.

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.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

to those who have not, shooting a wedding can be very stressful so you want to minimize the chances of messing up.

 

[unpopular]

Again, none of you are reading what I'm actually writing.

Ideally we would compensate for minimum ISO, correct for color differences and all the while have sharp images. How can you not say that this wouldn't be ideal? How can you POSSIBLY conclude that decreased SNR, no matter how insignificant, is "desireable"? High gain PERMITS us to not be ideal - because *nobody* can be all the time.

However this does not mean that shooting everything at ISO 1600 all the time is a good practice. Here, it makes sense (for a number of reasons I initially overlooked). However, yes, it would be better to shoot at a lower gain with improved SNR. Because it ALWAYS IS. Does this mean it's always going to be parctical to do so?

NO!

actually. let me make that more clear, since people are too lazy to actually consider what I'm saying:

Is it always practical to do what is ideal?

NO!​

That is why it's *ideal*.

So come on @Derrel I know it's a fun to take whatever your initial thinking was and use it to lambaste on people to fulfill your own ego. But that's not what I am saying here.

 

[robbins.photo]

Again, none of you are reading what I'm actually writing.

Ideally we would compensate for minimum ISO, correct for color differences and all the while have sharp images. How can you not say that this wouldn't be ideal? How can you POSSIBLY conclude that high gain is "desireable"? High gain PERMITS us to not be ideal - because *nobody* can be!

However this does not mean that shooting everything at ISO 1600 all the time is a good practice. Here, it makes sense (for a number of reasons I initially overlooked). However, yes, it would be better to shoot at a lower gain with improved SNR. Because it ALWAYS IS. Does this mean it's always going to be parctical to do so?

NO!

So come on @Derrel I know it's a blast to take whatever your initial thinking was and use it to lambaste on people to fulfill your own ego. But that's not what I am saying here.

No, we are.. but sadly I don't think your thinking it through before your writing it.

You keep pushing this notion of "Ideal Conditions"... but an ideal condition for a wedding is not have everyone sit motionless on a well lit table in the midst of a bunch of studio lights and only take pictures of them there. They hired a professional photographer. They don't want a photobooth.

That's the real disconnect here. This isn't product photography, or studio portrait photography. You don't have control over various conditions that would make what your suggesting even remotely possible or desirable, so frankly what your describing is a piss poor methodology for accomplishing the goal at hand.

But instead of just admitting that you keep pushing this "ideal" circumstance argument, and frankly it's complete rubbish. An "ideal" circumstance for a wedding is that the photographer capture the moments that need to be captured. If you hire a guy that goes in there worrying about how to get the absolute lowest ISO possible for each and every shot, you've wasted your money and hired the wrong guy. What you'll wind up with is a lot of out of focus, motion blurred crap.

At that stage I seriously doubt your client is going to say, gosh.. wow.. look at how little noise there is in the shadow area! More than likely they'll be way too concerned about the fact that the main subjects of the photo are blurred and look terrible.

And yes, I read down to the last where after all this mountain of BS you finally drop this little gem:

"Does this mean it's always going to be parctical to do so?

NO!"

There is absolutely nothing practical about anything you've suggested the moment you start with the premise that your shooting a wedding. So I would suggest that maybe the reading comprehension problem here isn't mine, or Derrel's, or anyone else's other than your own.

 

[unpopular]

I'm not even going to reply to this aside from quoting myself:

These are not ideal situations, and therefor may not call for an ideal ISO.

 

[unpopular]

AND furthermore, I have ALWAYS said to use the lowest ISO possible for any given exposure.

This is NOT the same as using the lowest possible ISO the camera has available and stick to it.

Seriously. I mean SERIOUSLY?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, I've said would remotely suggest that high SNR is more desirable than image sharpness, only that ideally (again IDEALLY) you would not shoot at a higher ISO than necessary to make the exposure. IDEALLY you'd adjust gain according and correct color discrepancies.

And AGAIN - these are NOT ideal circumstances and what REALITY would require might be something else. And I've said that since my very first reply to this thread on the first friggin' page!

What I am trying to emphasize here is that whenever possible it is prudent to choose as low of an ISO as possible. Not as possible by the camera, but as possible by the exposure.

 

[SquarePeg]

That's enough with this argument I think. Everyone has had their say and OP has several different points of view to consider.

Desist or I will have to use my powers for evil.

 

[robbins.photo]

AND furthermore, I have ALWAYS said to use the lowest ISO possible for any given exposure.

Well good, then I know if by some miracle I ever consider getting married again, you won't be on my short list of people to call to shoot the event.

This is NOT the same as using the lowest possible ISO the camera has available and stick to it.

Seriously. I mean SERIOUSLY?

Don't think that was ever even discussed. Wasn't something I brought up, didn't see it in anything Derrel wrote. And here you are taking other people to task for not reading before they reply?

Seriously? I mean, Seriously?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, I've said would remotely suggest that high SNR is more desirable than image sharpness, only that ideally (again IDEALLY) you would not shoot at a higher ISO than necessary to make the exposure. IDEALLY you'd adjust gain according and correct color discrepancies.

I think again you are displaying a complete disconnect here. When you say "Ideally" what you really mean are "conditions that do not at all apply to the situation at hand, and therefore are completely ridiculous to even bring up".

It would be a lot like someone asking about driving their car on icy roads. Derrel and I have and several others have been talking about keeping your eye on the road, slowing down for the weather and road conditions, how to avoid making sudden lane changes or slamming on the brakes.

And your over here telling folks, well what you should be focused on is adjusting your music mix on your Ipod....

It's completely horrible advice. In a snow storm you don't worry about your music mix while your driving. Much like in a wedding you don't worry about adjusting your ISO between every shot to chase some ridiculous ideal lower signal to noise ratio.

The important thing in a snow storm is that you get home safe. The important thing at a wedding is that you capture the moments that matter. So when your driving in a snow storm you don't want to jack around with your ipod, it's just foolish. Much like when your shooting a wedding you don't want to be distracted by getting the ISO the lowest you possibly can for every single shot.. again, it's just foolish.

But instead of addressing this you keep using the word "ideal", which really only works if by ideal you mean, "if your not shooting a wedding".