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



## vadim2200 (Jan 4, 2017)

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?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

High ISO isn't the 'bad thing' it used to be.  Digital cameras are better these days with higher ISOs, and software that deal with it is improving as well.

I'd rather have noise ('grainy effect') than a blurry photo if I were shooting a wedding.


----------



## vadim2200 (Jan 4, 2017)

Well I understand that, but why use such a high shutter?  You can lower it to compensate to low iso


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

Shooting a wedding isn't like a studio shoot.  Often, you have very limited time to set a shot up.  Besides, if you get the shot desired with a high ISO & shutter speed, what's to be gained by lowering them?


----------



## vadim2200 (Jan 4, 2017)

Less noise.  Of course it depends what size prints will be printed


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2017)

And like I said, cameras are getting better with having less noise at higher ISOs, there's better software today that can deal with it.

So unless you're going to blow the shots up to plaster on a billboard, then stand 3 feet away and expect to see the hair on a flea's leg.............


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2017)

I can't speak to why the photographer shot that way since I wasn't there but I can come up with a couple scenario's and I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of.

1. Was just shooting or expecting a bit of action and noticed the bride sitting at a great angle and took the shot, therefore was set up for a bit more action than this photo.

2. The photographer had 2 camera's with different lenses. Was using camera A, but for this shot switched to camera B and quickly adjusted to get the shot.


I can't think of any reason to wan't to push the ISO (I know it's not a bad thing....... unless you're doing it for no benefit) in this shot and agree I would want to shoot a much slower shutter speed but again I wasn't there.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jan 4, 2017)

Maybe he thought the bride was going to fly away, she might be a witch.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2017)

With the 5D mark II, ISO 1600 is the top practical ISO for many people: the images look good at 1600, especially on close-ups of one or two or three people. Yes, the DR is wider at base ISO, and the color is a bit richer too, but as long as there is not a lot of underexposure, 1600 on the 5D-II will look quite acceptable. And yes a slight bit of digital noise will look acceptable to many people, especially in smaller images. Second: he might have been "foofing", something a very famous Canon wedding shooter advocated: using the 5D-II, the famous fellow would do what he called "foofing", or using on-camera Canon speedlight, bounced up and off of surfaces, often DISTANT walls or ceilings, at ISO's of up to 6,400, and often with the lens at f/2.8. This flash is weak on the longest of throws, but it FILLS IN shadows, and that kills noise. It only takes a tiny bit of flash fill to eliminate noise where it shows up the most: in under-exposed areas.

With a High Speed Sync capable flash, the photgrapher can control backgrounds by throwing them out of focus, AND shoot at fast shutter speeds, due to the elevated ISO level, AND can use wide lens openings like f/2. f/2.8, f/3.2 and so on. This can create a beautiful, beautiful look: heavy background defocus, shallow DOF, and very subtle flash fill for sparkle, and nice light that is not overly contrasty, and the flash kills noise in the shadows. This creates a VERY easy-to-adjust raw file from a great FF pro cam like a 5D-II.

The famous wedding shooter who coined the term "foofing" was *Denis Reggie*, prhaps one of the most-famous wedding shooters of the last 30 years. Perhaps the wedding shooter who shot your wedding set up his camera or cameras to be at 1600 ISO, for the "worst-of" conditions at the wedding venue. Maybe he planned the enire shoot around the 35/1.4-L and the 50/1.2-L, and planned to utilize the sheer speed of such lenses. Maybe he wanted everything to be at ISO 1,600, so he would neer have to make an ISO adjustment during the event.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 5, 2017)

No. I agree. Unless there was some reason for it like what darrel mentioned about high speed ttl, it was sloppy. A lower ISO and longer shutter speed would have been better no matter what the camera is.

That said, I also agree that a wedding isn't like a studio shot and so the sloppiness might be understandable.

But yes. No matter what the camera was the better choice would have been a longer shutter. What was practical given the circumstance is another story.

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


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2017)

I am not intimately familiar with Canon's AUTO ISO function, but I know it is different than Nikon or Pentax have. is it possible that the exposure triangle settings were the result of some type of AUTO ISO settings? Like maybe he pre-entered f/2.8 as the f/ value and 1/1600 as the speed Maximum, and in that light, the camera set the ISO value to 1600? Can the 5D-II shoot Av mode AUTO ISO? Or Tv mode AUTO ISO?

On a new-era Nikon, one could set Manual mode, and dial in f/2.8 at 1/1600, and the camera would drop or lower  the ISO to make the f/stop and the speed yield the right exposure, by adjusting the ISO level.

If you have an original fille, I would dig through the EXIF information, and look for the exposure **mode** the camera was set to, more so than just the settings of the triangle. Knowing the exposure mode the camera was in might give a better idea of the photographer's original intent.


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Jan 5, 2017)

let's vote.  vadim should call and get the scoop.
i say "he wanted everything to be at ISO 1,600, so he would never have to make an ISO adjustment during the event."

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.

the picture you shared is very nice.  [pretty wife,too!]
the ultra high speed flash sync method that Derrel explained is exciting, but can't be discerned here.  it would be nice to see more pics if it was used.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 5, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I am not intimately familiar with Canon's AUTO ISO function, but I know it is different than Nikon or Pentax have. is it possible that the exposure triangle settings were the result of some type of AUTO ISO settings?



Absolutely could be. Don't know how Canon is different though, You choose auto ISO and the camera chooses the best ISO for the correct exposure. How does Nikon and Pentax do it?


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 5, 2017)

Last month when I shot an event in a bad lighting building.  I set Shutter, Aperture for what I want,  Selected a fixed max ISO (not auto iso), and with a bracketed flash let the camera add fill light to balance the exposure without blasting the people there.  I can't recall if the pics I did when I did that were selected but I figured I would test it .. always a learning experience.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 5, 2017)

vadim2200 said:


> 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
> ...



Well the high shutter speed would ensure very crisp, sharp photos regardless of motion.  Depending on the camera body used ISO 1600 wouldn't necessarily introduce a ton of noise and could easily be dealt with in post process.


----------



## vadim2200 (Jan 5, 2017)

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 (Jan 5, 2017)

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 (Jan 5, 2017)

vadim2200 said:


> 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
> ...



Were you happy with them? Are you still married?


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

Drive-By-Shooter said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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.


fmw said:


> Drive-By-Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

adamhiram said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

adamhiram said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, however, there is no excuse for bad photography.
> ...



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


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


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 (Jan 11, 2017)

adamhiram said:


> 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.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> iirc iSO 1600 is four stops above the base ISO, which IIRC is 100.
> 
> OP states that they were shot at 1/1600.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

Destin said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > iirc iSO 1600 is four stops above the base ISO, which IIRC is 100.
> ...



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


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


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



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.


----------



## Destin (Jan 11, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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! (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 12, 2017)

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.


fmw said:


> Drive-By-Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Jan 12, 2017)

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.



greybeard said:


> 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 (Jan 12, 2017)

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


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2017)

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 (Jan 12, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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!
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 12, 2017)

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



unpopular said:


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


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2017)

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 (Jan 12, 2017)

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 (Jan 12, 2017)

unpopular said:


> 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".


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 12, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> 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.



Apologies, was just finishing my post as you were posting yours.  I can delete if you wish.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 12, 2017)

Going to assume you had already posted that before you saw my post...


ETA:  We're good thanks!


----------



## Frank F. (Jan 12, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Maybe he planned the enire shoot around the 35/1.4-L and the 50/1.2-L, and planned to utilize the sheer speed of such lenses. Maybe he wanted everything to be at ISO 1,600, so he would neer have to make an ISO adjustment during the event.



Only one addition: If you shoot such an event at fixed ISO and style you can later batch edit the shots and save tremendous time in post production. It is a very new development that cameras, namely the D5 and D500 deliver very consistant color and tones over a wide range of ISO plus  a superb consitency of white balance over a wide range of lighting situations.

Thank you for this insigtful post. Very knowledgable and to the point. Really great.

To the thread opener: did the photographer control the light? Did he have flashlights positioned in various rooms on ceilings, in corners etc? He might trigger these via pocket wizard or similar to work the shadows...


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 12, 2017)

I don't wish to get into the ins and outs of technical pitfalls or debates.  I'm not a wedding shooter though I have shot a few shots at friends and family weddings without stepping on the toes of the pro. 

I would, however ask the OP the following questions:

Is your bride a photographer or otherwise artistic professional?

Have you asked her what she thinks of them before going into a technical breakdown of the shots?

As a photographer, you're too close to the art.  This is why my older brother who is a chef hates it when my parents tell waiters in restaurants that he is a chef.  It makes him roll his eyes, and often the waiter does so too.  If you evaluate these in a professional way without first asking your bride what she thinks in an open and unjudgemental way without a leading question, then you risk alienating her views.  It's easily done.  You also risk spoiling the memories of the day. 

If the other photos are of a similar quality, then what you have is a collection of pretty competent photos.  You can only challenge his work if he is incompetent.  You will struggle to prove that on the basis of him not changing his settings.  This would set in chain a chain of events that would taint the memory of the wedding day. 

If, however, your wife hates them, and does so without any influence from your technical knowledge, then perhaps you should speak to the photographer. 

Ok he was expensive, but if he has failed to come to the standard you expected, did you do enough preparation in researching the quality of his actual work, and did you sit down with him and tell him what it was you were expecting from him?   You cannot assume a certain quality just on the basis of the price.  You don't necessarily get what you pay for.  It's up to you as the client to do your research because things like this are quite often subjective and so therefore difficult to sort out via litigation, and there is a real risk of soiling your memories of what should be the happiest day of your life. 

Do the photos represent your memory of how the day went?  Do they capture the spirit and feeling of the day? (Settings won't come into this - it's a sensory thing) Did he get everything you asked him in the pre wedding meetings to achieve?

Personally worrying about what settings he used is a real downer and you are really overthinking things and I really do hope you haven't gone over the photos with a critical eye if your wife does actually like them...


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 12, 2017)

Life's too short to read 6 pages of innernet forum comments about such a trivial chit.

Grab a camera and go shoot something.


----------



## fmw (Jan 12, 2017)

Drive-By-Shooter said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> fmw said:
> ...



Agreed.  I didn't really address either the image or the settings.  My point was that, if a professional provides unacceptable results, then there should be consequences.


----------



## Frank F. (Jan 12, 2017)

fmw said:


> Agreed.  I didn't really address either the image or the settings.  My point was that, if a professional provides unacceptable results, then there should be consequences.



I would have focussed on here eyes and not tried to cover the oof with inappropriate sharpening.

But: The lighting is really good. Perspective is really good. Lips are sharp too, so just the focus & post production I do not like


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 12, 2017)

I'm going to delete any additional posts in this thread that are directly confrontational or aggressive or personal towards other members. 

Thank you for your cooperation!


----------



## ratssass (Jan 12, 2017)

_...dang,I forgot how much fun this place is,sometimes.....lol_


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 12, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


> 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.


I love that you're using a snowstorm as an analogy, because the city I live in was recently hit by a really bad one!


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 1, 2017)

Re-reading through the entire thread here, there were a few questions about Auto-ISO sprinkled throughout. I don't have the 5D2, but have the 5D3 (and I use it for weddings).

Something about noise and (any) ISO, there is usually less noise (on Canon sensors) at multiples of the base ISO than the in-between settings. For example, ISO 1600 will generally have less noise than ISO 1250. Even ISO 400 can have less noise than ISO 125.

The 5D (at least with the MkIII) can be set to use 1/3 stops for shutter and aperture and (separately) set to use whole stops for ISO. You can also set the maximum speed to use in "Auto ISO" and set the minimum ISO as well. So ISO jumps in whole stops with the other control jumping in 1/3's. It's a nice balance of exposure control granularity and avoiding noise.


----------



## Frank F. (Feb 1, 2017)

dasmith232 said:


> Something about noise and (any) ISO, there is usually less noise (on Canon sensors) at multiples of the base ISO than the in-between settings. For example, ISO 1600 will generally have less noise than ISO 1250. Even ISO 400 can have less noise than ISO 125.



This can be due to factory set noise profiles for the full values. In general, some cameras deliver rawer RAWs than others. This could be interesting research issues:

How raw is a RAW?

What happens in the analogue and digital preprpocessing, correting the counter-values for known issues?

Later generations of the same camera should have noise profiles for all ISO-settings, so no sad used experience as you describe it.


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 1, 2017)

Frank F. said:


> ...Later generations of the same camera should have noise profiles for all ISO-settings, so no sad used experience as you describe it.


Excellent point, and I agree. While there are many features that come with each generation of firmware, the improved noise processing is definitely a good reason (e.g., DIGIC or Expeed)


----------



## jtran76 (Feb 4, 2017)

All that matters is the end results. I have shot at a few events don't have time to sit there and configure my camera for every situation. What the wedding photographer did I see it as a non issue as long as the pics came out good and people are happy with them.

Sent from my XT1575 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------

