# High shutter speed, low aperture but what ISO?



## Vladimir_Bananas (Nov 12, 2014)

I haven't been experimenting with this yet, but I think that some of you can help me with this.

So I was shooting a Badminton game recently, trying to get some action shots. I needed a somewhat high shutterspeed to at least get some high speed action, I found 1/200 or 1/250 to be useable. I shoot it at f2.8.

So here is my question, would you rather shoot at a high ISO (4000-6400) and get good exposed raw photos to work with in Lightroom, or shoot at a lower ISO (+1600,under 3200) and get underexposed photos and try to use the exposure sliders to salvage the photo?

I have never really tested it, I just use a (relative) high ISO and luminance/detail most of the photos :  ;D. with option do you guys prefer? (talking about a full frame). 

so F2.8, 1/250 and that what ISO do you prefer?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

Always choose higher iso and brighter exposed shot. Dealing with well exposed noise is much easier than dealing with underexposure and noise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

Vladimir_Bananas said:


> I haven't been experimenting with this yet, but I think that some of you can help me with this.
> 
> So I was shooting a Badminton game recently, trying to get some action shots. I needed a somewhat high shutterspeed to at least get some high speed action, I found 1/200 or 1/250 to be useable. I shoot it at f2.8.
> 
> ...


 
1. Never intentionally underexpose and then try to raise exposure in Lightroom.

2. See #1.

3. See #2.

As far as ISO, it entirely depends on the capability of the camera. I'd try to stay under ISO 800 for a APS-C camera (1600 with 7D MK II). With a FF body like the 5D MK II or MK III, stay at ISO 3200 or less. A D1X can use ISO 6400 with no problems. Those ISO settings are for images with very little noise. If you can stand a little noise or loss of detail, its OK to go higher. Sometimes you have no choice.

Are you shooting at night? Indoors? Outside in sunlight, you should have no issues using ISO 100, f/4 and 1/200 sec.

The shutter speed is a function of the effective focal length with a little leeway that depends on how much blur you like.

1/(2 X eff focal length) is a good place to start.

Thus, 
For a 100mm lens on a APS/C camera, 1/(2 X 100 X 1.6) = 1/320 sec

For a FF body, 1/(2 X 100) = 1/200 sec.

A faster lens like a 100mm f/2 or 135mm f/2 might help out. IS does not really help with moving subjects, so you do not need a lens with IS.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Never intentionally underexpose and then try to raise exposure in Lightroom.



I disagree because...



privatebydesign said:


> Always choose higher iso and brighter exposed shot. Dealing with well exposed noise is much easier than dealing with underexposure and noise.



... unless the iso value you're dealing with is just digitally amplified (usually above 3200 or 6400, varies among models) - in that case, increasing iso just cuts away dynamic range.

One additional benefit of underexposing a bit on lower iso is highlight safety in varying higher contrast outdoor light. If your camera metering misses with a "properly" exposed setting, the whites are blown. ymmv with what camera metering you use, but my 6d is dodgy so I'd rather play safe.

The problem esp. with my 60d's crop sensor is that higher iso values destroy color accuracy, so personally I rather underexpose 800 a bit than raise to 1600 or even 3200. You can always try to get rid of noise in post, but preserving colors after the fact is difficult. Again ymmv depending on the scene and your camera model.


----------



## Vladimir_Bananas (Nov 12, 2014)

I'm shooting with a 5D MK2, and a 24-70mm f2.8. Yeah, out of common sense I knew good exposed shots are better, I thought there was some other trick i may not know about.

So basically (on paper) I can shoot at F2.8, iso 3200 and 1/160? varying the iso when needed?

But because I shoot games with incredibly fast reflexes, I want little to no blur. So I'm guessing that I was shooting the right way all along. (f2.8, iso 4000 1/200 / 1/250).

I appreciate the replies


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Never intentionally underexpose and then try to raise exposure in Lightroom.
> ...




I totally agree with this. There is a point of diminishing returns as far as pushing ISO goes. Once you hit the read noise floor, using higher and higher ISO settings is going to start severely impacting your DR, for practically zero gain on the noise front. Technically speaking, using ISO 12800 is better than using 6400 because your still amplifying the signal before read noise is introduced, but on current cameras read noise at those ISOs is usually <3e- anyway, so the difference between ISO 6400 and 12800 is by far the loss in dynamic range (by orders of magnitude). You could easily shoot at ISO 6400 and lift in post, and not notice any difference as far as shadow noise goes...however if you clip the signal at ISO 12800, your better off using ISO 6400.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 12, 2014)

Vladimir_Bananas said:


> So basically (on paper) I can shoot at F2.8, iso 3200 and 1/160? varying the iso when needed?



Shooting these type of scenes in M with auto iso is a good idea, unfortunately only the 1dx supports ec (or a certain Magic Lantern module) so you need to rely on your camera's metering to get it right. Just set the upper auto iso bound to the level when your camera is only cutting away dynamic range as discussed above.



jrista said:


> I totally agree with this.



Well, I disagreed with pdb, so maybe you agreeing with me was to be expected . But I still feel I might have finally got something right around here


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Never intentionally underexpose and then try to raise exposure in Lightroom.
> ...


 
I'm never going to tell new users to underexpose images taken at high ISO's of sporting events just so they can use low ISO's, because they have heard us say that low ISO's have less noise.


The digitally amplified situation is somewhat of a red herring.

1. It only applies to some cameras, not all, and he did not tell us which he is using.

2. Makes a difference that is only detectable by a expert, and is mostly of value to someone who has a special need for detail as in landscape, not sports.

My take is that he asked about underexposing in order to use a lower ISO, apparently thinking that using a couple of stops less ISO and then adding them back in Lightroom would result in better images.

Most of the time, its a benefit to use RAW and slightly over expose, but that is also for experts.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Well, I disagreed with pdb, so maybe you agreeing with me was to be expected . But I still feel I might have finally got something right around here



We didn't really disagree, you just added a caveat that I think Mt Spokane puts in even better perspective. 

There will always be nuance that can be added to blanket statements, but we are all in agreement that lifting Canon files is one of their weak points, and for all but the most knowledgeable user that fully understands the tradeoffs inherent in particular exposure choices the broad advice to get a well exposed RAW image will be easier to work in post.

Of course we can start talking abut specific cameras and the point at which they have digital amplification, we can discuss the finer points of base stops and where they fall on the iso range, we can talk about the tradeoffs between loss of detail due to noise reduction and loss of tonality when underexposed files are lifted to any serious degree. But I think that misses the main point.

For the vast majority of people , most of the time, using the 'correct' iso will give them an easier file to work.

P.S. You often get stuff right Marsu, don't put yourself down! Your knowledge of ML is probably better than anybody else's here, certainly your enthusiasm and promotion of it is. Your talk of the dual iso capability almost makes me want to try a 5D MkIII!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> For the vast majority of people , most of the time, using the 'correct' iso will give them an easier file to work.



Add 'correct' iso with 'correct' exposure (i.e. a lot to the right) and we can nearly agree - but some camera metering systems tend to settle in the middle for safety.

How much it matters really depends on your sensor. With the leverage like my 6d, you can get away with almost everything. With an older sensor like my 60d, it pays to have a little knowledge about iso settings because it can result in a big difference.

In my first year with my 60d, I was often using iso 1000 (sounded like a nice number) or iso 1250 (sounded like a nice step up). Looking at these shots, it was stupid - I should have gone to 1600 and higher shutter speed right away or stuck with 800 and ettr'ed.



privatebydesign said:


> P.S. You often get stuff right Marsu, don't put yourself down! Your knowledge of ML is probably better than anybody else's here, certainly your enthusiasm and promotion of it is. Your talk of the dual iso capability almost makes me want to try a 5D MkIII!



Thanks ) it's just that I'm not an experienced photog, but I have figured out some things for myself.

However, I have to admit a pro of decades simply has more "broad" situation knowledge including basic optic insights you don't get with a "diy until it works" method. On the other hand, I feel not knowing things can result in new approaches other people might not even consider 

And yup, I keep trying to promote ML, even if I don't participate over there anymore - my everlasting thanks to Alex' dual_iso, I use it more and more for backlit or noon shots.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > For the vast majority of people , most of the time, using the 'correct' iso will give them an easier file to work.
> ...


 
And, I appreciate your comments here at CR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> How much it matters really depends on your sensor. With the leverage like my 6d, you can get away with almost everything. With an older sensor like my 60d, it pays to have a little knowledge about iso settings because it can result in a big difference.
> 
> In my first year with my 60d, I was often using iso 1000 (sounded like a nice number) or iso 1250 (sounded like a nice step up). Looking at these shots, it was stupid - I should have gone to 1600 and higher shutter speed right away or stuck with 800 and ettr'ed.



If I was to add a caveat to my comment it would be to enable full stops only for iso, though I don't know which cameras allow that my old 1 series do. I only have full iso stops selectable and I only shoot stills and comparatively low iso so my experience might be very different from others.

As for your comment about people with less experience seeing things in another way, I agree, and it is one of the main reasons I hang out here, sure I get wrapped up in a dogfight sometimes, and I am often told off for it, but despite many peoples opinions of me I learn, and I learn a lot, maybe not about "lens compression" (good lord I just watched Franz Lanting say it!!!!) but I do learn and I appreciate everybody else's input, even if I don't agree with it sometimes.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with this.
> ...




Oh, no! I agree with you because I agree _with you_. Despite how some may portray me, I am not petty like that. I have no interest in agree with anyone as a means of disagreeing with someone else. If I disagree with someone...well, I disagree with them openly (I think everyone on these forums knows that by now.)


I don't know you as someone who gets things wrong...your very knowledgeable in my book. You are a great source of ML knowledge in particular, and I think that's great. I think your spot on with your comment here about ISO as well. 


I always find it interesting that somehow some concepts, which really don't seem difficult or complex to me, are often portrayed as "too difficult" for the average photographer. As far as I am concerned, if someone is using a DSLR day in and day out, then learning a little bit about the nuanced behavior of ISO settings can only help them produce better results. Why hold knowledge back? 


You are absolutely correct that pushing ISO higher and higher to get a "correct" exposure may be costing the photographer dynamic range. Dynamic range is just as important at higher ISO as it is at lower ISO. These days I think dynamic range is as important for my bird and wildlife photography as it is for landscapes. Ever photograph a chickadee? Brilliant bright white paired up with dark blacks. Doesn't really matter how you approach a subject like that...something, somewhere, is going to suffer. It's difficult not to clip the highlights of those little birds (assuming you want any amount of detail in the black feathers...otherwise you just block up the black feathers into pure black, no detail at all...personally, I don't like that option), especially when you usually need shutter speeds over 1/1000s to freeze their constant motion. Sometimes, underexposing at a lower ISO is necessary to protect those highlights, and still get the shutter speed you need.


So, I really do agree with you. And I agree with you because I think your correct.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Despite how some may portray me, I am not petty like that.



I know, just teasing you 



privatebydesign said:


> If I was to add a caveat to my comment it would be to enable full stops only for iso, though I don't know which cameras allow that my old 1 series do.



I used to advise and write that, but you get stomped because for most cameras, there's a liiiiittle more dynamic range (yes, that word ) at low iso 160 multiples. Not really "worth it" in my book, but there you are.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Always choose higher iso and brighter exposed shot. Dealing with well exposed noise is much easier than dealing with underexposure and noise.
> ...



If that's true for CR2 files, then Canon's RAW format needs serious improvement. Given a vector of pixel values, There's no valid reason to write RAW file data as:

[ 02 14 18 30 04]

instead of:

2 x [ 01 7 9 15 2]

Providing a single scaling value would eliminate the loss of dynamic range by performing the multiplication during final processing when there's extra headroom, rather than while writing the image into a series of fixed-width numerical values, when there isn't. And because scaling the value digitally adds no additional information in the RAW file that would not otherwise be there (besides the specific scaling value itself, of course, as chosen by the camera), it makes no sense to perform that multiplication in-camera. For that matter, if you weren't concerned about EXIF stripping, you could leave the scaling factor out of the file entirely, and just recompute it from the ISO value every time....  But I digress.

Amusingly, the JPEG file format uses just such a scaling value in the opposite way, for the opposite reason.


----------

