Given adequate lighting, would a photographer ever shoot at a higher ISO?

Question

By adequate lighting, I meant outdoor conditions for example. The answer is probably not. However, I was thinking that if the ISO was higher, they could obtain a faster shutter speed to maybe get a different image effect. But I've always thought lower ISOs meant better quality and less noise in images....thanks.

Answer 1

I grew up thinking we could adjust two factors to control exposure and I am finally expanding my mind ot allow ISO to assume the role of the third. It used to be that you were faced with a choice between shutter speed vs. aperture for any given situation. Since ISO was basically film-dependent (expect for push/pull exposure/development), these were the only two thing you could use to alter the exposure. Sometimes it didn't matter which you favored, but sometimes it did.

Having the ability to adjust ISO on the fly has added a third dimension to exposure control in the camera. On a small sensor, of course, it introduces either noise or soft images due to noise reduction technology, but on a better dSLR, it's not so bad. I feel comfortable going almost anywhere in the 100-400 range without fear of too much degradation from noise. This gives me another way to have a range of a couple EV without altering the depth of field (aperture) or "stability" (shutter speed) of the image. Of course, if you introduce "VR" (or "IS") into the equation, you could almost say you have a fourth choice allowing lower shutter speeds without loss of IQ due to shake vibration.

Anyhow, I think you've given me an idea for my next stupid tutorial. What if you want to precisely control the depth of field (selective focus) on a moving subject? Suppose f/8.0 is exactly what you need to use. Suppose you want to capture the subject by using a 1/500 shutter speed. Suppose this combination would give your theoretically preferred ISO of 100 an underexposure of 2 EV. You can move into the "third dimension" of exposure control and change the ISO to 400 without touching the aperture or shutter speed.

See, in "adequate lighting," you might be able to use ISO 100 with a larger aperture or slower shutter speed, but you might not get the exact "action" in the final image by doing so.

Full disclosure... Come this time next week, I won't be worrying too much about ISO and noise the way I do today. Then I really will have the third component at my full command. I'm a happy boy. :-)

Answer 2

I can think of two types of photography in which I partake from time to time(although not frequently) for which a high ISO is pretty much mandatory even in good light: Sports and bird photography.

For bird photography especially, you're often working with really, really long lenses. Since it's something I'm not overly interested in, I take a 400mm 4.5 lens and put on the back of it a 1.4x converter and 2x converter. This gives an 1120mm lens with a maximum aperture of f11. This is a small enough aperture that I had to buy a special focusing screen for one of my cameras just to be able to even see anything.

Even on a sturdy tripod(which is a must), this setup still needs shutter speeds of 1/500 at an absolute minimum to get sharp results, and preferably 1/1000 or even 1/2000 if motion is involved. Plus, since you're often working at relatively close ranges, you need to stop down at least a stop or two, giving f16 or f22.

Even in full sun, EV 15, the absolute minimum film speed in order to get a shutter speed of 1/1000 is ISO 400. Thus, I'll typically use ISO 800 to get a slightly higher shutter speed, or to account for the fact that the camera is typically pointed to a place which is a stop or two darker than full sun.

Granted, this is an extreme situation, but a very real one in which slow film really isn't an option.

Of course, if I were a serious bird photographer, I'd just get an 800mm 5.6L and be done with it. Given the fact that they're still topping $1500 even in the many-years obsolete Canon FD camera system I use, that won't be happening any time soon.

Answer 3

Your problem is trying to equate ISO with image quality. ISO applies to film, not digital images. In film, ISO equates to grain size, the slower the ISO the smaller the grains. The smaller the grains, the larger you can enlarge an image. In digital images, this is nothing which can be compared. In digital images, as it is the number of pixels. The more pixels the better the image and the larger it can be enlarged, exactly as smaller grain size determines how large a film image can be enlarged. Faster shutter speeds can "freeze" an action shot, but smaller grain size makes for a better enlargement. The only reason to shoot at a higher ISO is to capture a low light situation and stop motion, but the image quality suffers.

Answer 4

Particulalry for sports where shutter speed is a factor in properly portraying the sense of motion I will choose a higher ISO speed, 800 or even 1600 are common settings.

This does produce some noise but there are noise reduction programs such as noise ninja that considerably remove it from your images.

Some cameras produce less noise than others at high ISO settings.

As with most photography it is a compromise.

Answer 5

You have to experiment with your own equipment to find the real answer to your question. But most cameras today can go up to 400 and still be very "noise-free."

And, of course, a higher ISO gives you a faster shutter speed, and/or better depth of field - no matter what light conditions you're working in.

I shoot almost everything at 400 because I've learned that my Nikon performs very well at that setting.

Answer 6

The lower the ISO, the finest the grain.
This given, just do not follow the rules. Experiment, and maybe you will like the grain effect even in a daylight picture, so you would find it very charming.
Also remember that noise will be more and more visible the larger the print.
Hope I was helpful.

Answer 7

there are some outstanding answers to a great question

iso in digi means noise - so if your talking digi i agree why use a noisy iso?

in film iso means grain - if you want a grainy Marilyn Manroe shot then high iso film is grand, if you want an enlargement from film with low grain then a large format film cam with 50iso is grand.

digi should in the next 5-10 years produce no/low noise at say 6400iso, and i cant wait. untill then is a bit noisy to for me.

so a little bit of extra info for you

a

Answer 8

I shoot a lot of horseshows, in bright sunlight. I want to keep a shutter speed of about 850 or more.... I often shoot the shows with an ISO of 400.

Answer 9

Good discussion folks! Didn't leave me much room to comment. You mentioned outdoors, one aspect of outdoor photography is landscapes and most (but by no means all) landscape photograpy is best done at dawn or dusk. It's then that it's tempting to go to higher iso but it's also those same condtions that would produce the most graining as the light is not that strong. Thanks again to all those that contributed....we'll reverse Larry's question yet!

Answer 10

I'll give you an example: if you were walking in the woods at night with your camera and you saw Sasquatch, Bigfoot and Jimmy Hoffa all sitting around a campfire, nobody would care what ISO you used.

Otherwise, use the lowest possible.

Hope this helps.