why grainy look....not necessarily focus (Page 4): To put it clearly and factually, Depth of Field is determined by MAGNIFICATION and APERTURE, period. Not focal length in itself. Only...

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Linda From Maine wrote:

Note that in addition to aperture setting, depth of field is affected by focal length and distance to subject.

To put it clearly and factually, Depth of Field is determined by MAGNIFICATION and APERTURE, period. Not focal length in itself. Only as different focal length at same distance give differing magnification.

PS...the caps are for emphasis, not "yelling".

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

sumo wrote:

Why do these photos look grainy..the entire shoot of 75 pictures all looked about the same.. My I phone took better pictures

Nikon D600, Nikon flash, and using a Sigma 50-250, 3.5-6.3 lens…set on aperture priority for a while then set to manual at abut half way through …. have used it many times before with much better results

Maybe because your ISO was 25600?? What did you expect?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

sumo wrote:

I consider myself taken to the woodshed and beaten... (show quote)

One point, and I do not know your camera. Does the auto-selected ISO show in the viewfinder or LCD while setting up photo? Might be something to be cognizant of.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Weddingguy wrote:

These suggestions are dead on . . . if you are shooting with available light!!!! BUT all wrong if shooting with flash.

When using flash there are only TWO camera settings that affect exposure . . . ISO which is generally not an adjustment used from one image to the next, but is set according to the light situation at the moment. For best quality the ISO should be kept as low as possible for all situations.
The only other camera setting that affects exposure is the aperture. At a setting of F/16 or F/20 few flash units would have enough power beyond 5-7 feet.
Some of you are thinking that I have missed the FEC (Flash Exposure Compensation) setting, but that is really more of a flash unit setting than a camera setting.

For wedding and other event photography, where under time pressures, little time is allowed for multiple setting changes and test shots, we have always used settings that allow as much latitude as possible to handle different subject distances, room conditions, lightness or darkness of subjects (think black tuxedos and white wedding gowns).

Most flash units (speed lights) are automatic today, and while using them in TTL, it is unwise to have the camera set at any automatic setting including Auto, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, Program, etc. The camera in any auto setting sets the exposure based on the existing light BEFORE the flash fires. Indoors the result is almost always the too high of an ISO setting, aperture wide open, and/or slow shutter speeds as the camera tries to compensate for too little light for a proper exposure. By putting the camera on Manual, the existing (ambient) light is ignored, and the flash does it's own auto setting to achieve correct exposure up to it's power capability. Having both the camera and flash set to automatic confuses both the camera and flash and forces it to go beyond it's exposure analysis capabilities. The main result is inconsistency at best.

I know there are many ways to "skin a cat", but here is how we have been doing it for over a decade of digital wedding coverage, with results of over 95% success on exposure.

ISO 400 on all indoor flash shots . . . dropped to 100 outdoors with bright sun and 200 on cloudy days.
Shutter speed of 1/200 second to prevent camera/subject movement recorded from ambient light
Aperture F/4.5 for one or two subjects . . . moved to F/6.3 for groups and close in of three or more people for greater DOF

Because the flash TTL has latitude limitations, if, with those setting, shots are taken so close that the shot is over exposed . . . or so far away that shots become under exposed (when checked with histogram), we make temporary adjustments using the FEC. I should also add that we have always used Lite-Scoops on our speed lights that seem to disperse the light reducing the sudden drop-off of light. This seems to reduce the critical flash to subject exposure experienced with straight-on flash.

Sorry I couldn't give you an easy one sentence answer to your question. Hope that helps.

These suggestions are dead on . . . if you are sho... (show quote)

So - even with flash, AS I SAID, 1/40 sec is too slow, ISO 26500 is too high, f/20 is too small.

YES, I shoot a lot of flash and do it in Manual.
A CORRECTION: With flash, a shutter speed of 1/40 will show available light as well as flash so it does affect exposure even in Manual. This is usefull when using flash for "fill". For only flash I shoot 1/250 (with my 80D since it can). Aperture does not affect exposure in flash (the TTL function compensates) UNTIL you exceed the flash capability.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

[quote=Linda From Maine]#3 shows ISO of 25,600. YIKES!!
Linda,
You are one of the UHH treasures! I just encountered the same problem, with the same question only to discover that I have made the same mistake and - surprise, suprise - got the same result.
Thank you

jayprotho Loc: Georgia

Very nice video to see.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

PHRubin wrote:

So - even with flash, AS I SAID, 1/40 sec is too s... (show quote)

Again you are correct, but I am trying to eliminate confusion for the novice.

With flash photography you are dealing with two separate exposures . . . always.
The ambient light exposure which is affected by both shutter speed and aperture setting.
The exposure of the light from the flash which is only affected by the aperture. (Of course ISO affects both) Shutter speed will NOT affect the exposure from the light from the flash, unless you are using High Speed Sync and the shutter speed becomes shorter than the flash duration. The TTL function does NOT eliminate the fact that the aperture is affecting the flash exposure, and, as you said, it is compensating for the need for more or less light (longer or shorter flash duration). By suggesting to a novice that aperture does not affect flash exposure will reduce their chances of ever understanding how to balance flash and ambient light, absolutely a necessary understanding for properly using fill flash.

The #3 photo that you referred to was an exception to ordinary indoor photography in that there is obviously and an extremely bright ambient light source (my guess a large window) which has overpowered the light from the flash. I agree that 1/40th second is too slow a shutter speed for most flash photography, and especially for this circumstance.
Slow shutter speeds, like 1/40th sec.(commonly referred to as "dragging" the shutter), is usually only used for special effects, like when background detail is important.

Here's what I believe has happened to cause his results . . . He was shooting in Aperture Priority with his aperture set at F/20. At F/20 the camera would then slow the shutter to 1/40th sec, probably the lowest the camera will allow with a flash attached. To compensate for the lack of ambient light, the camera then increased the ISO to "max".
Now for the 2nd exposure . . that of the speed light . . . at F/20, even with the flash setting on TTL and the ISO at over 25000, the range of the flash would be around 4-6 feet, if that, with no chance to overpower the ambient light. Thus, the camera/motion blur from the ambient light.

I believe we are getting way off subject here. A simple question about "grain" has become far too technical and created long discussions on unrelated subjects. His "grain" was caused by high ISO and possible under exposure . . . period! Shutter speeds do NOT create "grain"! Aperture settings do NOT create "grain"! Flash settings do NOT create "grain"! Lens resolution does NOT create "grain"!, Lens diffraction does NOT create "grain"! Etc.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

We have just passed sunset and since I committed the same error as OP, I experimented with my D5300/35mmf1.8 set at ISO 12,800 and my Df/50mmf1.4 set at ISO 12,800. Both suffered badly from noise and I was hard pressed to see much difference even though the two sensors are quite different - FF vs, crop and 16Mp vs 24Mp. My take away is if I let my camera "wander" into auto ISO, I'd better set the upper limit to a lot less than 12,800!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

sumo wrote:

Why do these photos look grainy..the entire shoot of 75 pictures all looked about the same.. My I phone took better pictures

Nikon D600, Nikon flash, and using a Sigma 50-250, 3.5-6.3 lens…set on aperture priority for a while then set to manual at abut half way through …. have used it many times before with much better results

Despite several pages of people telling you the same thing, sometimes snarkily, sometimes not, the advice to shoot manually and balance ambient and flash exposures is all you need to know to get this right in the future. I would also suggest shooting manual, but I always find it helpful to take a few test shots, magnify the images, and then dial up or down the flash compensation. My workflow is test shoot, dial up or down the exposure compensation, then adjust the flash compensation. I also generally find it helpful to chimp and magnify after every shot until you get it right. Then you can "set it and forget it" as the Ron Popeil commercials used to say.

Don't feel bad about the piling on, either. Some people are too impatient to read the whole thread and/or too anxious to show of their knowledge.

And yeah, I've also started with many a stupid setting - that's why I chimp a test shot or two on almost everything these days. Call it senior memory lapse in my case.

Andy

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

ISO was 25600!!! That'll do it!

sumo wrote:

Why do these photos look grainy..the entire shoot of 75 pictures all looked about the same.. My I phone took better pictures

Nikon D600, Nikon flash, and using a Sigma 50-250, 3.5-6.3 lens…set on aperture priority for a while then set to manual at abut half way through …. have used it many times before with much better results

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Hi Linda,

Perfect explanation - I was getting ready to go straight into the ISO issue when I paused to read your post. It sounds like Linda stopped down the aperture, intentionally or not, and the camera compensated by bumping up the ISO...allot!!!

Linda From Maine wrote:

#3 shows ISO of 25,600. YIKES!! You used 22 mm foc... (show quote)

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

I think the important issue here is the high ISO used to compensate for your stopped down Aperture. In the simplest terms f22 is a very small aperture (less light hitting the sensor) & f2.8 large aperture (more light getting to the sensor). For novices this is a hard concept to follow - low number more light, high number less light. It's also important that the higher the ISO the more noise you'll get on an image and different cameras handle high ISO noise better than others. Using a flash with those settings causes a whole new set of issues as stated by previous posts. Anyway at this point I think the poster gets the point - they have some homework to do.

sumo wrote:

I consider myself taken to the woodshed and beaten... (show quote)