Priorities for camera settings (discussion) (Page 4): I hate to compromise my shots by choosing the worse of the three evils mentioned. Yes, in order to Get the shot we have to pick...

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I hate to compromise my shots by choosing the worse of the three evils mentioned. Yes, in order to Get the shot we have to pick wisely the less of the evils to capture our images. I do a lot of wildlife photograph and find that to get the Best possible image I need all of my camera settings to be within specific parameters to get the best possible results. In other words is about the light in most situations that I'm shooting. When I choose to shoot around ideal lighting I find I only fill my card or computer with at best, average images. I already have some 20,000 or so of them. Yeah, I can capture the shot if I have too, but I'm no longer interested in filling my computer with just, stuff. Sometimes I just have to walk away and return when the conditions are right. That includes most all of my photography..

AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA

This is a very interesting discussion. I am now shooting two mirrorless cameras, Canon EOSR and Olympus OMD EM1 Mk ii, In both cases I shoot Manual and RAW with Auto ISO. My rational is as follows: I have very shaky hands so I want to get the Shutter speed as fast as reasonably possible to freeze action and compensate for my less than solid technique. In the past couple of years I have been using DOF to enhance my pictures and, of course, that means that I also want to control the Aperture. The price that I pay for needing to control both aperture and shutter speed is that often I wind up with high ISO and more noise than I like. BUT, if I get blur from a shaky camera there is not much I can do to fix it in post. The same is true for DOF while I haven't tried, I believe that it is difficult to correct DOF in Post. Lightroom Classic has an excellent processing approach to dealing with noise and I would assume that there is other software available to deal with noise.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

For me, what works is set ISO. This is usually based on which camera I'm going to use. If handheld, it's going to ISO 400. If I'm going to use a tripod, ISO 100/125. This is grounded in film choices. If I'm going to be shooting in some rare situation, I'll choose ISO 3200. Now, invariably, when choices of ISO are discussed, the term noise enters the discussion. For those of us who started with, and still stay with, film, it's a discussion of grain. It's that simple. Grain is not evil. It's what helps get the photograph. The choices of the other two settings are then based on the discussed topic what am I trying to capture. It's a matter of system management.
--Bob

R.G. wrote:

We're all familiar with the idea that with fast movement, shutter speed is a priority, if depth of field is critical, aperture is a priority, and if neither of those are critical, keeping noise low (i.e. low ISO) is a priority. When it comes to choosing camera settings in those situations, our priorities are clear.

But what about the most demanding situations where we can be pressurised from all three directions and our choice of shutter speed, aperture and ISO could all end up being less than ideal? What are our priorities then?

In that sort of situation, instead of thinking about what our priorities are we need to think about what the most compromisable variables are. To answer that question we need to ask what has the most potential to negatively impact the quality of a shot, perhaps to the point of spoiling it altogether.

Everybody will have their own take on that subject depending on what area of photography they operate in. There are various ways in which a shot can be degraded or spoiled (for example over- or under-exposure), and it will very often be caused by user error. However, degradation can also be caused by unavoidable compromise. Looking at the latter situation, and looking at it from a very general point of view, my suggestion for what the worst shot spoilers are (in order of significance) would be:-

1) Motion blur / camera shake (i.e. a shutter speed issue).

2) Excessive loss of sharpness and/or detail due to insufficient depth of field (i.e. an aperture issue).

3) Excessive noise, possibly accompanied by a loss of sharpness, contrast and colour accuracy (i.e. an ISO issue).

Still speaking in very general terms I would say the main implication of the above list is that the most compromisable variable is ISO, followed by aperture and leaving shutter speed as the least compromisable variable.

Still speaking in very general terms, another implication is that if you had to choose one variable to float, ISO would be the best choice, since it is the most compromisable variable (this is especially true of the most recent cameras, some of which have exceptional high ISO performance).

Feel free to agree or disagree with any of the above and feel free to share your own take on the subject.

We're all familiar with the idea that with fast mo... (show quote)

traderjohn Loc: New York City

R.G. wrote:

We're all familiar with the idea that with fast movement, shutter speed is a priority, if depth of field is critical, aperture is a priority, and if neither of those are critical, keeping noise low (i.e. low ISO) is a priority. When it comes to choosing camera settings in those situations, our priorities are clear.

But what about the most demanding situations where we can be pressurised from all three directions and our choice of shutter speed, aperture and ISO could all end up being less than ideal? What are our priorities then?

In that sort of situation, instead of thinking about what our priorities are we need to think about what the most compromisable variables are. To answer that question we need to ask what has the most potential to negatively impact the quality of a shot, perhaps to the point of spoiling it altogether.

Everybody will have their own take on that subject depending on what area of photography they operate in. There are various ways in which a shot can be degraded or spoiled (for example over- or under-exposure), and it will very often be caused by user error. However, degradation can also be caused by unavoidable compromise. Looking at the latter situation, and looking at it from a very general point of view, my suggestion for what the worst shot spoilers are (in order of significance) would be:-

1) Motion blur / camera shake (i.e. a shutter speed issue).

2) Excessive loss of sharpness and/or detail due to insufficient depth of field (i.e. an aperture issue).

3) Excessive noise, possibly accompanied by a loss of sharpness, contrast and colour accuracy (i.e. an ISO issue).

Still speaking in very general terms I would say the main implication of the above list is that the most compromisable variable is ISO, followed by aperture and leaving shutter speed as the least compromisable variable.

Still speaking in very general terms, another implication is that if you had to choose one variable to float, ISO would be the best choice, since it is the most compromisable variable (this is especially true of the most recent cameras, some of which have exceptional high ISO performance).

Feel free to agree or disagree with any of the above and feel free to share your own take on the subject.

We're all familiar with the idea that with fast mo... (show quote)

I watched a video by Scott Kelby the other day. He said Aperture was a priority. The rest revolved around that. Over and out.

bleirer

Sometimes the best compromise is to enjoy the scene with our eyes rather than take the shot that will be a throwaway later. Sometimes doing that a shot emerges that can be well executed within the limits of the conditions and gear we have. Or the shot within the shot, a macro, an abstract, a pattern, a repetition, a celebration of color, all might be executable without too much compromise.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

martinfisherphoto wrote:

I hate to compromise my shots by choosing the worse of the three evils mentioned....

That's an interesting summary of what I was describing earlier. When I started the thread I thought it would be an enlightening and revealing change of perspective. Thinking about what we want when things are perfect is only going to take us so far, and it could leave us vulnerable and unprepared.

"Walking away and returning when conditions are right" sounds like a good example of "staying flexible where our intentions are concerned" as mentioned earlier.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

R.G. wrote:

That's an interesting summary of what I was describing earlier. When I started the thread I thought it would be an enlightening and revealing change of perspective. Thinking about what we want when things are perfect is only going to take us so far, and it could leave us vulnerable and unprepared.

"Walking away and returning when conditions are right" sounds like a good example of "staying flexible where our intentions are concerned" as mentioned earlier.

Maybe all of this chatter about taking a picture is one of the reasons cell phones have taken market share from DSLR's.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

AFPhoto wrote:

....if I get blur from a shaky camera there is not much I can do to fix it in post. The same is true for DOF.... I would assume that there is..... software available to deal with noise.

Thanks for joining in, AFP. Your above comments are a good summary of what I was saying.

Have you tried a monopod? I frequently use my tripod as a monopod and in that setup it can double as a stabilising walking stick on tricky slopes.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

rmalarz wrote:

For me, what works is set ISO. This is usually bas... (show quote)

Hi Bob. Are you saying that you'd never go higher than ISO 400? I was envisaging the sort of situation where conditions are so restrictive we have no choice but to use the widest aperture, slowest shutter speed and highest ISO that we think we can get away with. In that situation we're forced into thinking about which compromise we would find most acceptable out of the various options. You seem to have a tolerance of noise/grain so I would expect you to be willing to consider ISOs higher than 400.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

traderjohn wrote:

I watched a video by Scott Kelby the other day. He said Aperture was a priority. The rest revolved around that. Over and out.

Hi John. Some people try to make the subject more appealing by being over-simplistic. Was the subject of the video photography in general or was it about something specific like landscape photography?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

bleirer wrote:

Sometimes the best compromise is to enjoy the scene with our eyes rather than take the shot that will be a throwaway later. Sometimes doing that a shot emerges that can be well executed within the limits of the conditions and gear we have. Or the shot within the shot, a macro, an abstract, a pattern, a repetition, a celebration of color, all might be executable without too much compromise.

My attitude is that it's worth taking the shot anyway. Sometimes our shots have unseen potential that doesn't come out until we're sitting down at our computer with adjustments at our disposal.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

R.G. wrote:

Hi John. Some people try to make the subject more appealing by being over-simplistic. Was the subject of the video photography in general or was it about something specific like landscape photography?

Landscape..... I love it"over-simplistic" In thinking about it. I guess at some point you need to dumb down the message. I am a retired Pharmaceutical Analyst. I retired from a wealth management firm. If I tried to explain the process of that decision making. Can you imagine how simplistic my message would be to people like you?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

traderjohn wrote:

Maybe all of this chatter about taking a picture is one of the reasons cell phones have taken market share from DSLR's.

The strength of cellphones isn't in their camera's capabilities - it's in the programming that allows captures to be optimised within the camera's limitations. I suspect that part of that programming involves assessing which is the best compromise and which are the ones to avoid when things are tight (which will be a LOT of the time, given the size of phone camera sensors).

DSLRs are more capable but they need a competent user to get the benefits of those extra capabilities. Camera manufacturers could take a leaf out of the phonemakers' book as far as inbuilt assistance is concerned, but even if they did, phones are popular because they're easier to carry around than DSLRs.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

traderjohn wrote:

.....I guess at some point you need to dumb down the message.....

It depends what the video was about. With some subjects it would be perfectly legitimate to say it's all about aperture, but where photography in general is concerned, that same comment would be hugely inappropriate.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Noise. When we were using "high speed film" (ISO 400 a good example) it was not uncommon to see lots of grain in an enlargement. Our eyes were used to it and because that was a fact we seldom found it objectionable. Clients did not either.

Movement. How many times we selected a slow shutter speed because we wanted to show the viewer movement? There is a certain "character" in those shots that many photographers enjoy using the technique.

High ISO. Why not if the lighting conditions call for it. Modern cameras are very good at controlling noise and we have excellent programs like Topaz Denoise capable of doing an excellent job. Many b&w workers still prefer the grain effect of Kodak Tri-X while others using color do not show their concern when noise is present.

Depth of field. Critical for macro photography with some workers but not so with others that use selective focus. It has been said, nothing wrong either way. Do what satisfies your style, vision and creative skills.

Photography is a very subjective art. To each one its own.