I see a lot of people asking what were the camera settings for this shot? While it differs in each situation, one common setting that seems to matter to many is shooting at ISO 100. Is that really the best setting to be shooting at?
In this video from boudoir photographer Michael Sasser, he shares his reasoning for not shooting at ISO 100 with natural light. In several of his previous videos, he shares he camera settings with the photos he has taken which you can see the ISO setting typically bouncing around in the range of 250-400.
I find myself agreeing with Sasser's logic for shooting at a higher ISO setting, which I am usually doing the same thing in most naturally lit events I attend. Sometimes the subjects are in shadow while others may be right in the light. For me, it's much easier to adjust shutter speed versus messing with ISO and other settings or risk shooting at a shutter speed that's lower than what I am comfortable shooting at without getting blurry photos. For high-end commercial jobs, if more light is needed, a strobe or light would more than likely come into play. For other shoots, bumping the ISO up will work just fine. If you do happen to get more noise than you are comfortable with, Sasser shares how he fixes that in post with a few simple tweaks.
What are your thoughts? Do you embrace higher ISO settings or stick to shooting at 100 no matter what? Let us know in the comments.
Bottom line is that shooting at the native ISO of your sensor will ALWAYS give you the best digital 'negative' to work with- least noise/highest dynamic range. You can always add in grain/compress the tonality/create analog film looks later - you can never go in the other direction...
I always shoot at ISO 400 minimum, even in studio. It cuts the recycle times down on strobes, and the amount of noise compared to 100 is negligible.
I didn't click on a single thing...all i see are ISO and half naked click bait....love everyones ISO enthusiasm
Going to come back and read this all later when my morning eyes are open properly.
All I can see at the moment are a boat load of comments on a bizarre article title that I've never once seen, even on an amateur photography forum.
Nope, gave up. It’s. Non issue. Went and got on with work instead. At the ISO that I needed to do it.
Hahaha
Hm, looks like Michael has his own way to see things :) but running shutters 1/2500 with f1.4 apertures is just weird at least haha... Not a boudoir photographer myself but this theory has nothing to do with his genre at all. Set it to what ever you want as long as it allows you to create what you wanted, and for me if the image has sold to my client and it was ISO 100 or ISO 10000 is not relevant at that moment since different times require different settings. And yes I do sell ISO 10000 images to my clients when needed to use that ISO in very low light without flashes, but setting camera to 1/2500 and using higher ISO for no reason...NO THANK YOU :) Happy shooting everyone...
If changing ISO is too inconvenient for you than you should think about ergonomy/controls of your camera or get more familiar with it ...
If I am shooting video I always try to shoot native ISO. But each flavor of still camera has its own "acceptable" ISO. I would say that I always shoot at ISO 100 while I am using strobes in studio... BUT I can actually think of a few scenarios where I would shoot above 100 ISO.
I seriously can't believe how dogmatic and worked up people are about shooting at anything but base ISO.In what way does shooting at ISO 400 mean you are being lazy and disingenuous to your clients? To be honest that's total BS. The idea that an image shot at ISO 400 instead of 100 is somehow of lower quality even though you can't see the difference is insane!
1) As long as you are able to create an image that communicates your vision and / or is visually appealing then who cares what settings you used?
2) On a good full frame sensor, for all practical purposes,ISO 64-640 looks the same. And in some situations up to 1250 looks almost identical to base ISO. Moody black and white at 3200 - all day.
3) A lot of commercial sets I've worked on tend to want to use as much available light as possible so ISO 640 is really common and ISO 1250 is not uncommon. 1250 seems to be where most digi techs seem to be comfortable going up to depending on camera. Usually Nikon is good for one more stop over Canon - I haven't shot enough with Canon to confirm but this is coming from multiple top level techs just talking shop.
My main gripe with this isn't the fact that the guy shoots at 800 ISO, it's the fact that he shoots at 800 ISO *and* 1/2500th. I'm just a hobbyist but even I know that makes no sense.
It depends. If you are moving the model around the space and want to stay exposed properly, you might set your aperture and shutter speed then ISO to auto. In a bright corner near the window you might be shooting at 100, on the bed in mixed lighting it might jump up to 800.
Without knowing his setup and the type of shoot it was, it's kind of hard to make a judgement
You're describing a scenario where there's 4 stops between the two parts of the room. Great. Then shoot at 100 ISO and 1/400s (instead of his wacky 800 ISO and 1/2500s). In the brighter corner, shoot at 1/800s. In the darker corner, shoot at 1/100s. There you go, 3 stops and no change in the ISO. And you can go to 1/50s and 1/1600s if you need 5 stops. And still no change in the ISO. And you're still just touching one dial. So, what's his point again? How does he justify changing the ISO now?
To me, this is an extension of the "do the bare minimum to get paid" attitude that permeates the mindset of workers across this country so I dislike that it's being preached as a virtue. That many very successful people have this attitude doesn't make it any less wrong to me. If someone is paying you, do the best within your ability while you're being paid, even if the client will never notice or appreciate the minor details. If the best that you can do is compromised due to external circumstances (time constraints, equipment constraints, environmental constraints, etc) then do the best you can do within those circumstances. Every time you deliver an image, you should be able to honestly say to yourself "With my current skill and given the circumstances, I could not have done better than this."
This is not being dogmatic about base ISO. There are situations where it doesn't make sense to use base ISO. If you're shooting indoor sports, then you're going to have to raise your ISO to preserve your shutter speed to freeze the action. You'd be hard pressed to give me a sensible reason why you would have to raise your ISO to 1000 in a studio setting, though... Even carrying something as small as a Godox AD200 can allow you to avoid doing that.
Why are you focused on insulting people? I googled Michael Jin photography and I have to say that based on your portfolio, I wouldn't be going to you for advice on photography.
Considering how many shots you have posted that are out of focus, have excessive motion blur, or have basically no composition, I couldn't even take you on as a second shooter.
It's always some amateur with a hair up their ass that tells everyone else what they should be doing. Maybe you should focus on developing your own skill set, rather than critiquing everyone else.
My critique is one of mentality and work ethic. My personal skill (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with either of those. No, I am not a particularly skilled photographer nor do I ever represent myself to be. I do, however, take all my clients equally and do everything that is within my ability and know how to give them the best product that I can. That's something that ought to translate to every skill level whether you're a beginner or expert.
As for developing my skill while criticizing the ethics of others, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
This is really another pixel-peeper vs. non pixel-peeper argument.
If you obsess about or fixate on quality at 1:1 - something few people see your images at anyway - moving away from base ISO seems like blasphemy. If you don't, you are free to use what ISO is intended for.
Why? Cause ISO 50 is better.
Not as good as 32
This guy clearly knows how to click bait. I'm mostly surprised he has to rely on this to advertise.
Set minimum shutter speed if you're working some important shoot or doing something fast paced where you need to freeze action. Should take about 10 seconds to set this before the shoot and remove it after.
Then shoot at the lowest iso you can.
A good topic for discussion but strange way to go about it.
The going train of thought is to use whatever sensitivity is necessary. There is always some kind of tradeoff.
Every sensor has its setting where peak dynamic range is available...doesn't mean that shooting at anything else will degrade quality to the point of distraction.
Also the viewing preferences have changed in the last 10 years...big prints are not the usual anymore. It's smartphones and tablets.
At WEB sizes anything (can) looks good....
If it's a high end client (that will likely know), then shoot at base ISO, bring out the studio lights, etc..
If it's a regular client like a family that won't notice, then it's fine to be lazy as long as they don't notice.
That's pretty much the message here—taking advantage of your consumer's ignorance to make your job easier. Here's a novel idea: Treat your clients the same regardless of their income level or their knowledge of photography.
His studio is the real issue. Too much light, too many clouds passing by etc... He should build a set just like the industry does for quality furniture room scenes that would allow him to shoot all day and night, any day. May be he is too cheap for that?
There's nothing wrong with his studio. Obviously, he chooses to shoot natural light. Your suggestion would negate that.
I could have sworn on one of his videos, I saw some kind of softbox in the background and still doesn't use it during the day. That's just the way he chooses to shoot.
Lol, man, you just have it for this guy, don't 'ya.
The point of his video is pretty clear, he can't control the light without a random iso set up on his camera. That's what he says, not me. Q tips may be? I'm fine with it, he does what he want for sure. Takes him 90 seconds before getting in the real topic. If you say I have it for this guy, I'll accept your decision after you send me a check.
The first 90 seconds was relevant why he made the video.
Why the hell would I send you a check? When, clearly:
https://fstoppers.com/comment/525561
https://fstoppers.com/comment/525549
https://fstoppers.com/comment/525546
https://fstoppers.com/comment/525542
https://fstoppers.com/comment/525510
Some of these comments you sound like a broken record. So, yeah, accept my decision. No check necessary.
Ha, I get it, you make it very clear, you just have it for me. Ping pong
Yep, clearly. Your constant whining is annoying.
...skip....skip...
Somehow that annoying slogan "Work smarter, not harder" comes into play here...
If he was smarter, he would use ISO 640 as his base ISO, since the Sony a9 has dual ISO gain stages. He's just working sloppier, not smarter.
I hope you clean that table after she has had her bare butt all over it
And on that note they should lock this thread...
What a bunch of conformists. =)
Different techniques can render different looks in the same setting... and sometimes even radically different techniques can render nearly imperceptible differences in look in different settings... some looks can only be achieved through specific techniques.
Mastery is not about conformity to techniques for their own sake. Mastery is about learning as many techniques as you can and bending them to your will as desired. If you have never spent a large amount of time shooting at high ISOs, you probably don't know as much about those techniques and what they can achieve as you think. You also probably don't understand your camera and how it interacts with light as well you think you do.
Your reply to this article probably starts with the words, "I can't understand why some one would..." You're also probably a bit of a control freak. You might shoot impeccable images - OF A CERTAIN STYLE - but that doesn't mean you've mastered anything but that style. Open your mind and break out of conformist mediocrity.
Unless that's what you're getting paid for, in that case, carry on. But that is basically the description of a hack, not a master. You do you!
ya'll salty over ISO..
Has that Michael dude been banned? I was enjoying his ‘dog with a bone’ attitude regarding base ISO.
100 always.. as I also shoot film and that is always 100 ISO (ASA) so thus.. I take one meter reading for all my cameras - much easier
I am flexible on ISO so I can get the shutter speed and f stop I need to get the shot in natural light. In the studio it's always lowest ISO. Yesterday made a rookie move, took my subject outside after a studio session. I switched from manual to aperture priority and set my f-stop but didn't change ISO from 100. Some lower-light shots had motion rendering them unusable. At 250 or 320 everything would have come out.
Shooting landscape I most often use ISO 50 - for Wildlife I choose ISO to have as fast as possible shutter.
Here’s a question: Many cameras now have sensors with ISO invariance. Why, for example, go ISO 1000 when you can do ISO 100 and get the same lighting effect in post with less noise and better DR?
Tony, is that you?
--"get the same lighting effect in post with less noise and better DR"
No. Are you pulling our leg, lol? Not sure if you were serious, but, just for the heck of it, I tried it. I shot my dirty dishes on a A7III at ISO 1000, 1/125th, f1.8 (settings proper exposure for lighting at the time) and then at ISO 100, 1/125th, f1.8. In post (Capture One Pro) I adjusted the exposure and white balance of the ISO 100 image to match the ISO 1000. Looks like shit. Ok, maybe not like total shit, but, definitely, the 100 was noisier and had loss of DR.
Here's a question, for you, did you even try it?
Yup. On my D850, the variance is almost non-perceptible. Well, between 100 and 800. However, having said that, lighting and scenes are very important factors too as a well-balanced, albeit still-dim scenes work better at lower-than-usual ISOs for me. Of course on really dimmer scenes I do raise ISOs, I don’t go over 800 (I only go higher if I really have to). I get better recoveries. I do wonder if any D850 users have similar results?
I don't use a D850, but I keep it low as well even on my 1dxM2 for the same reason. I often shoot race cars at night in terrible lighting condition. So I bring strobes and shoot hypersync to shoot over camera sync speed and I combine with the little ambiant available. With limited higher iso value, I can combine ambient and strobes to obtain what I look for which is having most of the car sharp on an angle shot, good color starting point from the strobes and limited noise. I come from prepress and drum scanning and actual color of the cars is important to me just like in my day photography wich is a lot of furniture and color accuracy. Noise is terrible for color accuracy as correction tend to push toward a plastic look on vibrant colors and naturally sharp designed object. Skin may be an other deal and color accuracy not relevant as much, I don't know I don't do boudoir or fashion, but for anything else that goes on print it certainly can show.
So I dug up Lee's old video. He was using a D850 in a controlled lighting scenario. For that camera for that test, it actually did pretty well. But, at the end of the day, he suggests, as well as the consensus, just shoot it correctly for the scenario or for what you're trying to accomplish.
https://youtu.be/RAb85TukSuc?t=139
Of course ISO 100 isn't best! I usually shoot at ISO 50 or sometimes ISO 25. In the future, I might even go as far as ISO 12
If you, clients, etc don't mind noise, thats cool. But it's not like you have no other option. Buy lighting.
Michael Sasser doesn't even know that his Sony a9 has dual "native ISO" gain stages.
At ISO 640 it goes back to as little noise as ISO 100.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Sony%20ILCE-9_14