In the real world

tko · Oct 7, 2016

I can't believe how many photos people would miss if they limit themselves like that. Even for stationary subject, not counting ones that dance, run, jump, and fight!

--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally

500px

500px.com

Chris Wolfgram · Oct 7, 2016

Gandolphi said:
how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?

I rarely take photos over ISO 100, nor without a tripod.

Used to shoot higher ISO's for wildlife.... but don't do a lot of that anymore....

PVCdroid · Oct 7, 2016

Gandolphi said:
how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?

No issues @ 6400 or 12800 for me. It's frequent for night shots when I don't want to use a flash.

Chris Wolfgram · Oct 7, 2016

Okay, I'm sure that most of the people who posted to say, "Oh yes ! I shoot high ISO's all the time" really do shoot with high ISO 's all the time....

However, I think the guys who shoot more often, at base ISO's like I do, will be more likely to just kind of shrug there shoulders, agree, and move on without posting.

My point being, it's lame human nature, that people are quicker to jump up and go against what someone is saying, than to jump up and agree.

Goofy humans

Chris Wolfgram · Oct 7, 2016

Maybe in fact 60% of the photographers out there do use high ISO's often (although I don't believe it's that high)

But I don't believe it's only 2% that rarely shoot high ISO's as this thread would imply....

MediaArchivist · Oct 7, 2016

I find it interesting that most mentions of a particular technique, particular scene, particular purpose, or any other particular attribute of the entire photography process are dismissed so easily by anyone who has not worked in those realms. It's as if many people cannot conceive of any photography other than their own personal experience.

I work in environments where I cannot use a flash, despite the lack of light. Rather than use a flash, I use higher ISO settings, slower shutter speeds, and wider apertures. Shall I start a post titled "Does anyone really use a flash that often?" Of course not. I realize, recognize, and appreciate that a flash is essential to many particular settings a photographer might find themselves in. I just don't happen to be one of them, but that does not imbue in me a sense of incredulation when others discuss the use of a flash.

Chris Wolfgram · Oct 7, 2016

MediaArchivist said:
I find it interesting that most mentions of a particular technique, particular scene, particular purpose, or any other particular attribute of the entire photography process are dismissed so easily by anyone who has not worked in those realms. It's as if many people cannot conceive of any photography other than their own personal experience.

I work in environments where I cannot use a flash, despite the lack of light. Rather than use a flash, I use higher ISO settings, slower shutter speeds, and wider apertures. Shall I start a post titled "Does anyone really use a flash that often?" Of course not. I realize, recognize, and appreciate that a flash is essential to many particular settings a photographer might find themselves in. I just don't happen to be one of them, but that does not imbue in me a sense of incredulation when others discuss the use of a flash.

sportyaccordy · Oct 7, 2016

I will have to do a check, but not many.

Truthfully if not for the lenses I could definitely make do with a smaller format.

TacticDesigns · Oct 7, 2016

Fishchris said:
Okay, I'm sure that most of the people who posted to say, "Oh yes ! I shoot high ISO's all the time" really do shoot with high ISO 's all the time....

However, I think the guys who shoot more often, at base ISO's like I do, will be more likely to just kind of shrug there shoulders, agree, and move on without posting.

My point being, it's lame human nature, that people are quicker to jump up and go against what someone is saying, than to jump up and agree.

Goofy humans

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809

+1

You may have something there.

At the same time, the way the original post was worded, it was asking for people that shoot higher ISO to respond.

"how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?"

If the question were worded . . .

"how many out there take photographs, with an ISO lower than 2400, on a regular basis?"

. . . then perhaps the response would have been different?

Take care & Happy Shooting!

--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/sets/72157631300869284/
.

Dutch Newchurch · Oct 7, 2016

I set auto ISO by default. I normally limit it to 6400 as the noise does get very visible after that.

I went on a workshop a few years ago. The course leader encouraged us to turn up the ISO, to keep the shutter speed up. His advice was that in good light we risked losing more quality to camera shake than noise, and we should not be scared of turning it up high to do that, in good light. I'm happy to go up to around 5,000 ISO in good light; but try to keep it below 3,200 if there is lots of darkness in the shot.

I recently shot Savages on stage, and intentionally took the ISO limiter off. I knew I'd convert most of the shots to B&W and I wanted grainy shots; they are a post punk rock band and the effect would be right for them. This was at ISO 20,000:

Don't be scared of high ISO - experiment!

techjedi · Oct 7, 2016

Gandolphi said:
how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?

I don't set out to use high ISO, but when the situation demands it, I would rather have the picture with some noise instead of not at all. In many cases the noise wont matter to anyone who isn't a photography buff.

A recent catalog shoot for my wife's business involved continuous burst shots of a ballet dancer model doing jumps in the air while wearing the clothing for sale. (My wife's styling and shoot design). The lighting was dim in a very shaded area in the afternoon. To get 1/2000 shutter speed, ISO had to be bumped up.

Here is one shot from that session which came out fairly well. This image is prior to editing out some of the distracting background stumps and wagon wheel. If I didn't have a camera that could do ISO 5000 so well, I wouldn't have gotten this shot. When printed in the catalog, the noise will be attractive grain look.

DMKAlex · Oct 7, 2016

Gandolphi said:
how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?

2400 is nothing. I don't pay attention to it until it hits 12,800. Even at 25,600, most of the pictures came out just fine.

I shot with Nikon D3 for 7 years, and now D800.

jonrobertp · Oct 7, 2016

Yes I do, nearly always on a pro shoot / banquet. I feel lucky when I can keep it down to under 5k ISO.

Mika Y. · Oct 7, 2016

I did a quick check for my photos taken during this year so far regarding the distribution of ISO values for my recent shooting habits, some key stats below:

- Most common ISO value: 200 (19.3%)

- The three next common ISOs: 400 (17.4%), 800 (15.2%) and 100 (14.7%)

- Total share of ISO values exceeding the one in original question: 23.4%

So in my case the low / lowish ISOs make up the majority of my shooting (66.6%), but I'd say the share of the high ISO photos is fairly significant as well.

Moti · Oct 7, 2016

That depends what I shoot. For professional work as concert and stage photographer, high ISO over 2000 is my daily bread most of the time.

For studio work under controlled lighting, I usually shoot at base ISO.

Cheers

Moti

richiebee · Oct 7, 2016

Another concert shooter here. Almost never below 1600, frequently at 3200, sometimes at 6400.

Studio style portraits typically 50-400.

Scenic and other stuff typically 100-800.

Donald B · Oct 7, 2016

techjedi said:
Gandolphi said:

how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?

Click to expand...

I don't set out to use high ISO, but when the situation demands it, I would rather have the picture with some noise instead of not at all. In many cases the noise wont matter to anyone who isn't a photography buff.

A recent catalog shoot for my wife's business involved continuous burst shots of a ballet dancer model doing jumps in the air while wearing the clothing for sale. (My wife's styling and shoot design). The lighting was dim in a very shaded area in the afternoon. To get 1/2000 shutter speed, ISO had to be bumped up.

Here is one shot from that session which came out fairly well. This image is prior to editing out some of the distracting background stumps and wagon wheel. If I didn't have a camera that could do ISO 5000 so well, I wouldn't have gotten this shot. When printed in the catalog, the noise will be attractive grain look.

Fill flash would have helped this image 100% why Hi iso ? could have stilled the subject at any shutter speed.

cheer Don

--
Olympus xz1, e-pL5 , EM5 my toys.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9.

MediaArchivist · Oct 7, 2016

Donald B said:
Fill flash would have helped this image 100%

I disagree.

I was not onsite, so I am loath to question the hundreds of other specifics that may have led to a decision not to use a flash. Since it is a great shot, the benefit of the doubt goes to the photographer who took the photo. You can wiki that.

--
Want a roXplosion!?

Chris Wolfgram · Oct 7, 2016

tko said:
I can't believe how many photos people would miss if they limit themselves like that. Even for stationary subject, not counting ones that dance, run, jump, and fight!

--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

But tko, all of your shots (great shots btw) could have been shot with ISO 100.... Okay, the second one might have looked different if the spot lights were moving, but probably still a cool shot ☺

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809

techjedi · Oct 7, 2016

Donald B said:
techjedi said:

Gandolphi said:

how many out there take photographs, with an ISO higher than 2400, on a regular basis?

Click to expand...

I don't set out to use high ISO, but when the situation demands it, I would rather have the picture with some noise instead of not at all. In many cases the noise wont matter to anyone who isn't a photography buff.

A recent catalog shoot for my wife's business involved continuous burst shots of a ballet dancer model doing jumps in the air while wearing the clothing for sale. (My wife's styling and shoot design). The lighting was dim in a very shaded area in the afternoon. To get 1/2000 shutter speed, ISO had to be bumped up.

Here is one shot from that session which came out fairly well. This image is prior to editing out some of the distracting background stumps and wagon wheel. If I didn't have a camera that could do ISO 5000 so well, I wouldn't have gotten this shot. When printed in the catalog, the noise will be attractive grain look.

Click to expand...

Fill flash would have helped this image 100% why Hi iso ? could have stilled the subject at any shutter speed.

I would have used a fill strobe at ISO 100, but I don't yet own a fill flash capable of firing at 11fps. That doesn't mean I just give up and go home. This image is shot #14 out of a 23-shot continuous burst. I look forward to buying a strobe for this type of work, but I just don't have it yet.

I just created an animated gif for fun to demonstrate the sequence of shots this was taken from:

7bb6c31513b245a0b734351b86ac70ea.jpg.gif

In the real world

Forum Pro

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Donald B

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts