ISO v Aperture for quality

Mozziephotography

Mozziephotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,850
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
On holiday, I was told that f8 was the magic number by a professional photographer. I shoot sports, cycling and fell running.
In low light conditions and with the shutter speed set to what I need to freeze the moment, should I aim to:

  • be as close to f8 as possible with a high ISO?
  • or a lower ISO with an aperture f4 or lower?
Which would give me a better quality image, primarily "on screen", as they are rarely printed?

I THINK that it probably doesn't make too much difference.

Comments please.
 
f8 may be ok for landscape, but in my experience, not for sport.

In most cases, unless you are doing something really arty, use the widest aperture possible, f2.8 to f4 to isolate your subject from the background and the ISO required to enable you to freeze the action with the appropriate shutter speed for the particular sport you are shooting
 
Depends. If you are shooting a single runner, a wider aperture might be fine. If you are shooting two people, a smaller aperture might be required to get them both in focus. In general, low light, high iso, lowest shutter speed usually means the widest aperture. Experiment. No such thing as a 'magic' number.
 
Thanks you 2. More or less confirmed what I thought. Standing in a river tomorrow as the runners cross over. They are in a line running from left to right and the background can be fussy. I'd include an image but not sure how to do this from Flickr.
 
i think f8 is more then magic number for slower lens.. normally its around 2 stops to get the sharpest image so on a 1.8 lens for instance then around f/4 is probably closer .
 
It would depend on what I want to achieve with each image. Do I need a broad or narrow depth of field. Do I want to freeze action. Do I want to blur action. Do I want to pan.

All of the above dependent on available light conditions.
 
Most lenses are nowhere near at their best wide open ,closing the aperture improves sharpness, vignetting and fringing.
however as you stop down diffraction becomes greater and greater until it over comes improvements in other areas.

In a great many lenses the best quality compromise is obtained about two stops down.

for many occasions things like shutter speed and depth of field contribute more than ultimate lens sharpness to the final result, as does noise and degredation from the use of unnecessarily high ISO.
so your question has no single answer, but a different one for each circumstance. .
 
Last edited:
its far easier to correct noise than it is blur.. think thats the easiest answer as to what settings to use
 
Thanks for that advice you 3. Had no training or courses and I'm sure that there is a LOAD of basic knowledge that would help me to improve. :nikon:
 
Last edited:
dean messenger said:
its far easier to correct noise than it is blur.. think thats the easiest answer as to what settings to use
Click to expand...

minimising noise is always done at the expense of sharpness.

Many types of blur can be improved with sharpening tools in photoshop.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
It would depend on what I want to achieve with each image. Do I need a broad or narrow depth of field. Do I want to freeze action. Do I want to blur action. Do I want to pan.

All of the above dependent on available light conditions.
Click to expand...

This is really the correct answer, if there is one at all.

There are many occasions when having a shallow depth of field is far more important to the impact of the image than having maximum sharp detail, and in such an instance f8 would be your enemy. Sadly image quality tends to suffer on cheaper lenses as you open them up, and that limits choices in terms of depth of field control vs sharpness.
 
there was the old saying of f8 and be there.

but setting f stop n shutter effects how image will look, while higher iso will make it worse, so aim to keep the iso fairly low if you can.

its a triangle you manipulate :-)
 
The magic number is the number that is right for the shot. If you have pro quality lenses then they'll be sharp wide open.
 
Can't afford the top quality - on a budget. Yet, the 50mm prime is serving me well. Bit unsure about WHICH pro lens would do the job better for the images I shoot. Thanks for the comments. Taking every single one on board.
I understand the triangle and put that to good use in the situations I find myself in, usually evening races when the light might be poorer than "normal".
 
OK, for what you do, if you want a pro lens then I would have thought you should look for a zoom with big max aperture, so f2.8 and probably 70-210, though something in the 28-75/85/105 range might also work well if you get in closer. Ask yourself since you're using the 50mm lens do you wish you were closer or further away? If you don't need too much depth of field and are happy with a fixed focal length then consider a higher quality version of what you already have.
 
Weight is one factor. The prime lens is as light as a feather. A friend uses a zoom and finds it tiring after a while. I'm taking over 500 images tonight and the weight may be a problem. People dash across the river and there is hardly any time to use a zoom effectively. It really has been a godsend in a way, I plan where I'm going to stand and what sort of shot I want. Composition is improving and I look for different places to create "special" images. There's no time to think about composition during a race. It has to be done beforehand. I'd LOVE a Nikkor 24-70mm BUT I'd need to be sure that it would improve what I do already. Money is tight. I'm using the 50mm for the river crossing tonight and then the 105mm for the "road" head on shots. What IS the higher quality version of what I have?

View attachment 18662








View attachment 18661
 
Don't ever, ever, use selective colouring in sports photography again (or in 99% of other photography for that matter).


The f/8 comment relates to the days of manual focus, when that aperture generally gave the best chance of an in focus photograph allowing for all the rest of the tolerances.
It's now completely outdated advice.
 
It looks to me that for your present application you already have optimised your gear. I'd suggest seeking new kit if you see a need for it and know what you want.
 
"Don't ever, ever, use selective colouring in sports photography again (or in 99% of other photography for that matter)."

I'm experimenting because I don't have a tutor. If I don't try things out, .......... I'm me, not you, or anyone else for that matter. If this is a blog for the PURISTS, then I'll drop off the edge of the forum. For someone with no training, never been on a course etc, I'm happy with where I am after a few months.
Ta. :banana:
 
mossienet said:
"Don't ever, ever, use selective colouring in sports photography again (or in 99% of other photography for that matter)."

I'm experimenting because I don't have a tutor. If I don't try things out, .......... I'm me, not you, or anyone else for that matter. If this is a blog for the PURISTS, then I'll drop off the edge of the forum. For someone with no training, never been on a course etc, I'm happy with where I am after a few months.
Ta. :banana:
Click to expand...

I think Mark should have added a tongue in cheek emoticon, I'm sure he didn't mean to sound critical. Color splash is almost fashionably unfashionable, but it has it's place. Personally I can't abide any over-the-top pp editing including HDR, but I'll probably have my head ripped off now by the HDR Brigade. I'm sure one day, that style will also be fashionably unpopular

Just keep it fun, and enjoy the learning curve.
 
In any case I'm sure that image is partially desaturated, rather than selectively coloured. ;)
 
My two cents.., hope it helps

Athletics, broadly speaking, seems to follow two main shots - Freeze or Pan, with the former being the most common. Fell running i guess is similar to Cross Country so speeds don't need to be super fast, but (again a generalisation) the main subject tends to be the only part that absolutely needs to be in focus. So wide open and as fast as possible is my general rule; and I'll adjust the ISO to get the other two where i want them. With sport I think that a bit of noise (grain) can help the image, so I wouldn't be afraid of it, and would prefer that to a lack of sharpness. F2.8 with spot focus delivers sharp images, my lenses have cobwebs above F4.

Budget? - I used to have an old third hand Nikon 300mm F4, which was part glass and part Sherman tank; and it cost around £400. Optically superb, and it was only the slow autofocus (not a problem in distance racing) that let it down. You mention that you plan where to stand, but there will be times when you won't be able to get where you want, and a bit of reach will be needed. The 24-70mm is superb, but it's a lens I rarely use for stadium or CC events. a 70-200 would be my first port of call. It terms of composition the zoom gives you more options, and I'd question the comment about not having time to compose during a race; the competitors won't always be where you want or expect them to be. Making it up as it happens is part of the learning curve..!

Weight? - Buy a good strap to take some of the strain, or invest in a monopod.

As above, keep learning and keep having fun...(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top