Welcome back to another installment of my monthly Behind the Camera. In full disclosure, I am starting this entry on February 26th, having completely finished the intended entry for this morning. If all goes to plan, you will be reading that one on April 1st instead. I just really felt like this was an important topic to discuss and I wanted to get it done before I lost interest in talking about it. As you can tell from the title, I am going to be talking about settings. Yep, probably the most asked question on the internet when it comes to photography forums and such. No matter what type of photo it is, the only thing that seems to matter is “what settings did you use?” I’ve known about this question for as long as I have held a camera. The thing is, I’ve never asked that question with the intention of learning anything about my own photos. Granted, when I was first learning, I wasn’t on any social media, and it was hard to ask questions of a book. Well, I could have, but the answers didn’t flow readily until I got to that text or found a different book. I think that more importantly, I learned photography by reading the reasons behind whatever settings were used. Nothing was given to me on a platter, as I had to figure out why a photographer was using a slow shutter speed or needed a very narrow aperture. By learning those aspects, I was never one to care what was used in a specific circumstance because I could figure out what I needed on my own for the situations that I found myself in.
Of course, what I am going to be getting into here is assuming that you have a basic understanding of how to actually find an exposure with your camera. There are two ways that I have found work the best with today’s digital cameras. They are the internal light meter and the histogram. If you aren’t familiar with these tools and how they help you arrive at a basic exposure, be sure to check out the video here. Essentially, you are going to be using either the light meter to arrive at a “0” exposure which is an overall gray tone which is what the camera deems as correct, or you are going to be using a histogram to create a spread of pixels from dark to light with nothing falling outside of the exposure latitude of the camera. This can be done through any of the modes, but where the creativity comes into play is where you put the importance of the corners of the exposure triangle. In my case, the majority of the time, my most important consideration is the aperture which creates the depth of field. The second most important is the shutter speed to control camera shake or subject motion. This leaves the ISO value which I try to keep as low as possible, but in the end, it will allow me to get the other two values where I need them to be.
What are your settings?
The answer to that question for this photo would be the following:
Lens used: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Mk2 at 30mm
ISO: 100
Aperture: f/9
Shutter Speed: 0.4
White Balance: Daylight
Exposure Mode Manual
With this information, anyone can pick up a camera and shoot a sunrise that has the same colors and intensity as well as overall exposure. In short, with this recipe of golden settings you too can capture this very same image on your camera. So, why are settings not important, and why do my gears get to grinding when I hear folks asking for photographer’s settings? Well, simply put, the settings only work for that location, in that light, in those conditions, and with the compromises that the photographer was willing to make.
Lens used: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Mk2, at 50mm
ISO: 100
Aperture: f/14
Shutter Speed: 60 seconds
White Balance: Daylight
Exposure Mode: Manual
Here we go with a similar subject at a similar time of morning, but the exposure settings are way off. Had I used the exposure settings from the first image, this photo would have looked completely different, and I suspect that it would be very overexposed due to the brighter sky with everything else being equal. Even looking at things like the aperture, there is the difference between f/9 and f/14 which is over a stop less light coming in. The shutter speed went from less than half a second to a full minute and there was an ND filter that had been added to help allow that slower shutter speed.
Lens used: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L Mk2, at 29mm
ISO: 100
Aperture: f/11
Shutter Speed: 1/8
White Balance: Daylight
Exposure Mode: Manual
Here is another sunrise from the coast using a different lens this time and a different filter. The ISO is still the same, but the aperture is different as is the shutter speed. So far, we have three examples of sunrises from the coast with three very different exposure values. Which one is right? If you are asking the question “what were your settings?” then obviously you know that one of them has to be right, because by asking the settings you are presumably going to be trying to duplicate the look of the photo in your own photos. Otherwise, asking the settings would be a waste of time and energy…right?
Lens Used: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Mk2, at 30mm
ISO: 100
Aperture: f/11
Shutter Speed: 0.3
White Balance: Cloudy
Exposure Mode: Manual
Let’s revisit that first photo for a moment. Shortly after that one was shot; I shot this frame. Now, I did flip the image horizontally in post which might be throwing you, but they are both of the same subject from the same position, on the same morning, just three minutes apart.
You will notice that there are slight differences in the aperture and shutter speed here. The aperture has been closed down slightly, and the shutter has been sped up slightly. Both of those were done to address the added light from the fact that the sun was causing brighter conditions than three minutes before. The white balance was also shifted to bring out more of the warm tones and to get a more accurate histogram for the scene that I wanted to capture. Had I just left the exposure the same from the previous shot, just three minutes earlier, I would have blown out the highlights and overexposed the photo as a whole. Had you been with me and seen my results from the first photo and then dialed in the exact same exposure settings while framing up the same composition, your photo would have been exposed differently by the time you made the shot.
If asking the question “what are your settings?” is not going to help you arrive at your own photograph, why do we ask this question? Well, it is something simple that we as humans can understand. We like hard numbers and can duplicate things like settings because they are concrete. However, like most things that are concrete, they only work in specific ways. I’ve never seen a concrete sidewalk be able to shift a shape around a body of water before. If there is a flood, that concrete walkway will just be under water until that water recedes back where it started. So, if concrete settings are not the answer, what is?
What you should be asking
I think that in terms of learning, a much better question that you should be asking is “why did you choose the settings that you did?” Of course, this will be a much longer answer, and for some photographers an answer that they won’t know because they didn’t think through the process and ultimately let the camera pick the settings for them. While this is a much better question to ask, it does require more effort from both parties as to the correct answer. The one who shot the photo needs to understand why those settings were chosen and the one asking about the photo needs to be ready to understand the reasoning behind those settings. Here is how that would work out in reality, and I think you will see how different the result is.
Lens used: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Mk2, at 102mm
ISO: 200
Aperture: f/16
Shutter Speed 0.8
White Balance: Daylight
Exposure Mode: Manual
As you look over the settings, you will see some differences over the previous photos, so you know that I wasn’t using some prescribed formula here. It will likely not help you to know what the settings were when it comes to making your own photo. However, by asking “why did I use the settings that I did?” we will find out a whole lot more about my choices and how they could affect your own photos. This would be my answer to that question.
Well, I looked at the composition that I had selected and knew that I wanted the foreground tree in focus, but I also wanted the tree in the midground to be in focus as well. The background could go soft, but I also wanted it to be recognizable because of the mountains in the far distance. Because I needed that kind of depth of field, I was going to need a narrow aperture, especially because I was shooting the scene at a telephoto focal length of 102mm which gives less depth of field than a wider-angle lens. I chose to go with f/16 which is a very good aperture for this lens for sharpness and maximizing depth of field. I could have gone to f/22 without diffraction concerns, but I didn’t want to introduce motion in the branches from a shutter speed that was too slow during a slight breeze. With that bare minimum aperture, I ended up with a shutter speed that was still too slow when exposing to the right using the histogram, causing motion to be seen in the branches. This was why I boosted the ISO. That gave me another stop of light without sacrificing the depth of field that I was after. Getting the shutter under a second was sufficient for killing the subject motion. I went with a daylight white balance because there were no clouds, and I wanted to maintain the blue in the sky to add validity to the warm tones that I was seeing and capturing.
You can see that the answer was a bit involved, but you can see where my compromises came from in my exposure choices. I sacrificed a bit of potential noise in the shadows by boosting the ISO which allowed me a faster shutter speed without sacrificing depth of field which was more important to me than a bit of noise. Of course, all of this is very specific to this particular scene, lens, and conditions, but because you know my “why”, you can adjust your settings in the same way to suit your situation. Each of my exposure settings took the other two corners of the triangle into consideration. I gave to one, while taking from another. It was all based on the shooting aperture I was going to need in order to get the bare minimum depth of field that I was needing. Then I got a shutter speed that would work, while using the ISO as the final bit of balancing for the right exposure value while not blowing out the highlights.
I’ve been using sunrises specifically so far to further illustrate the point I am trying to make. There has been a total of five photos shared so far in this entry. They have all been from sunrise at whatever time that was for the season. You have seen three different lenses selected, and the settings have been completely different for each photo even though the overall exposure looks to be pretty similar between them all. In none of these cases could you apply those settings to a photo of your own and arrive at the same outcome. However, after reading through the “why” of the choices, you would be much better equipped to figure out your own exposure based on your group of circumstances.
Lens used: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Mk2, at 26mm
ISO: 100
Aperture: f/11
Shutter Speed: 0.4
White Balance: Cloudy
Exposure Mode: Manual
Here we have a photo that I shot recently during the late morning. It is not a sunrise, and the sun really isn’t even a factor here, however, the settings are very similar to one of the sunrises above. If you look at Kure Beach Spectacle, you will see the same settings except for the shutter speed which was just a click different. The photos are miles apart in appearance though. Would asking the settings on one, give you the ability to arrive at the other? I don’t think so, because you wouldn’t look at this scene the same way. However, if you knew the “why” behind the choices that I make, you would be able to come up with something very similar because those “whys” are pretty much the same when it comes to this kind of photography.
The answer to that question for this photo would be very similar. I had composed the scene at a wider focal length. Because the car was so dominant in the foreground, I didn’t need to blur the background or do anything like that which meant that I wanted a nice sharp aperture. For this lens, f/11 is a fantastic aperture for both sharpness and depth of field. It is the sweet spot in a manner of speaking. I set my ISO at the base of 100 for the cleanest image possible which is how I start all my exposures. When I was trying to get the shutter speed figured out, I realized that the sky was forcing an underexposure on the main subject, so I added a grad filter to control that aspect of the scene. This allowed my shutter speed to be four tenths of a second in order to get my histogram to expose to the right. Since there was no wind and no motion, this caused no issue. I used a cloudy setting for white balance because that was the existing light across the scene at the time.
From that answer, you have gleaned several important things. First of all, I used a low ISO to control noise in the image while maintaining the most detail in the scene. I used a moderately narrow aperture for sharpness and depth of field. Since there was no motion in the scene, a slower shutter wasn’t a problem, and I took into consideration the source of light in terms of the white balance. These are all things that you can apply to your own photos and come about your own exposure values. Essentially, these were the exact same considerations that were applied to the sunrise photo that I compared this one to.
Had there been wind in the scene, I would have opened up the aperture first because I had plenty of depth of field to work with and if the background went soft, I wouldn’t have minded, though I didn’t want it to go blurred. I would have been fine at f/8 which was another stop that I could have added to the shutter speed. Beyond that, I would have stolen light from the ISO value. It is a series of compromises each and every time. Without wind, those compromises are less important to make because the shutter speed could have been a couple of seconds long before motion would have shown up in the sky, and that might not have been a bad thing either. This is the value of discussing the “whys” behind the settings rather than just the settings themselves.
Lens used: RF 70-200mm f/2.8L, at 70mm
ISO: 400
Aperture: f/8
Shutter Speed: 1/200
White Balance: Flash
Exposure Mode: Manual
Things are a bit different when shooting in the studio though. There are some pretty constant values, although those can change up due to creative choices as well. However, the exposure of the scene is based more on the strobes than with the camera. The main thing that the camera settings do is to control the ambient light. Usually, you will set a shutter speed that is your highest flash sync speed. In the case of my Canon R5 using the mechanical shutter, I am at 1/200 of a second. I could bump that with the electronic shutter to 1/250 of a second. Some cameras are at 1/160 of a second, but whatever it is, you usually want to go with that sync speed. This is where you get the most control of the light in the scene. The ISO is usually set to either the lowest native value, or one stop up so that you are seeing more efficiency from your lights. In my situation, I usually shoot at ISO 200 in the studio so that the lights are a bit more efficient. This leaves the aperture value which I set for depth of field. Since I am shooting in a controlled environment where I have selected the background, I don’t need to blur it all out and typically shoot at f/5.6 to f/11 depending on needs. In the case of this photo, I was shooting at f/8 because that is a really sharp aperture for the lens, and it would give me plenty of depth of field since we were including a prop in the scene. There were some poses where I was capturing the scene at an angle and the extra depth of field was nice. Because we were moving around, the light intensity would change depending on where she was positioned in relation to them. To counter that movement, I boosted the ISO to 400 to brighten the scene here. Since the camera has dual native ISO, this value was just as clean as ISO 100 would have been, so I wasn’t worried at all about that.
The overall exposure of the scene came from the lights though. They were positioned where I felt that the quality and direction of the light would be best for the scene and added modifiers to them to shape the light how I wanted it. I then set the power on the lights to match the aperture that I had selected on the camera. What I mean is this…had I made an exposure without the flash using the settings on the camera only, I would have had a black frame. All of the ambient light was blocked out by the camera settings. Only after I added the strobes at the correct power was I able to get the photo to expose at all. I don’t recall the exact power settings on the lights because that wasn’t important at all. What was important was that the key light, to camera right, was set at the shooting aperture of f/8. The fill light, to camera left was set two stops under that at f/4 which gave the shadow detail that I was after. They were both double diffused soft boxes set at the edges of the set. By using a light meter, I could recreate this same lighting at any time, but the flash power settings might be something different depending on modifiers being used and distance the light is from the subject. The other main consideration for light power is the power of the strobe to start with. I was using 500ws strobes which will give a big difference in power readings compared to a 200ws strobe, or a speedlite.
Again, knowing the settings that I shot with really don’t help at all. Knowing why I shot with the settings that I did will provide much more valuable information. It will always be more beneficial to know the why rather than the hard numbers. It is interesting to see the settings used when photographers are asking what went wrong. There is always something glaringly obvious just from the settings which explains the situation, but the photographer has no idea what that is. For instance, somebody posts a photo that is overexposed to the point that the midtones are now clipping as highlights. They share the settings of ISO 12,800, f/4, and 1/200 of a second for a shot that is done in the middle of the day in natural light. The reason behind this is they were told to use 1/200 of a second to control motion, f/1.4 because that is the widest the lens will go, and they want that wonderful bokeh. They have no idea what the ISO does, and I’m still not sure how they get such a value, but I’ve seen this situation more than once recently. With a more normal ISO of 100-200, they could easily get the shutter speed up to 1/4000 of a second which will absolutely freeze any motion, while still keeping a clean image and have it be well exposed.
This is the danger in chasing settings. You start to concentrate on one aspect and have no respect for the fact that each part of the exposure triangle affects the other parts. You hear that you should shoot wide open for that blurred background that is all the rage, so you open that lens up to something like f/1.4 but don’t realize that you are letting in a ton of light which means that you will need to shorten the shutter duration to compensate. If you had been told to raise your ISO because you were shooting in the shadows, and decided to push it to ISO 1600, you are letting in even more light for no reason. If you are told that the shutter speed for the portrait that you just saw was 1/200 you think that is what you have to use. You aren’t considering that the value was the flash sync speed, and the photographer was using a strobe either outside or in the studio. In your situation, the shutter speed can be much faster with no detriment to the photo.
As new photographers, we need to get past asking for settings and start asking why a setting should be used in a given situation. Every image that I have shared in this entry has been well exposed in terms of my creative vision for the photo. However, none of them share common settings with the exception of two very different looking photos. If you were trying to get similar results, your settings would be different from mine, but if you used the logic that I used to arrive at the settings, your photos would be similar in presentation.
If you are getting ready to ask what settings a photographer has used, please pause for a moment and consider the answer that you really want. If you want an answer that will help you on your journey, you might need to ask a better question. That better question will also let the person being asked know that you understand photography and they will be more likely to really share information with you. I know I’m guilty of dismissing those that ask the question “what settings did you use?” because I know that by answering the question they will be no better off than before they asked. I will often try to explain why I chose what I did, but if they aren’t prepared to get that information, they are unsure as to why I’m complicating the answer. I know it sounds like gatekeeping when I start to answer correctly, but it is actually the exact opposite, as I am trying to address the real answer they are wanting. Sadly, it is only rare times that the answer hits home and they understand it. Most of the time, they want that quick and easy answer and then get frustrated because those settings didn’t work and they think they are a terrible photographer.
Canon EOS R5, RF 85mm f/1.2L, No filters
Lens Used: RF 85mm f/1.2L
ISO: 100
Aperture: f/1.6
Shutter Speed: 1/500
White Balance: Cloudy
Exposure Mode: Aperture Priority
Something else that I have seen at an increasing rate is adding the exposure mode into the settings argument. I’m still not sure how this gets factored in, but folks seem to think that you will get a different photo if you shoot in manual or in one of the priority modes. The fact of the matter is that you can arrive at the same photo in any of the modes, it is just personal preference as to which one works in your situation. For the most part, I shoot in full manual mode because it allows me the ability to control every aspect of the photo and keep consistent results happening between frames. However, when shooting portraiture outdoors, I will usually use Aperture Priority Mode for speed and simplicity. Why is that?
Well, when I am shooting outside, I will be changing angles and locations rapidly which will introduce different lighting needs. I don’t want to have to constantly adjust my exposure while doing this. When working on a tripod shooting landscapes, that is not an issue, and I am able to work slower which means that I prefer manual mode because things don’t change that quickly. In these two cases, the main concern is my own efficiency and where that focus needs to be. When hand holding and moving around quickly, my main concern is getting accurate exposures quickly. I let the camera do that for me by shifting into a priority mode. My next main consideration is usually my depth of field which is a product of aperture. This means that I want to set that value and forget it which is what Aperture Priority allows me to do. The camera will adjust the shutter speed to suit the situation which leaves me able to concentrate on the composition and interacting with the subject. Of course, I have to pay attention to the shutter speed so that camera shake or subject motion doesn’t enter into the equation. That is why I now use auto ISO in these situations. I have it set to kick in when the shutter speed hits 1/250 of a second. Only then will the ISO start to climb up, but if the light returns and it is not needed, the ISO will drop back down to my base ISO while letting the shutter speed adapt while staying above that threshold.
If I were photographing sports, or other motion where shutter was the main concern, then I would choose Shutter Priority Mode, and it would work the same way allowing the camera to adjust the aperture and potentially the ISO to arrive at a proper exposure. Of course, if the camera misjudged the situation in either mode, I could use exposure compensation to lighten or darken the image to where it was exposed correctly. This allows me to use the priority modes as if I were in full manual. It is a couple of extra steps, but overall, this is a quicker approach in the field when you are moving around more.
What I am seeing is photographers using these priority modes in the wrong scenarios because they think that they will get different results. All you end up getting is the camera arbitrarily choosing the values for the part of the exposure triangle that you deem most important. A great example of this is shooting a sunset in Shutter Priority Mode because you want to limit the light coming to the sensor so you don’t blow out the highlights. You set the shutter to 1/4000 of a second while the camera determines the correct exposure based on middle gray. You will likely end up with a wider aperture and a lower depth of field because you have choked the light due to the high shutter speed. There is no reason for the high shutter speed as the aperture will also limit the light coming into the camera. With this type of shot, the depth of field should be a primary concern as it will be a landscape type shot. You can shoot this in Aperture Priority Mode with an aperture of like f/11 and let the camera select a shutter speed to get a correct exposure based on that same middle gray measure. If the scene is too light or too dark, you use exposure compensation to arrive at “your correct exposure” and make the photo. It is all about determining what is most important to your as far as which mode to shoot in. If you are shooting a landscape with nothing in motion, there is no reason to lock into a shutter speed. However, what is in focus and how deep that focus is, will make a much bigger difference to the final photo. This is why we should be using Aperture Priority rather than Shutter Priority where the shutter speed could be 1/500 of a second, or a half second. It really matters not.
One of the biggest issues that I see with new photographers is falling into this settings trap. Like I said, the reason is more than likely the fact that humans like tangible things and absolutes. Nobody likes an answer that begins with “It depends.” Those answers mean that there are many possibilities and that what was just done might not work the same way again. I guess it would be like me putting my oatmeal in the microwave for 1:30 seconds. I do it that way every morning, and if asked, I would say that somebody else cook their oatmeal for the same time because that is what the canister says do. It works, and it is repeatable. However, when it comes to cooking chicken, there are variables like how big the chicken is, how you choose to cook it (fried, baked, broiled, etc) so there is no hard and fast rule as to how long it will need to cook. The answer depends, but the end result is to cook until it is cooked all the way through at a certain temperature. We are used to dealing with this and most don’t give it a second thought. I do, because I don’t cook in the classical sense. I’m fine with a microwave, but Toni doesn’t allow me in the kitchen unless I’m using the magic box. Recently, we have started getting Hello Fresh deliveries for a bit of variety and portion control, and occasionally I have to prepare those meals when she is at work. I’m right there asking the included instructions for the “settings” and trying to make it work out by using those “settings.” When Toni does it, she just kind of does her own thing based on the fact that she is a wonderful cook and knows what she is doing. We both can prepare the meals, but the ones that she makes are always better than what I can do. This is because she understands more about cooking and knows how to arrive at the settings that she needs while I am still searching for absolute settings to just get by. Of course, being 51 years old, I do have some passing knowledge in the kitchen, so I have a minimal grasp of the whys behind the settings which makes it easier for me to adapt to my specific situation in cooking.
As a photographer, do you want to be like me in the kitchen making a hot mess out of a meal, or would you rather understand the reasons behind the settings and create your very own masterpieces like Toni? In order to do that, we need to be asking why rather than what. When we understand the why we can arrive at our own what which makes all the difference. As the old saying goes…give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. As a teacher of photography, I want to feed you for a lifetime because giving you information that won’t help you does neither of us any good.
I hope that you have enjoyed this month’s Behind the Camera and have learned something useful from it. Should you want to take this further, I am available for mentorships and most of what I teach revolves around the “whys” of what I do rather than specifically what I do. My intention is never to create another me because that would be redundant and serve no purpose. My goal will always be to let you grow in your own direction with your own creative vision. I just want to give you the tools to help you efficiently translate that vision into a photograph. If this is something that you think would benefit you, get in touch. The consultation is absolutely free and there is no commitment at all unless you wish to sign up for one of the tiers of mentoring that I offer.
We will be back here next month with the entry that was supposed to be published today. The topic is all about comparing your photos with those of other photographers, which will actually compliment this one quite nicely, I think.
Until then….
