I get the impression that my threshold for looking at endless images is lower than for other photographers. I think the reason is that my visual sense has much competition from my other senses. Since the visual is only a fraction of my experience of the world, it feels wrong and/or unwise to let it dominate my sensory input to too large a degree.

I don’t think I am the only one among photographers and non-photographers experiencing this in the face of the image overload of the digital/Internet age. What’s your experience?

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

(Caution: this is a somewhat purposely vague post meant to get you thinking, without necessarily providing closure…)

If I told you there was something artistically significant about this photo, would you be able to convince yourself of this, and even come up with a reason why?

I’d like to hear from you in the comments….about this photo in particular and/or about fine art photography more generally!

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

If you could promise someone a life-changing photograph, how much do you think it would be worth to them?

$1000? $5000? $10,000?

And what does a “life-changing” photograph look like?

One thing I’m pretty sure of: it’s probably not posed.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

If almost anyone can afford a decent digital SLR camera + lens, what is it we/you’re selling as a person trying to make a living–or, at least, a partial income–from photography?

Well, one thing you’re not selling–at least not in an “exclusive” way–is the ability to generate photos or digital images; almost anyone can do this now. And even some of the lower-end digital SLR camera models can generate quite usable images for stock, weddings, and/or portraiture.

And since digital makes possible immediate and/or almost immediate review of images taken, even amateurs can be quite sure whether they’re getting good, properly exposed images or not. So, it’s more difficult to make the case that you need a professional photographer to make sure the camera equipment is producing images that look good from a technical standpoint. I’m pretty sure no one would want to hire a true novice in this regard, but the learning curve has certainly flattened out.

Now, being able to “operate” the equipment does not assure great photos, right? I don’t think anyone would argue with this. However, having equipment that is better than a compact/point-and-shoot digital camera can certainly help *anyone* make better photos….especially if they’re photographing moving targets or photographing in places with low light; it’s in these two areas that compact/point-and-shoot camera often come up short.

One area that I think still requires quite a bit of technical mastery to get right is the use of flash and external lighting for indoor–especially dark indoor–photography. Purely “natural light” practitioners will often run into difficulties at dark, nighttime and/or indoor receptions.  Having a professional for such events can make a significant difference in the quality of the photos.

Now, even though I’ve downplayed the importance of equipment, the more expensive professional equipment does make *some* difference in terms of image quality, focusing speed, and ability to take photos in lower light. This is especially true for indoor events. The more expensive equipment *will* yield a higher percentage of “keepers”, all other factors being equal.

Okay, now for the sake of argument, let’s say the event is purely outdoors and the difference in image quality and focusing speed between the consumer camera equipment and the professional equipment isn’t significantly noticeable to the client. What’s left?

It’s that “photographic eye” thing, right? That thing that tells the photographer what to take a photo of and what the client sees as the intangible “thing” that makes a photo good and/or pleasing, right?

Well, the trouble is that many budding photographers have–or claim to have, or maybe their friend or spouse claims they have it–that “photographic eye”. This is not exclusive to professional photographers. In fact, some professional photographers may have lost that “eye” because they’ve taken too many hundreds or thousands of photos and have become “desensitized image factories”!

Some of that “eye” thing may be related to the amount of enthusiasm the photographer still has for the art of photography. Beginners often have lots of this enthusiasm and it sometimes can make up for what they lack in photographic experience.

In actuality, professional photographers often go through fluctuations in enthusiasm; it’s usually not a static “have” or “not have” commodity. It comes and goes like it does with any long-term activity pursued by a human.

Really, I think it’s *not* the photographic eye, per se, that you’re paying the professional for; even a good amateur should have that. With a professional, what you’re paying for, is a well-established photographic vision. Whereas an amateur photographer is typically experimenting with different styles, viewpoints, post-processing, etcetera…a professional has found his or her strength and developed it to a high degree.

When you hire a professional photographer, the photos s/he delivers will be *very* similar to the sample portfolios and galleries s/he has shown you. There’s a consistency in vision that the photographer has carried out over and over. You, as the customer, know and can be sure of what you’ll get when you hire this photographer. This photographer has shown s/he will deliver consistently and what the end product will look like. If you, as the customer, like what you see, you can be quite sure you’ll get the results you want when you hire this photographer.

So, photographers, what are we selling? A well-established photographic vision.

Does this mean a professional photographer can’t experiment like an amateur can? No, I don’t think that’s the case. Even the professional’s “experimentations” will carry his or her signature vision or style. S/he can’t get away from this vision or style; it’s who s/he is as an established photographer…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

As promised, I’ve finally assembled some photos I took at the annual fashion show in my area. Because of the number of photos included (around 80), I decided to finally figure out how to embed a flash slide show into my blog. It took some doing, but I got it to work! Click the “full screen” option in the lower right corner of the slide show applet to get the full effect…:-).

As I mentioned in my previous blog post that featured photos from the actual show (“Fashion Show Photography: Even more lessons learned“), I find the back stage photos more interesting and fun to take. This is where all the “work” is happening, all the emotions (excitement, worry, boredom) are evident, and where hundreds of different activities–and photo opportunities–are all happening simultaneously.

At this annual fashion show that I photograph, the back stage area is a huge, open indoor recreation building. Combine this with the fact that I’m trying to get candid expressions and situations, and I find myself using a 70-200 zoom lens for 90% or more of these shots. This year I had my 70-200 on a 1.3 crop factor Canon 1D (Mark IV), so the effective field-of-view was that of a 91-260mm lens on a full-frame camera.

Because this is a big, open room with *very* high ceilings, I didn’t use my camera flash at all. Since it’s also quite dark, I found myself taking plenty of 3200, 6400, and 12,800 ISO shots with the lens wide open (f/2.8). In years past, I didn’t have a camera that could shoot at 6400 or 12,800 ISO, and it limited the shots I could capture. I have a 135 f/2 lens; but I prefer using the 70-200 zoom because it enables multiple, variously framed shots within seconds.

I also had a Canon 20D with a 28 f/1.8 lens at my side for any wide angle shots that might appear without notice in front of me. This worked like a charm!

So, I would not hesitate to follow this very same strategy again next year. In fact, I’m considering spending *all* of my time back stage taking candids next year and having an assistant set up out in the auditorium to take the show shots…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

San Francisco’s Museum of Modern Art is hosting a symposium in which 13 invited participants discuss the question: “Is Photography Over?”

Rather than fear such questions (which you might if you’re a photographer or interested in being a photographer), I think it’s good to embrace and explore them–i.e., I think it’s a healthy exercise. You can see the participants’ initial written responses to the question here.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 500 ISO, 1/400 sec

So I shot my annual fashion show…the one I’ve been doing the past 5 years. It’s always in early Spring, so I tend to use it as a warm-up for wedding and portrait season, and also to test new equipment. I titled this post “Even *more* lessons learned” because I’ve blogged about fashion photography lessons learned in a previous post.

Honestly, my favorite part is capturing back stage candids (my *next* blog post will feature my back stage photos and lessons, so stay tuned…). Photographing the show is mostly a matter of workin’ the equipment: bam, bam, bam! Sure, this machine-like gun operation of my camera and lenses is a relatively good way to see what the equipment can and cannot do, but it’s not particularly creative. That said, I do tend to look for something other than the straight on, one model filling the frame types of shots; it makes it more interesting for me.

Anyway, this year I decided to shoot the whole show (well, OK, I was only there until the first intermission) with one lens and one camera. In previous years, I’ve shot with two cameras, one connected to a 24-70 zoom lens and the other to a 70-200 zoom lens, and stood about 8 feet away from the end of the runway (i.e., quite near it) with 20 other photographers.

My plan this year was to stand further back on a small step ladder with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens attached to my new Canon 1D Mark IV that I wanted to test out. I placed the ladder adjacent to the corner of the stage where in years past, the models came for their final poses before returning back up the runway.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 500 ISO, 1/400 sec

Unfortunately, the show organizers decided to switch things up; they decided to have models end up at the “other” corner of the stage before returning back up the runway. I, of course, didn’t realize this until the show started and I saw what was happening.

So, lesson learned: talk to fashion show organizers each year about the planned “traffic pattern” on the catwalk because it may not stay the same from year to year. It’s not always easy to find a fashion show representative who actually knows this sort of information; but it’s worth the effort. Also, if you see a designated show videographer in some optimal, cushy location near the stage or on an elevated platform, you can be pretty sure *he’ll* know!

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1600 ISO, 1/400 sec

Anyway, I didn’t want to stay at the transition corner; I wanted to be at the final posing corner. So I moved my step ladder in the aisle toward the other stage corner. Well, wouldn’t you know that someone in the audience was pretty darned annoyed at where I was standing on my ladder and told me so.

Because I didn’t really want to be yet another annoying photographer getting in everyone’s way, I crouched down the rest of the show (well, the rest of the first half of the show) and took many photos of the models on the stage with audience heads creeping up ever-so-slightly into the bottom part of the photos, sometimes obscuring the model’s feet. This wasn’t optimal, obviously, but some of the designers and models still bought my photos; so it wasn’t a total wash.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/3.2, 2000 ISO, 1/400 sec

What worked and what would I do differently next time?

First, I still like standing back further from the stage–than the other 20-30 photographers taking close-ups of the models right *at* the stage–and using one camera and one long telephoto lens (for me, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS). This allows me to more easily get photos of the models almost anywhere on the stage and they don’t all of to be close-ups. I noticed one photographer was sharing the stand the videographer was on, which was in a perfect location of my one telephoto lens strategy. I’ll have to do some sucking up to the videographer next year…:p.

Compared to last year, instead of shooting in manual exposure mode with a fixed ISO, I shot using auto ISO. The lighting on the runway is quite uneven; so a fixed manual exposure doesn’t work too well, unless you’re only taking photos at the end of the runway. Even then, there are differences depending on where the model is standing. I’ve noticed when I’m shooting with a longer lens, the camera does a better job with exposure because no one part of the scene–which may be quite a bit darker or lighter than the rest of the scene (this commonly happens when the model is wearing white or black clothing or has particularly pale or dark skin)–dominates the frame as it does when you’re close up.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1600 ISO, 1/400 sec

I should explain a little more about my camera setting: I was using a Canon 1D Mark IV, which allows you to put the camera in manual mode, but with the ISO set to Auto. The great thing about this is that you can put the aperture and shutter speed at some fixed settings (e.g., f/3.2 and 1/400 sec) and let the camera adjust exposure by raising or lowering the ISO. In effect, it’s like you’re able to shoot in both aperture priority and shutter priority simultaneously. I found that keeping the aperture relatively large (f/2.8 – f/3.5,  mostly to keep the ISO from going too high) and the shutter speed relatively high (1/200-1/400 sec, especially when photographing the models *while* they moved down the runway) worked out quite well.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/3.2, 640 ISO, 1/400 sec

If I didn’t have a camera that does auto ISO in manual mode, I’d probably shoot in aperture priority mode and keep the shutter near it’s max…again, if I’m using a relatively long/telephoto lens.

That’s it for now. My next blog post (within the next week) will feature my back stage photos and lessons. In the meantime, I’ll finish this post with a few more shots of the show (click on the thumbnails to see them larger).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

In one of my last posts, I think I made it clear I was giving up on finding a small, pocketable digital camera I liked.

Well, the funny thing is, I keep finding myself in situations where I want to take some photos (mostly while with my children) and the only camera I have available is the one in my cell phone. First, there was the one in my Blackberry which wasn’t very good, but at least it was 2 megapixels. Now there’s the one in my current phone that only takes 640×480 images and you can’t even get them off of the phone without paying to send them to yourself via email (it’s a prepay phone)! Trying to take a decent photo with a cell phone has *really* lowered the bar on what’s acceptable in terms of features and even–to some degree–what’s acceptable in terms of image quality.

I was noticing that the form factor of my cell phones was making it *way* easier to have them with me than any of my cameras, digital or film. Also, people out in public barely even notice if you pull out a cell phone (or something that looks like a cell phone) to take a photo; practically everyone is carrying around a cell phone or an mp3 player that is rectangular and looks like a pack or cigarettes or small deck of cards.

My first thought was to get a good camera phone (like an iPhone) and just use it as a camera (forget the actual cell phone plan, I’m not giving up my cheap prepay plan). But camera phone manufacturers need to make compromises to fit a camera along with a phone into a small rectangular space. Sure, there are camera phones with decent digital cameras, but if you buy a dedicated digital camera, you’re bound to get a much better camera for the same price.

So, I figured I wanted a relatively thin, rectangular device without large, protruding parts that I could use to take reasonably good digital photos costing less than $200, so I could carry it around everywhere and not have to worry about damaging an expensive ($400+) piece of electronics.

I had a Panasonic LX3 for a while that I mostly liked. What didn’t I like?

1. I was hoping for quality and performance that would rival my Digital Rebel but in a more compact form. I discovered compact digital cameras simply can’t compete with digital SLRs.
2. The lens on the LX3 sticks out pretty far and makes it not very pocketable.
3. It’s a relatively expensive camera (around $500), so I couldn’t have it banging around in a coat pocket or small camera bag or whatever without having to worry about it more than I would want to.

I also owned a Canon S90 for a couple of months. While it was definitely slimmer and more pocketable than the LX3 and its images had much less noise than the LX3’s at high ISOs (800-3200), I was quite disappointed in its focusing speed and accuracy–definitely not as good as the Panasonic. And again, I was carrying around a camera that was pretty expensive ($400+), so I had to worry about it more than I’d like to.

Another thing I’d like to mention about these compact cameras with large maximum apertures (both the LX3 and S90 go as large as f/2, and this large aperture tends to make them more expensive) is don’t expect to get the sort of shallow depth-of-focus you can get with a digital SLR; the sensors are just too small in comparison to achieve a nice bokeh. The nice thing about large apertures on compact cameras is they help to keep ISOs lower; they don’t do much for shallow DOFs…unless the subject is *very* close to the camera.

So anyway, after getting over this fantasy that a compact camera could perform anywhere near a digital SLR in terms of things like shallow depth-of-focus or focusing on moving targets, I’ve come to realize there’s still a place in my photographic life for a compact digital camera. And the requirements have finally become clearer:

• Small enough to fit into a shirt or front jean pocket (1 inch or less in thickness)
• Flat and smooth with no large protruding parts; something like my Blackberry or an iPhone
• A flush lens. Even though there are many cameras with lenses that are flush until you turn the camera on (then the lens zooms outward from the camera), once that lens zooms out, it functionality as a camera is pretty obvious to everyone around you. The one thing–maybe the only thing–I like about the camera in my cell phone is no lens sticks out and so it’s less obvious that you’re using it to take a picture.
• Reasonably fast and accurate auto-focusing on non-moving subjects: still objects or children sitting or standing still…or at least not moving too fast.
• Less than $200. My cell phones have been worth less than $200, so I don’t have to worry so much about having them with me in all sorts of environments and weather conditions.
• Reasonably fast and wide lens. To me, a f/2.8 lens is as fast as I need; f/4 gets a little slow and f/5.6 is definitely too slow for indoor settings. I liked the 24mm (full-frame equivalent) on the wide end of the LX3’s zoom range; however, I find that 28mm is sufficient in 90% of the situations I find myself in. Even 35mm isn’t a deal-breaker; I have two compact film cameras with fixed 35mm lenses that I’ve used with quite satisfactory results.

With these requirements in mind, I did some research on the web and found a compact digital camera I’m quite pleased with: the Panasonic DMC-FP8. I found and bought a new one for a mere $160.  I think I was somewhat influenced by my mostly positive experience with the Panasonic DMC-LX3; even though its quite different in many ways from the LX3, the FP8 is similar enough to the LX3 in terms of features and performance that I have found it a comfortable and somewhat familiar photographic ally.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8

Here are some specs for the FP8:

• Camera Effective Pixels: 12.1 megapixels
• Aperture: F3.3 – 5.9 / 2-Step (F3.3 – 10 (W) / F5.9 – 18 (T))
• Focal Length: f=5.0-23.0mm (28-128mm in 35mm equiv.)
• Lens: LEICA DC VARIO-ELMAR, 10 elements in 8 groups, (5 Aspherical Lenses / 1 ED lens)
• ISO Sensitivity: Auto /100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 (High Sensitivity Mode : Auto(1600 – 6400) )
• AF Metering: Face / Touch AF/AE Tracking / Multi (11pt) / 1pt HS / 1pt / Spot
• Viewfinder: No
• LCD Monitor: 2.7″ TFT Screen LCD Display (230K dots), Field of View : approx. 100%
• Built-in Flash
• Power O.I.S. Image Stabilization
• Weight(lbs): Approx. 0.29 lb; Approx. 0.34 lb with Battery and SD Memory Card
• Dimensions (H x W x D): 2.35” x 3.77” x 0.80”

The lens is made by Leica and it’s a “folding lens” that is flush with the outside of the camera; it never protrudes past the surface of the camera even when zoomed out to 128mm. The maximum aperture on the lens is f/3.3. This is slightly smaller than f/2.8, however it’s only about one-third of a stop different (f/4 is a full stop slower than f/2.8) and its noise at 800 ISO is actually slightly better (based on my memory) than the LX3’s was; so the better performance at higher ISOs helps make up for the ever so slightly slower than ideal lens.

I haven’t had the camera for long, but I can tell you the focusing speed and sharpness of the lens–especially at 28mm f/3.3–has impressed me. And the image stabilization seems to do a very nice job at slow shutter speeds.

DMC-FP8, 125 ISO, f/3.3, 1/40 sec

DMC-FP8, 80 ISO, f/3.3, 1/125 sec

I’m still experimenting with the different menu settings, but so far, I like what I’ve seen. The FP8’s performance when the lens is zoomed out past 28mm seems less good to me; but I like having that extra zoom range in special instances…it could come in handy.

So, if you find yourself with similar preferences and requirements to the ones I’ve described for myself here in regard to a compact digital camera, I recommend you check out the Panasonic DMC-FP8 for yourself!

(Note: the Panasonic DMC-FP8 has actually been discontinued, but you can still get it new online. This is one of the reasons you can get it so inexpensively! The only way to get this same lens in a current model is to buy the $300-$400 DMC-TS2.)

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I thought Auto ISO was going to be a great feature…until I started using it!

I borrowed a Canon 5D Mark II from Canon Professional Services a few times and wanted to try out the auto ISO feature, which covers 100-3200 ISO. I mean, how many times have I suddenly gone from a low-light situation to a bright-light situation while photographing (e.g., a bridal couple coming out from inside a dark church to the bright sunshine outdoors) and forgot or didn’t have a chance to change the ISO from 1600 or 3200 to 200 or 100?

I normally shoot in either aperture priority or manual exposure mode. It turns out that the 5D Mark II defaults to 400 ISO in manual mode (i.e., it doesn’t really do anything in manual mode). In aperture priority, it will look for a shutter speed + ISO combination that gives the “proper” exposure given the aperture you’ve selected. This would be OK if the camera didn’t “think” that a shutter speed as low as 1/20 or 1/15 sec was acceptable in low light, or that a high ISO of 800 or 1600 in conjunction with an unnecessarily high shutter speed of 1/4000 or 1/8000 sec was just peachy when you’ve moved outdoors into plenty of daylight.

The problem is that you can’t set a minimum or maximum shutter speed on the 5D Mark II, so you can’t prevent it from deciding to use unacceptably slow shutter speeds or unnecessarily high ISOs.

With the Canon 1D Mark IV, not only *can* you set minimum and maximum shutter speeds, but auto ISO still works in manual exposure mode! When I discovered this (auto ISO in manual mode), I thought I would never have a reason to use aperture priority with the 1D. Heck, you can decide your ideal aperture and shutter speed, and then let the camera choose the lowest ISO that still yields a proper exposure….like having simultaneous aperture and shutter speed priority with auto exposure!

It turns out there’s one little “fly in the ointment” with auto ISO in manual mode on the 1D: you can’t use the “*” button to fix exposure and recompose the shot like you can in aperture or shutter priority. I would think this is something Canon could change with a simple firmware update (Canon, are you listening?).

There’s another potential problem with using auto ISO in manual mode on the 1D that I’ll mention a little later in this post; but the purpose of this post is to discuss making auto ISO useful, regardless of which camera you own. So, back to the question…

How do you make auto ISO actually useful?

It depends on your camera. Here’s a short decision tree I’ve devised:

A) If you have a camera that allows the setting of minimum and maximum shutter speeds and you plan to shoot in something other than shutter priority mode, set these min and max shutter speeds accordingly to keep the camera from selecting too low shutter speeds or too high ISOs when set for auto ISO. I find that the 1D actually tends to seek a low ISO if possible, so I set the min possible shutter speed to something like 1/60 sec and don’t worry about the max shutter speed. A little testing with your own camera should allow you to figure out the best settings for it.

B) If you can’t set minimum or maximum shutter speeds, you may be better off using shutter priority (versus aperture priority, program, full auto, or what have you). If you’re controlling the shutter speed, you can make sure it’s fast enough to keep your dark indoor images from being blurred due to camera shake or movement of your subject. Also, you can make sure it’s not so fast that it forces the camera to choose higher than necessary ISOs when there’s plenty of light (e.g., outdoors on a bright day). You have to be somewhat careful to change it from slower speeds to higher speeds when you step outdoors into bright conditions from a dark indoor situation. If your lens is able to constrict to small apertures–like f/16, f/22 or even smaller–you should be fine if you forget initially. If you don’t want the aperture to be so small (e.g., because you don’t want the depth of field to be large), make sure to increase the shutter speed in the new brighter scene as soon as you can.

The main reason to use auto ISO is to have your camera automatically use the lowest ISO possible given the prevailing light level so that image noise is kept to a minimum. Each camera comes with its own algorithm that decides what combination of aperture size, shutter speed, and ISO to use for any particular shot. If you shoot in full auto mode, the camera chooses some combination of all three parameters to get a good exposure. If you shoot aperture priority with auto ISO, you’ve taken away aperture size as a parameter and the camera will vary only shutter speed and ISO to get the correct exposure. If you shoot shutter priority with auto ISO, you’ve taken away shutter speed as a parameter and the camera will vary only aperture size and ISO to get the correct exposure.

What’s at issue here is what the camera decides to do with the 2-3 parameters it’s varying. In automatic mode, your camera is varying all 3 parameters and you’ve got little control over its decisions. Being able to specify a minimum and/or maximum shutter speed can give you *some* control, but not many cameras include this ability.

If you fix the aperture size (via aperture priority) at, say, f/4, the camera could decide to drop the ISO down to 100 and the shutter speed to 1/15 sec to get a proper exposure. It’s difficult to get a non-blurry image at 1/15 sec, especially if the subject is a person or animal which seldom stay perfectly still.

If you fix the shutter speed (via shutter priority) at, say, 1/125 sec, the camera could decide to set the aperture to f/8 and raise the ISO to 3200, even though the lens is capable of an aperture of f/2.8 or larger; this larger aperture could bring the ISO down to 400 or lower, which most photographers I know would prefer.

Unfortunately, most cameras don’t let you tweak their internal algorithms so that it makes its decisions directly in line with your preferences.

The reason I got excited about the 1D Mark IV’s ability to shoot auto ISO in manual mode is that you can fix *both* the aperture size and the shutter speed, and only allow the ISO to vary to obtain the correct exposure. I found two problems with it however. First, there’s the problem I mentioned where you can’t press the “*” button, which fixes the exposure, and then recompose the shot (something that Canon may be able to change in the firmware). The other potential problem is if it’s very bright outside, the camera may not be able to find a ISO low enough to get a proper exposure with your selected aperture + shutter settings, leading to a potentially badly over-exposed image.

Ultimately, the best way to make auto ISO work for you is test it with your own camera in different modes with different settings and see which combination gets closest to the way you want your camera to operate. You may find a combination that gets agreeably close to your preferences. Or you may–as many have–simply give up on auto ISO altogether!

If auto ISO is important to you, it would be best to test various cameras first–perhaps using some of the tips I’ve mentioned in this post–before you actually make your camera purchase.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

When I’m photographing a wedding, I’m using the equipment I own that gives me the best quality images–e.g., my Canon 1-series DSLR + an “L” zoom lens or my prime lenses. Same with my portrait sessions. (Clients like to see that you are using expensive camera equipment when they’re paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for your services; it probably shouldn’t be that way; but, believe me, it truly makes a difference to some clients.)

But prime lenses and the best quality zoom lenses cover limited focal lengths; there’s always a trade-off between optical image quality and the range of focal lengths a zoom lens covers. Normally a prime lens–which only covers one fixed focal length–provides the epitome of image quality but the least flexibility in terms of focal length range. And professional quality zoom lenses–like the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS–extend focal length flexibility with a slight, but usually acceptable, drop in image quality. However, any one of these high-quality professional zoom lenses necessarily leave out a large part of the focal length range photographers commonly like to cover–e.g., 24-300mm.

Whenever I am covering a wedding (or other event) or photographing a portrait session, fleeting moments appear in front of me that I may not be able to capture well with the focal length or lengths available to me with the lens currently on my camera, and there often isn’t time to change my lens before the moment has passed. Also, there is occasionally a need for some flash lighting that may or may not be available on my camera at that moment.

So, what do you do to insure that you are “ready for anything”?

First, I try to use a lens on my primary DSLR that can capture 80% or more of the types of images I’m trying to capture during any particular stretch of the session or event. A prime lens may suit this purpose (e.g., a large max aperture prime lens when low lighting is an issue), or a high-quality professional zoom lens might be the way to go.

What about those other 20% (or so) unexpected shots? I like to have a relatively small DSLR with a prime or zoom lens (the lens should be relatively small & light as well) on my hip, and this lens should cover a portion of the 24-300mm range not being covered by the lens on my primary camera.

Now, I’ve photographed many weddings and portrait sessions with two large DSLRs hanging on me (e.g., a 1-series and a 5D with grip) and trying to capture roughly equal numbers of photos with each camera. It’s a pain in the butt in many ways. Two large cameras weigh a lot and they can get tangled up–even when you start using some of these innovations now available to get one or both of the cameras off of your neck (I’ve experimented with some of them); also it’s amazing how easy the camera you’re not currently using can get bumped and the settings messed up such that its not available for that quick shot! The standard configuration here is having two cameras (with the same or similar crop factor), one with a 24-70mm lens and the other with a 70-200mm lens.

I have found that relying on one main camera + lens for 80% or more of your shots (during any particular stretch of an event or session) truly simplifies things and makes it easier to focus and enjoy doing the photography: less weight, less time switching back-and-forth between cameras. And if the second camera is one of the smaller, less expensive DSLRs, they come with a built-in flash just in case you need it; this is *much* more portable than having one of the professional DSLRs that require an attached flash unit.

I just photographed a fashion show this past weekend. My primary camera + lens was a Canon 1D with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, which covered more than 90% of the shots I wanted to get. However, at my side I had my good old Canon 20D with a 28mm f/1.8  lens to grab any wide angle shots that might appear before me on short notice. This combination worked great!

The actual combination of lenses you’ll want to use will depend on the event, and may even change during the course of a particular event–e.g., for a wedding, I normally use different lenses for the “getting ready” photos than I use for the ceremony photos. For outdoor portrait sessions, I’m finding that a 24-105 lens on a 1.3 crop factor Canon 1-series DSLR works well for more than 80% of the photos; match that with a telephoto zoom on a small DSLR (e.g., 100-300 mm) and you’ll also be able to zoom in for some close-up shots from a comfortable (for both you and the subject) distance.

So, if you photograph event and/or portrait sessions and you don’t want to buy or carry around two large and expensive DSLR cameras–or spend the time and experience the hassle of regularly switching back-and-forth between them–then consider buying and using one expensive “primary” camera and lens. Supplement it with a cheaper and smaller camera + lens “safety net” at your hip that can fill in all or part of the critical focal range you’ve necessarily had to leave out to maintain the single, high-quality camera and lens configuration, and you’ll be “ready for anything”…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.