Why would a macro photo be shot at 1/3200s, f/4, ISO 200?
Asked 10/5/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I saw a macro photo with these settings: 105mm, 1/3200 sec, f/4, ISO 200. Why would such a fast shutter speed be used for a macro shot? Was it likely just bright outdoor light, or would flash require that too? Also, at macro distances does f/4 create very shallow depth of field, and would stopping down to f/8 change the look significantly? The photo has blurred areas—are they more likely from shallow depth of field or from editing?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
20
Here's a really good case for the application of Okham's Razor.
The simplest explanation is that the image was shot outdoors, under the midday sun. The blur was not added in post but is the result of the close shooting distance and relatively wide aperture of f/4. The fast shutter speed was required otherwise the shot would have been overexposed due to the bright conditions and bright aperture.
The Sunny 16 Rule states that on a sunny day you should get reasonably exposures at f/16 and shutter speed 1/ISO. This ISO speed here was 200, so that f/16 and 1/200s. Now this was shot at f/4 which is four stops wider, so to compensate we double the shutter speed four times, so sunny 16 predicts a shutter speed of 1/3200s, which is exactly the shutter speed used!
Let's rule out the other options.
The high shutter speed could have been selected to freeze subject motion. However, I have shot racing cars at less than 1/3200s, the shoe must have been going extremely quickly, which would have made framing the shot and focussing very difficult. And shoes don't tend to move on their own.
The high shutter speed could have been necessary to prevent camera motion. This is slightly more plausible but still highly unlikely, given the moderate 105mm focal length. The standard rule suggests you could shoot at 1/100s, with high resolution sensors I would double that to 1/200s. Still much less than 1/3200s. Also there have been other 105mm lenses however the most plausible candidate is the Nikon 105mm micro, which is a VR (vibration reduction) lens which is Nikon's optical stabilisation. Rather than upping the shutter speed the operator could have activated this function.
A flashgun could have been used, but with a standard focal plane shutter you have to fire the flash when the shutter is fully open. Above the "sync speed", around 1/250s the shutter starts closing from the bottom before it is fully open at the top causing dark bands to appear. At the given shutter speed the photographer would have had to have used an exotic in lens leaf shutter, an electronic shutter (only available in certain compacts or older DSLRs with CCD sensors), or they would have to have timed an extremely bright pulse before the shutter to make use of the relatively slow tail off. All of these schemes have major hurdles to overcome for some particularly marginal gain.
Flash is commonly used for high speed photography, but in conjunction with relatively slow shutter speeds. By overpowering the ambient light you can leave the shutter open, and the short flash pulse freezes the action.
But as this is most likely a completely static scene, the high shutter speed is an example of a setting with no creative impact in this particular shot, which is set (most likely automatically by the camera) in order to balance the exposure equation.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The most likely explanation is simply bright daylight plus a wide aperture. Using the Sunny 16 rule, ISO 200 in midday sun is about 1/200s at f/16. Opening from f/16 to f/4 is 4 stops wider, so the shutter must speed up 4 stops to about 1/3200s. That matches the settings exactly.
Macro does not inherently require a very fast shutter speed. It also does not always require flash. In fact, many camera/flash setups can’t use normal flash at 1/3200s unless using special modes like high-speed sync.
At macro distances, depth of field becomes very shallow, and f/4 will make it especially thin. So the blurred parts are very likely from shallow depth of field caused by close focus distance and the wide aperture, not necessarily from editing.
Could the shot have been taken at f/8 with a slower shutter? Yes—but it would not look the same. f/8 would increase depth of field, making more of the subject sharp and changing the image’s selective-focus look. The photographer may have chosen f/4 specifically for that aesthetic.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why does this flower photo show ghosting with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G?
Why did my moon photos look so different with nearly the same settings?
How can I shoot at f/1.8 in bright sunlight without overexposing?
Why are my Canon PowerShot G16 night shots soft at f/1.8, and how can I make the whole scene sharper?
Why can’t Auto ISO be applied after the photo is taken?