Tony_Stark wrote in post #12499201
At at that aperture. His SS is already 1/10, and he's doing handheld, so ISO 800 would yield an even slower SS. Unless he want to stop down to f/2.8, but I really don't see the need as there is very little discernible noise.
Exactly. The point was that I was out all night in low-lit clubs, and I knew it was going to be tricky sticking to 800. I normally don't like going to 1600, so I made a decision to go with 1600 and see what I could make with it, as an exercise and learning experience.
(Of course, in situations that were well lit I didn't need to be at 1600, fairly obviously).
In this case, we'd come out of a club and packed up, but had a few minutes to hang around, so I got out the camera again. I know I can handle 1/10th hand held, any slower than that and I probably wouldn't have got the shot. Plus the motion blur on the pink lady (which I really like) would have been too much making her get lost almost completely - and it was her that was key to this shot for me...
And I didn't want to go to 2.8 here because I would have had too shallow a DOF and the image would have softened a bit.
So I'm confident in my reasons why I was at 1600, and am pleased with the pic I wouldn't have got otherwise, and how it cleaned up in post. And I'm much happier with a better idea of what ISO 1600 gives me in what situations, meaning I can hopefully make better educated choices in the future...