I went digging in Lightroom Classic because I wanted receipts, not vibes. Specifically: what ISO I used most when I was starting out, and what I use most now.

I did this because (myself included) beginners often start at super low ISOs and end up with blurry images. We get so focused on keeping ISO “clean” that we accidentally sacrifice the one thing that actually matters: a sharp photo.

Here’s the data point that made me laugh a little (in a kind way): in my first 11,026 images, I lived at ISO 100–400. That range showed up in 73% of those photos. I was basically trying to keep everything clean, bright, and “safe.”

And to be fair to Past Me: I was also shooting on an older camera (a Canon Rebel XSi). It topped out at ISO 1600 and it got noisy fast. So yes, I had a very practical reason for treating ISO like the enemy.

Fast forward to my most recent 27,946 images. ISO 100–400 still shows up a lot, but it’s not running the whole show anymore. In that newer set, 9,010 images were shot at ISO 100–400.

If you like numbers (I do), that’s the shift in plain English: early on, nearly three out of every four photos stayed in ISO 100–400. Now, it’s closer to one out of three. Same photographer. Same general taste. Different comfort level.

What changed (and why I’m okay with it)

Part of it is experience. Part of it is gear.

I shoot a Canon R5 now, and it handles higher ISO way better than my old Rebel ever could. And when I’m photographing performances or indoor sports, I don’t get to negotiate with the light. I need shutter speed. I need sharp faces. I need the moment.

Another thing that changed: editing tools got a lot better.

I use Topaz Photo AI’s denoiser, and it’s honestly amazing. It’s one of the reasons I’m more comfortable letting ISO climb when I need to. If you’re curious, here’s the link: Topaz Photo AI denoiser (what I use).

So I stopped treating ISO like a last resort.

Back then, I’d rather drag my shutter speed too low (hello, motion blur) or open my aperture wider than I really wanted than bump ISO. I was convinced higher ISO automatically meant “bad photo.”

Now I treat ISO like a tool. Not a moral failing.

Because here’s what I’ve learned the slow way: a sharp, well-timed photo at ISO 3200 beats a blurry photo at ISO 400 every single day. Noise is fixable. Missed focus and subject blur… not so much.

What I’m doing differently now

I still love ISO 100–400 when I can get it. Bright outdoor portraits, steady light, calm subjects, plenty of room to choose my settings? Yes please.

But I’m also quicker to raise ISO when the situation calls for it:

• Performances and indoor sports (where shutter speed is non-negotiable)
• Indoor events where the light is doing its own thing
• Overcast days when I want a faster shutter without sacrificing depth of field
• Any time I’m choosing between “grainy” and “gone”

If you’re new: here’s the practical takeaway

If you’re early in your photography journey and you’re clinging to ISO 100 like it’s a life raft, you’re not alone. I did it too.

Try this the next time you’re shooting in tricky light: pick the shutter speed you need first (to freeze motion), then pick the aperture you want (for the look), and let ISO be the thing that makes the exposure work.

Ask yourself:

Do you want a technically “clean” file… or do you want the photo you meant to take?

Want to do this with your own photos?

If you use Lightroom Classic, you can run the same little reality check I did. Filter by ISO ranges and see what you actually shoot at, not what you think you shoot at.

If you want, send me your numbers (even just rough ones) and tell me what you photograph most. I’ll help you interpret what it says about your shooting habits—and where you might make your life easier next time you’re behind the camera.