| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2006 01:26:46 PM · #1 |
Last night, I took my 300D to a musical performance to try and get some good shots. Didn't happen.
There was barely any significant lighting on the stage. I was shooting with ISO 3200 and a 4.0 aperture(lowest I could go, shutter was faster but I still had to underexpose) I hated shooting with 3200, pics are too noisy. But anything else was blurry blurry blurry. The performers were constantly moving fast and they only were up for 5-7 minutes. I was taking these for a local label and I know they are going to be dissapointed. If they continue with me, what tips should I use?
oh, of course I took a tripod but still blurry blurry.
and side-note question: is ISO 3200 damaging to your sensor?
thanks.
edit to say: Didn't use a flash, that wasn't an option, it was so dark in there the flash would have nearly blinded him!
Message edited by author 2006-09-01 13:30:36. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:32:50 PM · #2 |
| There's no substitute for fast glass in a situation like this. You'll find that even f/2.8 is not fast enough. An f/1.8 or faster prime is the way to go. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:36:15 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's no substitute for fast glass in a situation like this. You'll find that even f/2.8 is not fast enough. An f/1.8 or faster prime is the way to go. |
what kind if lens we talking about here for Canon kirbic ?
And thanks for the reply
Message edited by author 2006-09-01 13:36:35. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:40:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's no substitute for fast glass in a situation like this. You'll find that even f/2.8 is not fast enough. An f/1.8 or faster prime is the way to go. |
what kind if lens we talking about here for Canon kirbic ?
And thanks for the reply |
Probably something like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:40:52 PM · #5 |
I think 3200 is fine for your sensor - can't imagine a camera manufacturer putting an option in their camera that would damage it - not with all those lawyers lurking about
As for the client situation -
Don't go in there apologizing - you were obviously surprised by the lack of light. Go in there with the attitude "what can we do to fix this situation in the future".
The laws of physics are not in the habit of bending for any photog. If there's not enough light you shouldn't have to take the hit for it.
My point is - go in there as a team member to report your lack of photos, seeking to learn and do better as a team in the future. If you go in there like it's somehow YOUR fault - heads will roll - probably yours!
Message edited by author 2006-09-01 13:49:01.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:41:04 PM · #6 |
| You really need a faster lens. Whenever I've been in a low light condtion like that I've used my 85mm f/1.8 lens. That's the fastest one that I have & it's done great. I can usually get by with ISO 800 or once in a while ISO 1600. I don't know if the focal length of the 85mm is the one that you would've needed last night or not. It depends on how close/far away to the stage you were. You would want a wider fast lens if you were pretty close to the stage. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:47:01 PM · #7 |
Leave the tripod at home next time :-)
F2.8 is pretty necessary too. Sometimes I'll purposely underexpose concert shots so I can bump them up in Photoshop later and still not have a lot of grain..where as if you're using a really high ISO and still have dark shots then when you bump up levels/curves later it just enhances the noise. Know what I mean jelly bean? |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:49:08 PM · #8 |
I shot a piano recital with my 1.8. With the ISO up at 1600 (actually one stop beyond what I consider workable grain) I still couldn't get what I needed. To the human eye everything looked great - to the limited technology of a camera - no dice.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2006 01:52:25 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
I think 3200 is fine for your sensor - can't imagine a camera manufacturer putting an option in their camera that would damage it - not with all those lawyers lurking about
|
well :( ISO 3200 is not standard for the Canon 300D. I installed the custom firmware that gave me ISO 3200, mirror lock up and others...
The firmware isn't by Canon but by some "homebrew" coders
Message edited by author 2006-09-01 13:53:07. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 02:02:33 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jfriesen:
.......
and side-note question: is ISO 3200 damaging to your sensor?...... |
Definitely not :-) |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 02:02:56 PM · #11 |
While you may absolutely hate this suggestion...
Another thing you might want to consider is a camera body upgrade. The 30D, for instance, has lower noise at higher ISO settings then the 300D.
Even then, you will still have some noise and thus a copy of Neatimage would also likely be a good thing to pick up.
I wouldn't be overly concerned with getting pinsharp images in a concert situation. Without the proper lighting and lense, high ISO shots are most always going to eliminate the possibility of getting pin sharp shots.
If money is a huge factor, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lense (it's fairly inexpensive) could be a real help. The only problem then is how close you need to be to your subjects and even then, you have to be quick with the Autofocus and Shutter Release, otherwise you will find many blurred shots as your subject may have moved forward and or behind your point of focus.
I have been advised that concert photography is one of the toughest assignments a photographer can take.
Message edited by author 2006-09-01 14:04:39. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 02:07:21 PM · #12 |
Seems to me, and I could be wrong since I don't know any details, that if you're shooting these for a local label you may be able to arrange a private viewing with slightly more light than they normally use just so you can get nice pics for them. That way you can also get the performers to re-do a move if you didn't quite get it too.
Other than that I don't have much to addthen what others have mentioned. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 02:12:57 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
While you may absolutely hate this suggestion...
Another thing you might want to consider is a camera body upgrade. The 30D, for instance, has lower noise at higher ISO settings then the 300D.
Even then, you will still have some noise and thus a copy of Neatimage would also likely be a good thing to pick up.
I wouldn't be overly concerned with getting pinsharp images in a concert situation. Without the proper lighting and lense, high ISO shots are most always going to eliminate the possibility of getting pin sharp shots.
If money is a huge factor, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lense (it's fairly inexpensive) could be a real help. The only problem then is how close you need to be to your subjects and even then, you have to be quick with the Autofocus and Shutter Release, otherwise you will find many blurred shots as your subject may have moved forward and or behind your point of focus.
I have been advised that concert photography is one of the toughest assignments a photographer can take. |
Trust me, if I could afford the 30D, I would buy it, but that rig if off in the distance for now.
As for the lens, I'll look into it. |
|
|
|
09/01/2006 02:50:01 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Trust me, if I could afford the 30D, I would buy it |
Remember the old adage... It takes money to make money.
If you plan to continue on with this gig (and/or others like it), you may very well have to invest the money in the proper equipment to do the job. The lens is just part of the equation. A good body is another.
With that said, even though you've said the 30D is out of your price range, I would go so far as to recommend even the 5D because it handles low light situations even better than the 30D. Yes, it costs more. But if you're going to do the job, you might as well do it right. (I bought the 5D because of low light situations at Weddings)
|
|
|
|
09/01/2006 02:57:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Remember the old adage... It takes money to make money.
If you plan to continue on with this gig (and/or others like it), you may very well have to invest the money in the proper equipment to do the job. The lens is just part of the equation. A good body is another.
With that said, even though you've said the 30D is out of your price range, I would go so far as to recommend even the 5D because it handles low light situations even better than the 30D. Yes, it costs more. But if you're going to do the job, you might as well do it right. (I bought the 5D because of low light situations at Weddings) |
That's why I picked up my 30D.
I've been looking to get into shooting weddings and had a strong opportunity this month, with my stepsister deciding to have her wedding about 6 weeks before the date she chose...
Anyway, I picked up the camera so that I could use my 300D as a backup unit and also to help make certain to obtain good shots at higher ISO during the wedding.
Fortuntely, she got lucky and found a pro through a family friend who agreed to shoot the wedding. I still would have done it, even though she's just not the type to be happy with anything, regardless of who of what was done for her. It's better that some faimily friend is on the receiving end of her ire... |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 08:04:12 AM · #16 |
| as a sidenote, sometimes I take shots that I hate and think other people will definetly hate too but in the end they love them. There's no accounting for taste and everyone is different......maybe the label will like the stuff you've done already..they could think they're edgy and grainy on purpose :-) |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 08:12:29 AM · #17 |
If the pics are too noisy, perhaps you could convert them to black & white. Sometimes people actually like a bit of grain in B&W shots. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 08:53:55 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
If the pics are too noisy, perhaps you could convert them to black & white. Sometimes people actually like a bit of grain in B&W shots. Just a thought. |
When I was shooting the 300D, I used to desat and *add* noise. The 300D at 1600 ISO was *so* noisy that I felt that if I added noise, the people would at least think it was on purpose. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 09:37:04 AM · #19 |
I have had similar problems shooting my kids nativity plays in the past.
I have a Canon 50mm 1.8 and it handled the low light no problem, but it wasn't a successful shoot because I couldn't get close to the stage and so the stage is quite small in the frame.
The only answer is to get as long a lense as possible with as much speed as you can afford, but boy do some of them cost! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 06:07:24 AM EDT.
