Concert Focusing Technique

<p>Could someone please critique this? I'm having issues with focusing. The data is F3.2; 1/200; 3200 ISO. I was using continuous focus, and I don't think it's a sharp as it should be. Is it sharp considering the low light environment/movement? I have some specific questions:<br /><br />1) When using continuous auto focus and choosing your points manually, what do you do if you need to recompose the shot, and it falls "outside" of the autofocus points or in between them?<br />2) I was trying to focus on the eyes. Is it okay to just set the continuous autofocus on the chest since they would be on roughly the same plane? How about choosing the center of the face?<br />3) Sometimes it's hard to tell if a shot is in focus for me with high iso. Is it grain or focus?<br />4) For best focus technique, should you just choose the autofocus point manually and then "stick" with it with recomposing? Would it be best to just plop the ol' focus point on the eyes and then readjust zoom or move around? That seems difficult in these situations.<br /><br />THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! I'm such a frustrated noob. Here is the link:<br /><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/14855047@N00/14387869073/lightbox/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/14855047@ ... /lightbox/</a></p>

<p>You don't say what camera you are using. This is important because if your camera allows moving focus off the shutter button to one of the buttons on the back, you have a far better chance of hitting focus. The trick here is to use continuous focus with the rear AF button. You can track your subject and let up when you are ready to shoot. It is surprising how much simpler it works. Also, you get the equivalent of single shot focus by just tapping that button rather than holding it down.</p>

<p>That said, your photo is fine given the circumstances. The majority of concert photos aren't going to be ultra-sharp unless you are using flash. If you can use flash, it's worth learning how to use it in these situattions.</p>

<p>I usually shoot with the center focus point only. </p>

<p>It looks sharp. A crop at 100% would provide a better sample to investigate better.</p>

<p>At 1/200s we could guess that there could be a bit of Subject Movement in the Subject’s head. Depending upon the physical enthusiasm of the artist/ actor/ musician and assuming ‘moderately active stage movements’ then around 1/320s to 1/400s would be a safer bet to arrest mostly all of the Subject Movement for a Full Length Shot; but 1/320s still might not arrest the movement hands (for example) of a guitarist who is playing very quickly; but also consider that capturing some hand movement might add to the impact of the photo.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, I too use cameras that have a back focus button and I would indeed ‘tap’ back button if I were using Continuous Focus for that shot. I too, usually always use the centre point AF.</p>

<p>For the particular shot in question: it appears to me that the bass guitarist is reasonable static, I mean he is not ‘running about the stage’, I probably would have used centre point focus, single shot focus and used the line of the sleeve of the dark shirt and his (right) arm to attain Focus.</p>

<p>BUT - that is a ¾ Shot and using F/3.2 there would be about 12 inches DoF for a FF camera, more for APS-C format. I would not usually have made the shot like you did: for the stage work that I shoot in Available Light, I like to use F/3.5 if I can and make the shot a bit broader than what you framed. That is to say I make a <strong>Full Length Shot</strong> if I can. That means I know that I have about 24 inches DoF (using 5D Series cameras – i.e. “full Frame”) and I can crop that to a ¾ Shot in Post Production if I want to. What I am saying is I rarely frame a ¾ Shot when shooting stage work <strong>in available light</strong> as doing so is counter-productive to my overall technique because it is neither a tight shot nor a broad shot and a three quarter shot looses the all the DoF advantage of making a slightly broader shot and cropping a bit later if warranted.</p>

<p>I suggest that you definitely do NOT achieve focus and then ZOOM the lens: that is poor technique, because for (mostly all?) zoom lenses, you will lose the plane of sharp focus. The term ‘Parfocal’ is used to describe Zoom Lenses which do keep the plane of sharp focus whilst zooming; these lenses are usually expensive and most in that class are cinematography zoom lenses.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A crop at 100% would provide a better sample to investigate better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Click on the link, then click on the arrows in the upper right corner, then click on "..." and "Download All Sizes", then select "View all sizes", then select "Original size".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You don't say what camera you are using. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This info is also in the photo metadata. Camera is 5dMkII with 70-200/2.8 lens @155mm, f/3.2, 1/200.</p>

<p>Personally, I would have used a lower ISO, faster aperture, and manual focusing. I might even have gone with a faster prime lens than the zoom, but there are few faster options in this focal range (135/2 comes to mind). With the image noise and low light I cannot tell how much you missed focus - looks fairly close though. Not a bad result. Feels like a crop though, based on noise, or maybe the 5DMkII is noisier than I expect.</p>

<p>Thank you for the download instructions.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Looking at the original, it seems to me that you did nail the focus at or about the eyes – for example the fabric seam in the tee-shirt is very sharp and that area is about the same plane as the front of the face. But the Face is soft and I believe that is due to SUBJECT MOTION as there is a trailing edge blur on the ball of the earring and the earring in the Subject’s Right Ear, which leads me to believe that his head is turning from (his) right to left and at 1/200s you have captured that blur. As previously mentioned using Flash could have arrested that motion enough to render the face sharper.</p>

<p>The 5DMkII has Back Button Focus functionality.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I would have used a lower ISO, faster aperture, and manual focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

How often do you shoot concerts in low light? I do about 50 shoots a year and manual focusing won't work in 80% of them. People move and the light is very low. I used to shoot them with film cameras with manual focusing and the hit rate was extremely low. Your portfolio doesn't show any concert shots, maybe you can post a few examples of moving performers in very low light that you've done with manual focusing.</p>

<p>Oh!<br /> At first I didn't notice the advice to use Manual Focusing. I would not advise that. I use a 5D and a 5D MkII and shoot Theatre and other Stage Productions, mostly all of which I cannot use flash and I never use Manual Focusing. I cannot understand that there would be any advantage using Manual Focusing: not even using the manual focusing screen that can be bought as an accessory for the 5DMkII.</p>

<p>BTW, the reason that I mentioned that I might use the line that is made by the tee-short sleeve on the Subject’s arm as the Auto-focus point, is that the Canon AF System works on contrasts - and that line on his arm is a very good “contrast” that the AF would lock onto quite easily and quickly - and this is especially important when working in low level available light.</p>

<p>I also used to use film and manual focus lenses to shoot Theatre, Stage Prodcutions, Catwalk/fashion etc - in that case we often shot very broad shots and cropped later: BUT - <em><strong>more often we pre-focused</strong> <strong>at the Actors’ ‘Place Points’</strong> </em>or used Zone Focusing, to ensure a very good hit rate.</p>

<p>Pre-focussing can be easy for Theatre productions and I still use that technique now - but pre-focussing would be more difficult for Concerts as the players/musicians are less often or not ever, choreographed.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>At first I didn't notice the advice to use Manual Focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was not an advice, it was simply a statement of what I would have done in that situation (note that it started with "<em>Personally, ...</em>" and not with "<em>You should...</em>"). I prefer to fiddle with the focus directly than to fiddle with the AF points, so I can't offer much advice on autofocus.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How often do you shoot concerts in low light? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I photograph my daughter in all kinds of available light. Believe me, I'd take entertainers on the stage over that challenge any day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your portfolio doesn't show any concert shots, maybe you can post a few examples of moving performers in very low light that you've done with manual focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a link to my flickr account in my profile. If you would follow that link, you would find various examples of manual focusing in low light. I have some concert shots <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/sets/72157628011369452/">here</a>, but they were taken in different conditions - outdoors at dusk, no special lights, and also using a camera that was mediocre for low light work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I photograph my daughter in all kinds of available light. Believe me, I'd take entertainers on the stage over that challenge any day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's irrelevant. If you are going to talk about how to shoot low light concerts, try it before offering experience. Having photographed them for years, it's obvious there are very different challenges. I used to photograph my son in low low but I've never seen any relationship to my concert photography. Try it first, then comment.</p>

<p>Jeff, it doesn't matter whether I ever shot a low light concert (even though I did). If I would try it for the first time, I'd still use the technique I worked with all my life and that I am comfortable with - manual focusing. I wouldn't just switch to autofocus in a situation where autofocus is not reliable and try to work it out on the spot. That would just be stupid.</p>

<p>Now I wouldn't have commented anything at all, but you couldn't work out how to see the EXIF data for Bagley's shot and I provided you with that info. And then I just expressed my preference FWIW - what is there to discuss about that? Do you think you'll change my preference by talking about your experience? Jeez!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bagley, a specific comment on the Auto Focus of the 5DMkII.</p>

<p>As previously mentioned, I use a 5D and a 5D MkII – (and also some other Canon APS-C DSLRs) and I do a reasonable amount of low light available light shooting. I do NOT find that the Auto Focus of the 5D and especially the 5DMkII is unreliable.</p>

<p>More importantly, I think that you should NOT take away from this thread the view that when shooting in low level available light that the EOS 5DMkII’s Autofocus System is unreliable.</p>

<p>I think that it is very important to understand the LIMITS of the gear that one uses, and also understand the LIMITS of the shot that is being attempted. I am an advocate of understanding LIMITS – including one’s own limits – and that should be obvious in the manner in which I have addressed my responses to your question: for example I referred to the shutter speed used and immediately knew that was too slow for a “limit” to usually arrest Subject Movement and subsequently reviewing the large file I am very certain that the Subject’s head was in fact moving. . .</p>

<p>So back to the Auto Focus System on your EOS 5DMkII – you have a very, VERY good camera and it would bode well to understand how the AF actually works and how to make the best use of that AF System in all the shooting scenarios that you come across.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, the AF likes to ‘latch onto’ CONTRASTS – and that is why I mentioned I would have attained AF on the RH shirt sleeve because that is a very nice HARD line of CONTRAST, even in very low light that the AF will nail really easily and quickly.</p>

<p>Also you’ll note that there are more than one reference to using ONLY Centre Point Auto Focus: my main reason for adopting that practice is twofold:<br /> Firstly, the centre point on most cameras is the most accurate<br /> Secondly, it is easier and more importantly QUICKER for my fingers and thumb to Focus and Recompose than to play with AF Point Selection.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I would try it for the first time, I'd still use the technique I worked with all my life and that I am comfortable with - manual focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> This has no relationship to what works in this situation. Your comfort level shooting other things is irrelevant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't just switch to autofocus in a situation where autofocus is not reliable</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Autofocus is extremely reliable in these circumstances if one sets it up properly. I shoot alongside pros all the time, I shoot for magazines sometimes, and I've never met anyone who thought autofocus in this situation was unreliable. Someone who has never shot this way and thinks a technique is unreliable, well there's the internet for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think you'll change my preference by talking about your experience?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />As an experienced professional who shoots this way every week of the year, I find it odd that you are excited to ignore my experience. I always listen to people who have experience where I don't, I find it shortens the learning curve.</p>

<p>Thanks William! That's very helpful. Now I'm going to run away from the manual/autofocus wars LOL.</p>