Frustrated by shutter speed & light

[bethtphotos]

<p>At a dance studio yesterday afternoon, pretty well lit room with overhead fluorescent lights, big open windows at one far wall (cloudy day) and white walls...shooting with a Pentax K10d, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm lens, shifting lens focus from Auto, Select, & Centered occasionally, but mostly in Auto as I wanted to capture the entire scene.<br>

I was trying to freeze the movement to get crisp shots but struggeled throughout the event with f stop vs. shutter speed. I had to go up to an ISO 1600 to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze movement, which seemed ridiculous given that I had so much light, but then my f stop would be so low that I couldn't get a photo with a total frame focus...meaning all objects in photo sharp. I danced around modes from Program to Shutter Priority to Manual but always had the same problem.<br>

I thought that the f/2.8 lens would help me in a low light situation, but perhaps it works against me in terms of motion. I definitely did not want blur in my photos, but wanted crisp, fully focused shots. <br>

Whats is my problem? Any and all constructive suggestions very much appreciated! </p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>Could you post some examples?</p>

[bethtphotos]

<p>Absolutely..</p>

[bethtphotos]

<p>Here is a photo...</p><div></div>

[bob_sunley]

<p>That room doesn't have a lot of light. The give away is the brightness of the back lit exit sign.</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>You need to use either bounced flash or find some way to really crank up the light.</p>

[bueh]

<p>f/4, 1/50 sec, ISO 1600. This is not really much light. You could have shot wide open to get a slightly better shutter speed. But for most indoor photography -- especially if you want to freeze motion -- a flash with bounce capabilities is the tool you need. It also looks more natural than that hard-to-correct greenish fluorescent light.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I think you're also struggling with sufficient depth-of-field; the sharpest-looking subject is probably the red-haired gentleman. So shooting at f/2.8 would only have made this situation worse. If it's permitted, I think flash is in order. Anyway I think this is a case where it seems relatively well-lit because its in a range where your eyes can adjust but in reality, there's not all that much light.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>"but then my f stop would be so low that I couldn't get a photo with a total frame focus...meaning all objects in photo sharp. I danced around modes from Program to Shutter Priority to Manual but always had the same problem."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There simply isn't enough light here to get everything in focus. To do that you'll need more depth of field, which means an f-stop of f/8 or f/11. This is where you would need a flash (or some other additional lighting).</p>

</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>To add to what has already been said, I don't think you chose the best focal length for indoor shooting. If you want to use a zoom, the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 would have been a better choice. Shooting at wider angles would increase the apparent DoF and reduce the aparent motion blur. Photographing dance I would imagine you need at least 1/300 to catch the dancers clearly (if it's not a fast dance). Adding some bounce flash to a fastish wide lens would make things even better.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I concur. Add light. Use flash.</p>

<p>With that low white ceiling, bounce flash would be successful. If you need to maneuver around a lot, point the flash straight up and use a bounce card rubber banded to the side of the flash. Given the close quarters shown in the photo, you might do well with bouncing the flash behind you.</p>

<p>It helps to think of faster lenses as giving you more options for planning a shot; they won't be an effective substitute for adding light to an interior shot. One off camera flash on a lightstand could resolve a lot of this. Given the small size of the room featured, it would probably be plausible to set it up off to the side on a shoot-through umbrella, and just leave it there for most of the shots. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Then you could use the fast lens for those moments when the subject was far away from the flash; and close down again when they got close. You can resolve this lighting problem with inexpensive equipment. It will still help a great deal that you have the fast lens; you won't have to make nearly as many adjustments to the lighting. In this case, probably none. But, it will help to get some installed.</p>

[jtk]

<p><a href="http://www.strobist.com">www.strobist.com</a> .... all the answers :-)</p>

<p>You might also consider Panasonic Lumix <a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=panasonic+3&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7HPID_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=10608514191044741132&ei=BiYkSrCCAqGwtgP89uWXBA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1#ps-sellers">http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=panasonic+3&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7HPID_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=10608514191044741132&ei=BiYkSrCCAqGwtgP89uWXBA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1#ps-sellers</a><br>

...faster lens, far more DOF. </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>While good for a digi-cam <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/">Panasonic Lumix LX-3</a> has a max focal length of only 60mm equiv and won't be as good as a K10D at high ISO. So the lens is shorter than her DA* 50-135 and offers no more speed (f/2.8 at 60mm equiv, faster only at wide angle). That and I'm also guessing that it's probably less responsive for shooting moving subjects.</p>

<p>In its defense though the extra DoF would help though, and it unlike most digicams it acutally has a hotshoe which could also be useful. It also provides even higher ISO modes (beyond K10D's max 1600) but with a big image quality penalty.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>She is packing $2000 in camera equipment. How about a little pop-up flash instead? </p>

<p>Try this: Rubber band an index card to the lens barrel so that the card blocks the direct flow of the flash to the subject. This will create bounce. Also, a piece of bent junk-mail shoved between the flash mount's overhang and the lens barrel will do. $1 solution. </p>

<p>Or, how about straight pop-up flash? At a distance of about 10 feet; the flash may be diffuse enough by itself. The pop-up flash is eschewed by some, but it's strong enough for some fill in modest situations. That would probably get you operational without any more equipment at all.</p>

[bethtphotos]

<p>I have a Pentax flash unit that rotates to bounce the light, but I was told specifically to not use any flash units...this was a sleep/movement modern dance activity & any flash would have been distracting.<br>

I want to understand clearly, so other than changing my camera to a digi-cam or using the bounce flash. <br>

Please help, I am confused by Miserere Mei's comment that a 16-50mm f/2.8 would have been a better choice of lens in this case. Had I chose this, I would have been limited to wide shots, and sacrificed close ups, but I also don't understand how this would have brought more of what I was shooting into focus. Am I wrong?<br>

I'm sad because I thought the room had adequate light...I've done concert photography in dark halls & gotten better DOF, but (aha! moment here) my subjects were standing just under a direct light (albeit colored).</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>The lighting isn't really all that good Beth.</p>

<p>What your eye sees as good lighting is often too bright or too dim for the camera to do what you want it to do.</p>

<p>As far as concerts, they have spotlights (as you noted) and if you simply expose for the highlights you will not actually need a very high ISO to get a nice aperture and shutter speed.</p>

<p>Miserere, was talking about the DOF of a wider lens is greater. So shooting at 16mm vs. 50mm and f/2.8 would give you more DOF.</p>

<p>One other thing...you were shooting into the light, definitely adding to some exposure challenges. It would have been better to have front or at least side lit your subjects, you probably lost a stop of shutter speed because of this.</p>

<p>All on all the only real option to get really clean shots would be to use strobes. A wireless kit would be ideal. Set up a few in the corners and bounce them off the ceiling (assuming it is somewhat low enough to do it). Supplement that with a little fill from a flash mounted on the camera (bouncing off ceiling MIGHT cause shadows under the eyes so a little fill will do wonders). The strobes will allow you to shoot at a more reasonable ISO, and also close the aperture a bit for more DOF. It's a win win. Cost wise, probably about $300-400 in additional gear which is less than another lens or camera, and will be useable for quite a bit of your photography.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Oh crap, just caught the line "no flash". So file that in the "if I could use a flash" section!</p>

<p>As far as the pocket cam. Other than increased DOF at a wider aperture, no benefit. Even the LX3 isn't as good as the K10D at high ISO and the lens is only 1 stop faster.</p>

<p> </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Point the flash and [TEST] at the person who told you "No flash," and make your pictures before they regain their composure.</p>

<p>Also, Beth, those subjects are backlit; requiring yet more light. Open windows in the background.</p>

[morgan lee]

<p>To really see the DOF Miserere and Justin were talking about with different lenses, I like to consult the DOF Master.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a></p>

<p>The main thing I did in rehearsals and low-light performance situations was set my camera in 'Burst' mode and, for every shot I wanted, I would hold the button down and take three in rapid succession. You are more likely to capture what you want in focus that way.</p>

<p> </p>

[janne_moren]

<p>The whole image is also a little tinted towards the green side from the overhead flourescents; I guess the auto white balance gets fooled by the warm light from the outside. You might want to try setting the white balance manually; that will bring up the skin tones much better.</p>

 

[s_brown2]

<p>Just to clarify the depth of field issue.... you will only get more depth of field with the 16-50mm f2.8 if you shoot from roughly the same distance (so that your subjects appear further away). If you use the 16-50mm and then walk closer so that your subjects appear the same size in your frame as they were before (when using the 50-135mm) then the depth of field will be the same and you will still have a problem.</p>

<p>The only way to get more depth of field is to either adjust the aperture, make your subjects appear smaller in your frame (eg. by backing up, or switching to a wider angle lens), or by changing your camera to a smaller format (smaller sensor size). Obviously changing the aperture is the preferable option, and as everyone has pointed out you will need more light in order to that without getting motion blur.</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Depth-of-field also becomes less of a problem with a single subject or subjects that are the same distance--so perhaps zoomed in shots of individuals may work better.</p>

[jtk]

<p>A DSLR probably has no advantage over a good digicam in that kind of situation...."noise" is typically of little concern to anybody but amateur photographers: If one is skilled photographically one can easily reduce or eliminate noise but one cannot as easily fake depth of field.</p>

<p>"Sharpness" may not be a DSLR advantage in this kind of situation as the Panasonic Lumix or Canon G10 or many others would be plenty sharp...in fact, excess "sharpness"and excess DOF is a common complaint about digicams.</p>

<p>The Panasonic Lumix I mentioned, like the Canon G10, might capture action better than a slower focusing, perhaps unreliably focusing DSLR zoom. </p>

<p>Leica M8 with 35mm or 40mm prime would manually focus faster, be far better in low light, and might inspire the photographer to do more photography (get intimate, zoom with feet etc) and worry less about technology. As a matter of fact, a rangefinder film camera, such as Voigtlander, would cost less than a good DSLR with any of the faster DSLR lenses...plenty of dance and performance work is still done with film.</p>

<p>DSLR with big zoom isn't the answer to everything.</p>

<p>Lighting technique might help: <a href="http://www.strobist.com">www.strobist.com</a> I recently sold a Norman 800ws strobe to a photographer who will add it to several other comparable strobes in order to softly (ceiling bounce + umbrellas) light stage/class situations like the one we're discussing.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>A DSLR probably has no advantage over a good digicam in that kind of situation...."noise" is typically of little concern to anybody but amateur photographers: If one is skilled photographically one can easily reduce or eliminate noise but one cannot as easily fake depth of field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure if this is the most ridiculous logic ever or not, but noise is important to anyone who is shooting color photography with a goal of printing, or even large high res digital display. Noise just doesn't look good in color photos, especially digital noise. If she is shooting black and white the noise pattern of Pentax is actually quite pleasing as I noted briefly in my blog <a href="http://mountainvisions.blogspot.com/2009/05/have-camera-will-time-travel.html">(here)</a> .</p>

<p>Reducing noise is problematic, and isn't lossless. If it wasn't than you could simply dial the K10D up to ISO 6400 or 12,500 (push process in RAW) and shoot away, that should solve all her problems with DOF and motion, but would lead to ridiculous color noise.</p>

<p>True you can't fake DOF, but you can't add detail that isn't there from shooting low res cameras at high ISO. It's a catch 22 with one problem not being vastly better than the other. Instead, why fake DOF when you can simply use the need to use a large aperture as a chance to isolate your subject? People do this all the time for artistic purposes, now you are forced to be artistic, go with it!</p>

<p>The bottom line is she needs more DOF, with less noise and without the ability to use artificial light. You can't have all 3 of these without changing a 4th element. Since there doesn't seem to be a 4th element (more natural lighting, or a magical camera LX3 and Leica range finder aside) she needs to adjust one of the variables she has control of. ISO, focal length and aperture.</p>

<p>To me the best advice would be to shoot with the window at her back, probably giving her 1 stop of additional light, while jacking the ISO up to 1600 and shooting with a wider angle lens. Or just isolate with the tele and shoot wide open.</p>