Red church walls & ISO

[dianna_boldrin]

<p><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=8425646" alt="" /><br>

Hi everyone,<br>

I was using my 18-50 and also my 70-200 in this one church. I bumped the ISO from 500 to 1000 ( & later 1250 &1600) and still got a lot of grain. <br>

Plus, whenever I try to lighten an image in editing (by adding in some fill-light or the exposure) it seems to bring out this orange-red cast. <br>

Any help would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Dianna</p><div></div>

[duy_nguyen5]

<p>To reduce grain, you can try using a lower ISO (like ISO 400), opening your aperture as wide as possible (e.g. f/1.8 or f/2.8) and use a slower shutter speed (as long as it's as close to your focal length as possible; for 70mm use 1/80). Lower ISO usually allows for less grain/noise. But in a low light situation, such as the church you may need to use higher ISO as a last resort.<br>

As for the orange-red cast, you can try changing the white balance in camera to either shady or tungsten. You can also try setting a custom white balance using an 18% gray card. If you want to fix the orange-red cast in editing try changing the hue to appear cooler (bluish).<br>

Hopes this helps,<br>

Duy</p>

[dianna_boldrin]

<p>Dear Duy,<br>

Thank you for the response. I started at ISO 400 and it was too dark, so I tried to increase it a bit. All the time having it wide open at 2.8, and 1/40th, but it still didn't look right.<br>

I'll work on my white balance, too. Thanks again for the tips.<br>

~Dianna</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Well, this is all after the fact, right? So changing white balance or ISO isn't going to work, because you have to deal with these images as they've already been shot.</p>

<p>If you are using Photoshop or Lightroom or such, and if you shot RAW, you can probably do a LOT with the red saturation and with noise reduction on import. If you only have JPEGs, you can still do some after-the-fact noise reduction, but it might be less effective.</p>

<p>You can change white balance with a raw file after the fact if you import it correctly, too. Look into that.</p>

<p>btw, on my screen, that red doesn't look so bad. I mean, they KNOW they were in a red room, right? So they are going to expect to see it in the photos.</p>

[dianna_boldrin]

<p>Thanks Peter, <br>

Yes, they all like that church, even the walls. LOL<br>

These images are from last yr, but I am shooting at the "Red" church again next month and really wanted to get better results. Usually with my 70-200 @2.8 works great, but I struggled a bit that time. Any suggestions with exposure setting then? (in Manual)<br>

The image on the left, really showed more orange when I tried to pull some more exposure in LR and also brought out the grain more, too. I did shoot Jpeg (don't hate me), but will def shoot both next time.</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I photograph my daughter's late afternoon/early evening piano recitals twice annually in a poorly lit church, and typically find myself at 1600 ISO and f/2.8-1.2 (I use a very fast prime lens). There is a green cast to most of my images, which is caused by a green-tinged west facing side window that provides most of the illumination, but because I (always) shoot in RAW, it's easy to correct the white balance/colour. So I'd recommend that henceforth you , too, shoot in RAW.</p>

<p>As for the noise you're experiencing, it might be the result of your camera's sensor, or of how well you're exposing your images. I use an Canon 5DII, which is very clean at higher ISOs, but it's still necessary to nail the exposure.</p>

<p>Good luck, Dianna!</p>

[dianna_boldrin]

<p>Thanks Mark! <br>

I love using my 50 f1.4 for low-light, but need the 70-200 to zoom closer for many of the church shots. I'll work more on my exposures and make sure I am shooting in Raw,too.</p>

<p>thanks so much, I really appreciate all the kind help on this forum.</p>

<p>~Dianna</p>

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>These images are from last yr,</em></strong> but I am shooting at the "Red" church again next month and really wanted to get better results. Usually with my 70-200 @2.8 works great, but I struggled a bit that time. <strong><em>Any suggestions with exposure</em></strong> setting then? (in Manual)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My best guesses are all, or most of the following points <strong>apply to the two sample images:</strong><br /> > used an AUTOMATIC CAMERA MODE<br /> > used EVALUATIVE METERING MODE and not correctly applying EXPOSURE COMPENSATION for correct exposure on the SKIN TONES and Bridal Gown and Groom’s Tux etc.<br /> > shot in AVAILABLE LIGHT ONLY<br /> > used MANUAL CAMERA MODE - and used EVALUATIVE METERING and 'centred' the meter's led pointer for the exposure of the shots</p>

<p><strong>The result of the above points will be that the images will be UNDEREXPOSED for SKIN TONES of the SUBJECTS.</strong></p>

<p><strong>UNDEREXPOSURE is a main cause of GRAIN. (NOISE).</strong></p>

<p>Note that there is only ⅓ Stop difference between the EXPOSURES of those two image sample: so changing the ISO for all practical purposes, made no change whatsoever.</p>

<p>Also UNDEREXPOSURE may cause problems or add a lot of processing time to attaining an adequate Colour Balance, in Post Processing. This is so for BOTH these situations:<br /> a) - attempting to remove a COLOUR CAST from reflected illumination (i.e. the light reflected from the red walls)<br /> and/or<br /> b) - attempting correct White Balance concerning the COLOUR TEMPERATURE of the Illumination on the Subject (i.e. the illumination from what appears to be a TUNGSTEN SPOT LIGHT)</p>

<p>*<br /> <br /> <strong>Commentary:</strong><br /> If one is shooting in AVAILABLE LIGHT and one is shooting INTO LIGHT SOURCES which are in shot (i.e. the bright light source top of sample one) then it is very important to ensure that the EXPOSURE for the SUBJECT SKIN TONE is correct (because the camera's TTL LIGHT METER can be fooled in that shooting scenario). If the exposure for the Skin Tone is correct, so will the EXPOSURE for the Bridal Gown and other dress, also be correct.</p>

<p>Evaluative Metering, combined with an Automatic Camera Mode left unchecked by correct use of Exposure Compensation, will result in the camera’s automated system biasing the exposure to, as much as possible ensuring that the bright light source does not blow out. The same applies to using Manual Camera Mode + Evaluative Metering and just 'centering' the camrea's TTL Metering readout and using that exposure.</p>

<p>A similar camera's TTL meter bias seems to apply in the second image, as the BACKGROUND is quite brightly <em>illuminated</em> when contrasted to the <em>illumination</em> on the Subjects.</p>

<p>Another matter for consideration is the ISO that is chosen must allow for an adequate shutter speed to arrest SUBJECT MOTION whilst taking into consideration the MAXIMUM APERTURE of the lens which is being used.</p>

<p>The next consideration is that for all practical purposes the output effective DYNAMIC RANGE of the camera is reduced as the ISO is increased, so in simple terms it is better to make the shot at the lowest ISO possible.</p>

<p>Changing the camera’s WHITE BALANCE will have little practical effect, save that it allows all the files which were shot in the <em>same</em> lighting conditions (technically known as the same LIGHTING SET), to be opened for file conversion at same White Balance point. This assumes that one is capturing in <em>raw</em> format. If you do choose to preset the White Balance, then a MANUAL PRESET in DEGREES KELVIN using a STANDARD PHOTOGRAPHIC GREY CARD (or professional White Balance card such as ‘WhiBal’) held in the exact location and aspect as the Subject to the Camera is a much better method than simply guessing to use one of the Camera’s Preset White Balance Modes.</p>

<p>I strongly suggest that you capture in <em>raw</em> files.</p>

<p>If you were indeed using FLASH, then there appears to be no evidence of the flash exposure effect in either of the sample images, in which case I conclude that the flash unit(s) was (were) placed beyond the distance limit of the EFFECTIVE RANGE of the flash -this distance is determined by the GUIDE NUMBER of the FLASH</p>

<p>All the key considerations which are outlined above must be taken into account for effective outputs when shooting Wedding Portraiture using only Available Light in lighting scenarios where there are:<br /> > Comparatively brightly illuminated backgrounds<br /> > Light sources in the shot<br /> > Backlit subjects</p>

<p><strong>Solutions:</strong><br /> There are several solutions. Two common solutions, but not all solutions, are:</p>

<p>> The first, and probably the most simple solution, is to correctly <strong>use FLASH AS FILL.</strong></p>

<p>> Another simple solution, using only available light, is to ensure that exposure is absolutely nailed correct for the SUBJECTS and then deal with any overexposure of the background, in post production. I usually use SPOT METERING of a known object in the illumination of the main shooting zone and then I compute the exposure manually to suit that meter reading.<br /> For one example only – I meter the Bride's face and then open up about 1⅓ Stops if that reference Spot Meter Reading was on <em>‘moderately suntanned caucasian skin’</em> <br /> <br /> <strong>Conclusion:</strong><br /> If the above is a correct interpretation of the situation (i.e. it is correct that the images are underexposed for skin tones and that you are shooting available light only) and if you pulled those two shots at around; F/2.8 @ 1/60s @ ISO1000, then that area of the Church, at that time, was actually quite dark (guessing around EV = 4~5),</p>

<p>So, for that shooting scenario you probably need to be prepared to bump to around ISO 8000 ~ ISO 16000 to ensure that you are in a safety range for the SHUTTER SPEED to arrest SUBJECT MOTION if you are using F/2.8 lenses.<br /> and /or<br /> You could consider faster lenses.</p>

<p>In either case you do need to have <strong>a procedure to make the correct exposure for the Subjects.</strong> My experience and the samples tell me, that the problem is simply that you made these images underexposed. I have seen this often.</p>

<p>So although above is an indicative regarding 'settings' that you will likely use for <strong>that particular sample shooting scenario</strong> (note that the LIGHTING <strong>might not be the same as a year ago, for the next shoot</strong>): the answer to your question cannot really be about suggestions for 'settings' using manual camera mode – but rather you need encouragement and advice for you <strong>to attain a correct procedures, protocols and techniques for identifying what is the correct exposure that is required for any particular shot. </strong>In this regard the nouns in CAPITALS are technical areas which you might research.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[dianna_boldrin]

<p>Thank you WW for the help and info. :)</p>