Taking pictures at Concerts and Recitals

[alma_jimenez]

<p>Hello, I'm new to the DSLR world used to have point and shoot cameras but want to learn more. I currently have a Nikon D3200 which I learn something new everyday that I use it. I usually like to take pictures of nature, sunsets or my kids playing outside. My oldest child is in Jazz band at school and I've tried so many times to take pictures of him but they come out so dark. We are not allowed to use flash b/c it distracts the other kids so I was wondering if there are any tips for taking "good" pictures of him without having to use a flash. Any good lenses? He's a senior so I only have 2 more chances to take a decent picture of him when he's performing :(</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Alma</p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p>Any good lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its a matter of money, lowlight lenses can be a 200/2 or a 50/1.8<br>

Beside this more information are needed about the dark pictures. What lens, what ISO, what time and what aperture?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There's no reason for dark pictures at a recital. Blurry, perhaps, or too far away to see faces. If anything, faces are too bright against a dark background, and are washed out as a result. A wide-range consumer level zoom, with a maximum of 200 or 300 mm will provide reasonable detail from the audience. (Head and shoulders would require 600-700 mm).</p>

<p>Try using aperture priority, and an ISO of 1200 or greater. For non-critical pictures (and very few are critical), auto-ISO is a good choice too. The shutter speed should fall somewhere around the reciprocal of the focal length. For example, a 200 mm lens will usually give acceptable results at 1/200 second (shorter if you have image stabilization).</p>

<p>If exposures are wacky, use the camera in manual mode, at the widest aperture, and set the exposure for faces, using the spot meter mode. In my experience, this won't be necessary.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Can you post an example of your unsuccessful attempt? It will help to answer your question and offer better suggestions. </p>

[alma_jimenez]

<p>Sorry how do I add pictures?</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>The EXIF data shows that this is taken with a Samsung camera at ISO 800 and f5.9. Those two settings are never going to work if it's dark. You need to shoot as something like ISO 3200 and f2.8 for typical dark situations. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>From the data recorded in the image, you used Samsung P&S camera, 1/8 second at f/5.9, ISO 800. The focal length was 86.10 mm (483 mm FF equivalent).</p>

<p>1/8 second will usually result a lot of camera motion blur. It would be nice to use a wider aperture, but you're probably maxed out with this camera. ISO 800 is obviously not enough. You are at least two stops under exposed, so ISO 3200 would be more appropriate.</p>

<p>With a dark background and dark uniforms in the photo, automatic exposure will usually cause the faces to overexpose by 1/2 to 1 stop. To overcome that, you need to use the spot meter mode or set the exposure compensation accordingly.</p>

<p>An inexpensive zoom won't help you much with regard to f/stop, but the D3200 has ample high ISO capacity. A 200 mm lens will give you the FF equivalent of 300 mm on the D3200 (APS-C sensor). You would need a 300 mm lens to approximate what you get with your P&S camera. A "super zoom", Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 VR ($700) might be something to consider. It would do everything in one lens, well enough for family memories. You could save money with a similar lens by Sigma, but the build quality won't be nearly as good as the Nikon.</p>

<p>With VR (image stabilization), you could expect to get reasonably sharp pictures at 1/15 sec or even slower.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> A "super zoom", Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 VR ($700) might be something to consider. It would do everything in one lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a superzoom is a terrible choice for low-light indoor concert shooting because of the slow variable aperture. it also contradicts jeff's advice of a brighter lens. 1/15 shutter speed is only going to work for static shots, that's not nearly enough to freeze subject motion, even at a concert recital. (blur is clearly evident at 1/8 in your shot.) that $700 would be better spent on a faster lens. however, you're in a tough bind if you need a 300mm focal length AND 2.8, which is exotic prime lens territory. you could easily get an 85mm f/1.8 lens or a 17-50/2.8 sigma zoom for that price, but neither will give you enough reach. another option is a 70-200 or 80-200 2.8, but those are more than $700, and would also require some cropping. i'm sorry to tell you there is no perfect solution here unless you want to spend far more than the cost of your camera on a long/fast lens which you'll only use twice.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>These may be silly questions, but are you able to get closer to the stage than you are in the example, and are there any times in the performance when the lighting is better than this? The more light and the less distance you have to work with, the better. The D3200 is very good up to about 1600 ISO, pretty good at 3200 ISO, and really quite noisy when you get much above that. What lens(es) do you currently have for the Nikon?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Fast lenses are expensive, and fast, long lenses extremely expensive, not to mention heavy. I suggested a super-zoom as something appropriate for a casual photographer who wants photos of his kids in concert, around home and on vacations. At a typical concert I see at least half a dozen DSLRs with super-zooms (and many more iPhones).</p>

<p>Jazz concerts are not nearly as "physical" as rock concerts. People come to listen, not for lights and gymnastics. 1/15 would be on the slow side, but probably workable without camera shake. 1/60 would be more than adequate.</p>

<p>In a school concert, musicians are on a stage and the audience is floor level. The closer you are, the harder it is to see the players. In my "privileged" position, I usually shoot from a balcony about 80' away, or the back of the auditorium, but with a 680 mm (equivalent) lens (at 30 fps, 1/60 sec, f/2.8). Most parents shoot from the 10th row or further.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>At a typical concert I see at least half a dozen DSLRs with super-zooms </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />What you see has nothing to do with what works well. Results actually matter to many of us, far more than what other people may be using.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Alma,<br>

If you can get very close to the performers, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G would do quite well. This is an inexpensive but excellent lens. If you can't get so close, a Nikon 85mm f/1.8G or even something longer would be better.</p>

<p>I agree with Edward that low light+long distance requires expensive lenses, but I don't think a "superzoom" is a good idea. Since there are only two more of your son's performances that you could photograph, consider renting a lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Hi I'm not familiar with your camera, but from time to time I have to take pictures of musicians playing at our art gallery, at night with poor lighting. My camera is full frame FX so things will be slightly different in terms of lenses for your DX.</p>

<p>I manually set my ISO to 3200 (not auto) I usually use a 50 or 85 1.8G for a whole performance, i.e. no lens changing for the whole event - this gives a nice consistency to all the pictures. I set the camera to A (aperture) and occasionally switch between f2 and f4 depending on my subject, keep an eye on the speed, 1/60th is slow but works most times for me, if you are worried stay at f2. A bigger venue would mean that I'd have to use my 180 2.8.</p>

<p>I think there is a trick to this kind of work, in a word its: practice. Dream up situations that have the same kinds of problems that you can take your camera to any day of the week, you'll find that it doesn't take long to get the hang of it. </p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I suggested a super-zoom as something appropriate for a casual photographer who wants photos of his kids in concert, around home and on vacations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>but a 5.6 max aperture lens is <strong>not</strong> appropriate for indoor concerts in dim light. that was my entire point. it's also bad advice, considering you can get a 2.8 or 1.8 lens for less than the quoted price, which would make a huge difference for the OP. an 18-300 @300mm is not going to have stellar IQ btw, especially at max aperture. and, it's much easier to crop a properly-exposed picture (shooting with an 85, per se) than to try to correct a poorly exposed pic shot with a longer lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What you see has nothing to do with what works well. Results actually matter to many of us, far more than what other people may be using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly. im going to go out on a limb here and assume that the OP may want a lasting memory and maybe even prints of the concert. suggesting she can just buy a superzoom and shoot at 1/15 is not a recommendation i'd make, as is the justification that because some other punters might do it, it's appropriate for everyone. i shoot concerts all the time and only use 2.8 zooms or fast primes in no-flash venues, with a full-frame body. most other pro shooters i see out also use appropriate, non-consumer lenses. i dont really pay attention to what amateurs are using because that has no bearing on my results whatsoever. at a typical show, there may be dozens of iPhone shooters. when i see their shots on social media and compare to mine, it's generally not even close.<br>

<br>

for the OP, since buying a pro telephoto for two concerts may not be feasible, renting a lens for the last two concerts of your son's HS musical career is actually an inexpensive way to put yourself in a position to get better results. a 70-200 shot at 2.8 will give you three whole stops of light-gathering ability over f/8. you also get two whole stops of ISO with a D3200 at ISO 3200 over the P&S at ISO 800. that's five stops total, which should be enough to get a brighter picture with a faster shutter speed. i would go with at least 1/60 for a seated recital-type show, but even then, you can have hand movements which can result in blurred pics even if the face isn't blurry, depending on the instrument. <br>

<br>

FWIW, i dont just shoot rock or funk or hip-hop, i shoot jazz, sometimes classical, world music, etc. i dont really buy the argument that if its not a punk or metal show, you should treat live subjects as if they are static objects. i do agree photographers should select an appropriate shutter speed for the type of movement they might encounter, but with the caveat that too-slow shutter speeds are a leading cause of unsharp pictures. ultimately, it's all a balancing act as far as your main shooting parameters of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Two fast tele lenses that are what I'd call "affordable" would be a used 180mm f/2.8 AF-Nikkor or the Samyang 135mm f/2. The Samyang doesn't have autofocus, but is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used at f/2. The 180mm Nikkor is optically excellent too, but again I'm not sure it would autofocus with your D3200. However, manual focussing isn't that hard to do with a static subject. Either lens would allow handheld shooting given reasonable amateur theatre lighting, but a monopod or tripod would make getting sharp shots a lot easier.</p>

<p>As others have suggested, if you can get close enough then a cheap 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor would do the job just as well.</p>

<p>"Superzoom" refers to a lens with a wide focal-length range (say 28-300mm). These are invariably slow aperture lenses with inferior image quality, and that's not what's needed at all. The Samsung compact camera has that covered already.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Do not follow Rodeo Joe's recommendation of a 180 f/2.8 AF or the Samyang 135. First, the 180 will not autofocus on the D3200, so that either one would have to be focused manually. Second, your D3200 is difficult to focus manually. The viewfinder is not optimal for that at all.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Without breaking the bank, a good lens choice might be a Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens (AFS version, not the D version). I would also recommend using a tripod.</p>

<p>Shooting in low light can be tricky. I would suggest turning auto ISO on, shoot in M (manual) exposure mode. Set the aperture to f1.8 and the shutter speed to 1/30. Since the subjects are not moving, you should be able to get decent results with these setting if you are using a tripod.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I've shot many, many photos under these conditions. Since you say you only have two more events, there is no need to buy a lens. You can rent a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII for about $50 for the weekend if you are in a city large enough to have a professional camera store. If not, you can rent online and have it shipped. Even if you rent twice for the two events, you're getting the use of a $2500 lens for only $100 or so.<br /><br />You simply can't shoot something like this with a slower lens. And unless you're up on stage a 50 won't do you any good because you won't be close enough. You do need to be in the front row or better yet up at the edge of the stage to get anything decent. Talk to the band director and offer to make pictures available to other kids in the band if that's what it takes to get where you need to be.<br /><br />ISO needs to be manual at at least 1600 and probably 3200. White balance under stage lighting should generally be on tungsten but shoot raw so you can fix it later if need be. Exposure should be on manual. Keep your shutter speed at 1/250 or above if at all possible. You will most likely need to shoot wide open with the 2.8 lens so focus will be critical -- place the AF spot on your son's eyes since they eyes are what have to be in focus. <br /><br />Brace the camera against the stage or anything else you can to keep it steady. Not an easy place to use a tripod but use a monopod if you have one or buy one if you don't.<br /><br />Shoot lots of pictures and expect to throw away a lot in order to get a few good ones.<br /><br />See if you can shoot at rehearsals -- the band director is less likely to worry about where you are positioned. Might be able to get them to turn the lights up at rehearsal.</p>

[alma_jimenez]

<p>The light never changes at the concert. Since my son is the drummer I have to sit farther back to see him if I sit close to the stage he's all the way to the back. Here are the lenses I have for the D3200<br>

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED<br>

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED<br>

AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G</p>

<p>AF-S DX NIKKOR55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It sounds like you are pretty far away. Rent a 70-200/2.8 and a telextender.</p>

[pete_resetz]

<p> Try "SPOT METERING". (Page 60 in the user manual.) Also set the camera for "MANUAL EXPOSURE" which is easier to hold your exposer setting.(Page 57 in the user manual.) </p>

<p> If you rely on matrix metering in an auto mode, you will be letting the camera make the decision without taking the composition in consideration. Your son might be located in an area that is less light than the rest of the band. I use spot metering for about 30% of my shooting.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>How does spot metering solve the problems of a lens that is too slow and ISO that isn't high enough? And with static lighting, it's not hard to do some test shots to find the right exposure, metering mode isn't going to matter.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>What you see has nothing to do with what works well. Results actually matter to many of us, far more than what other people may be using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What people use is indicative of what meets their needs. I need something better because I'm paid to get results. That doesn't mean mom and pop are out of touch because they don't have thousands of dollars invested in equipment.</p>

<p>School concerts are not necessarily poorly lighted. I shoot enough school concerts to experience the gamut of working conditions. If the students can read their charts (music to the rest of the world), there's enough light to shoot.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>How does spot metering solve the problems of a lens that is too slow and ISO that isn't high enough? And with static lighting, it's not hard to do some test shots to find the right exposure, metering mode isn't going to matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even on a professional stage, there is usually a stop or two variation from point to point. Music auditoriums are usually light in color and well illuminated. The real problems comes with theatrical stages, which have dark curtains for sides and backdrops. Student musicians often wear band uniforms or formal wear, hence more black. Choirs often wear white robes - same problem in reverse. Matrix metering seldom works, leaving you with a choice of spot metering (faces) or trial and error (test shots). I usually do both - measure first then adjust, and mentally profile the stage. After a thousand or two concerts, there aren't many big surprises. An exposure of 1/60 at f/5.6, ISO 3200 would be typical for one of the darker venues, as in the OP's example.</p>

<p>How does metering help a slow lens? Let the ISO take up the slack. To heck with grain - this is not going in Architectural Digest. I'm fortunate that 25,600 is still very usable in an A7Rii. I hear Nikon is catching up (in vain hope the finish line doesn't move).</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>I would start by reading the camera manual, the section on "exposure compensation." By adding maybe +2 stops compensation you should be in the ball park on exposure. I would also go into the menu and set ISO to ISO 2000. If you are wanting to spend money, buy a used Nikon 85mm f1.8G from ebay, shoot it at f1.8 and ISO 2000. That will do what you want. Resell the lens on ebay when your kid graduates and you will likely get back all your money.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>