Taking pictures at Concerts and Recitals

[glen_h]

<p>A VR lens gives 2 or 3 stops less of camera shake. Though a tripod might also do that.</p>

<p>With a slow shutter speed, you won't be able to freeze subject motion, but a little of that shows the action. Otherwise, you have to time the shot for minimal, but not too dull, subject motion.</p>

<p>In some cases, the drummer is waiting for the exact time to hit a note, still enough to get a good shot that looks like action. As above, use the highest ISO setting, even the ones that Nikon calls HI. (I have a D200, which goes to 1600, then up to HI+1 for effective 3200.) Yes, you will get some noise, but it shouldn't be too bad.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>This is a setup shot from a recent recital. The venue looks bright, but was actually of the dimmer locations I've experienced. Illumination came from four chandeliers in the sanctuary and four small floods over the choir. </p>

<p>A7Rii + FE 70-200/4 G OSS, at 200 mm, 1/200, f/5.6, ISO 20,000<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18221782-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> 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. <br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>you keep insisting 5.6 is optimal; it's not in this situation, where you're focusing on just one musician in dim conditions. you dont need deep depth of field here, just a lens which is fast and sharp at open apertures. 2.8 or 3.5 and 1/125 should produce acceptable results. i also wouldnt go higher than ISO 3200 on a d3200, unless you want to spend a lot of time removing noise in post.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To heck with grain - this is not going in Architectural Digest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>quite possibly one of the most bizarre p.net comments ever. edward, youve already recommended the OP buy a useless lens which wont solve her problem. now you say, cry havok, and let slip the dogs of noise. weird. your Sony camera's ISO performance is irrelevant because the OP has a Nikon D3200. Maybe the OP isn't shooting for a magazine. but she could still get a good shot with the right gear and settings. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>use the highest ISO setting, even the ones that Nikon calls HI. (I have a D200, which goes to 1600, then up to HI+1 for effective 3200.) Yes, you will get some noise, but it shouldn't be too bad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sorry, but i had a d80 which has the same sensor as the d200. its effective ISO limit was 1250. above that, the noise was pretty bad. no way would i do 3200 on a d200 unless i had no other choice. the d3200 is like two-three generations after that so it should be a little better. but "use the highest ISO setting" possible is also terrible advice.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>When I shoot stage performances, I use fast lenses (prime and/or zoom), high ISO, and a monopod.</p>

<p>Fast lenses that I may take include:<br>

500mm f/4<br>

80-200mm f/2.8<br>

180mm f/2.8<br>

135mm f/2<br>

85mm f/1.8<br>

50mm f/1.4<br>

35-70mm f/2.8<br>

35mm f/1.4<br>

28mm f/2<br>

24mm f/2</p>

<p>ISO may be as low as 800 or as high as 25,600.</p>

<p>Camera meter set to the spot metering pattern.</p>

<p>I usually rely on back-button focusing and/or manual focusing.</p>

<p>White balance usually set to tungsten or custom white balance.</p>

<p>I carry earplugs, a small flashlight, extra batteries, and extra memory cards.</p>

<p>If I am shooting with a noisy SLR, I also carry a small quiet mirrorless camera that I use during the quiet passages.</p>

<p>If video recording is allowed and/or requested, I also carry a tripod and a video camera to record while I am shooting stills.</p>

<p> </div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>why would anyone post an ISO 20,000 pic? of a static subject? how does that help the OP? </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"These may be silly questions, but are you able to get closer to the stage than you are in the example"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it's not a silly question and although alma has indicated that she sits toward the back in the hall to get a clean shot of her son <strong>during the performance</strong>, your question has a great deal of merit, especially if we addressing the issue from a different angle.</p>

<p>Firstly, alma could approach the band-master with a request to <strong>attend the rehearsal</strong>, whereat she might be able to come on stage for a few moments to get some good shots at closer range.</p>

<p>Secondly alma could investigate how she might attain access to the wings of the stage where she might be able to shoot for part of the performance.</p>

<p>In both situations the 35/1.8 lens that alma already owns, could work very well.</p>

<p>These ideas might fall short - but you don't know unless you ask - I have found with persistence and politeness (more politeness) it is quite easy to get access to rehearsals, even if it is only for a short period of time - and sometimes access to the wings of the stage, for the performance - a lot of this depends on who you know, certainly the fact that alma's son is leaving school with only two performances remaining would be one of her leverages, in the negotiation. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Lenses such as 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are relatively affordable and effective in obtaining good results in low light concerts, with some care taken in focusing (you may need to take a few shots to get some which are perfectly in focus, depending on the conditions and how the subject is lit). Getting closer (when possible) is very helpful. Using the correct exposure in the camera (watch the RGB histogram) helps in minimizing the noise in the resulting pictures, as well as reducing the work required in post-processing. Attending the rehearsal as suggested is a great idea as you can get some practice shots and experience with the conditions and may be more free to stand in a good spot.</p>

<p>Using a long lens from a further distance can result in cluttered shots (unless you have a really large aperture on the lens) but if an elevated vantage point (such as from a balcony) can be used then this problem is reduced, but whether the angle looks good in pictures is another matter. It is worth a try.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Alma - the example you provided is from your Samsung point and shoot, right? Have you tried any of your current DSLR/lens combos? I think everyone means well, but you don't necessarily need a f/2.8 telephoto to get some nice photos. Maybe you will want to go to that price/quality/size level, but I recommend trying your current gear and see how you like the results. The 55-300 is not optimal for low light, but your D3200 may be able to compensate with high ISO settings. It may be a little noisy, but could be good enough? Your 55-300 has VR which helps using slower shutter speeds. You will potentially get more motion blur with slow shutter speeds, but take a bunch of shots and work on timing your shots when your child is still. Also, the 35mm f/1.8 will work well if you can get in close enough. It would be great if you could take some time to read about basic exposure settings like shutter speed and aperture and do some practice in similar dark conditions. Good luck! </p>

<p>[soapbox comment: It is amazing how quickly a beginner's question can turn in to a pi**ing match about who's advice is best. Gotta be confusing for a beginner OP to make sense of the gearhead arguments.]</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If by nature of being the drummer your son is at the back of the group, then you probably do need to be elevated to be able to see him during a concert. Is there a balcony, or maybe a lighting/projection booth? Of course that means you need an even longer lens, which brings its own complications. Your best bet is sounding more and more like shooting during a rehearsal.<br /><br />As for exposure, if you shoot manual there is no need for spot metering or exposure compensation. You just make a few shots and check them until you've got the exposure where you want it, then start shooting for real.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Thank you again for your thoughtful insights, Eric. </p>

<p>I'm not saying f/5.6 is ideal, I'm saying it can work if there's no reasonable alternative.</p>

<p>I used a shot of a static object (a piano) to illustrate you can get sharp, well-exposed images in low light levels at reasonable ISO (equivalent to 1/25@f/5.6 at ISO 3200). A piano is a large instrument, so this image also shows that a 200 mm lens is not particularly tight at a distance of about 80 feet. This should put to rest the effectiveness of an 85/1.8 lens (or shorter) for someone sitting in the audience far enough back to see the entire stage.</p>

<p>It should also be clear to anyone with real world experience that people would be exposed correctly in this evenly lighted, neutral setting (they were). I used the piano because instruments have no expectation of privacy. It is also clear that the grain at ISO 20,000 may be acceptable if you don't have to crop much (someone suggested a 35/1.4 lens. Egad!). I don't know what the D3200 looks like at ISO 3200. That's about the usable limit for my D3. Sensors have come a long way since then.</p>

<p>Most venues have better lighting. In a recent concert, I used a 50/2 lens at 1/40, f/2.8 and ISO 160 for black robes against a dark curtain. That covered the entire choir of 80+ members from 35' behind the conductor. At Orchestra Hall in Chicago, a 28 mm lens will just cover the entire stage and choir loft from the center (tech) box (50'). I'll probably use 25 mm this weekend, just to be safe. For those unfamiliar with this Chicago landmark, the semi-circular balconies are stacked three high, close to the stage, much like European concert halls. I need at least 400 mm to select individuals, 600 mm for closeups.</p>

<p>Wouter raises a good point about accommodating parent photographers. Rehearsals during the school day are dicey, depending on school security regulations. Secondly, directors are under a lot of pressure leading up to the concert, and don't appreciate people walking around on the stage (band rooms are often too tight to allow any movement). What I suggest is asking the band director to allow time immediately AFTER the concert for a photo shoot.</p>

<p>The downside of a photo shoot is that most schools have several jazz ensembles. When one group finishes, they leave the stage and often leave for home, along with their parents. By the time the last group plays, the auditorium looks like Congress in recess. In any case, the people and setup are lost between sets. The safest way to get pictures is during the concert.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>It can be difficult to determine exposure from test shots if the faces are very small in the frame against a dark background. It helps to use the histogram, but that doesn't work in real time either, and is not very sensitive to highlights if they are only a tiny fraction of the image. If available, a Zebra function is effective (but somewhat distracting). I set it to 70%, and adjust until only the highlights on the face or hands are affected.</p>

<p>The Sony A7 makes this easy. Zebra is functional in the focus magnification mode (the pattern itself is not magnified). When reviewing test shots in detail, the histogram applies only to the magnified field of view.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Since there are only two more of your son's performances that you could photograph, consider renting a lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO the OP's current equipment is nowhere close to ideal for getting good results from low-light, indoor concerts. Unless there is a large budget to buy a D750 and something like a 70-200mm/f2.8, since we are talking about only two more performances and therefore only two more opportunities to get some memorable images, why not just rent the right equipment for those two days, perhaps plus a couple of extra days beforehand to get familiar with the rental equipment?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<ol>

<li>Upgrading equipment would not be wasted on only two concerts. There is life after graduation and school concerts. There are also younger siblings (q.v., "oldest" child) entering school, possibly playing instruments.<br /><br /></li>

<li>If you don't know how to get the best results from equipment you already own, the chances of success using unfamiliar equipment rented for that special event are slim.<br /><br /></li>

<li>There are probably more concerts in the same venue and lighting than jazz, remaining in the school year, on which to practice. The school undoubtedly has an events calendar on line, which is more reliable than your student's memory.</li>

</ol>

<p>From my typical vantage point, I see the glowing screens of countless DSLRs, P&S cameras, iPhones and iPads. In general, the results look pretty good, all things considered. I have never seen parents with a 500/4 DSLR lens the size and aspect of a Karl Gustav. This is not so much a technical problem, but one of technique.</p>

[j_yee]

<p>My son was in concert band all his years in high school. I found that using a digital camera to capture from afar had mixed results. I actually had more success using a video camera to record the event. It seem to be more forgiving of the light conditions and the zooms are quite amazing. So, maybe record instead of shooting. You get sound and video :). Last resort is human intervention. Jazz they usually dim the lights for atmosphere, just ask if they can "lighten" up the stage for all the loving watchers. Teachers usually can have their ears bent :).</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>As I said in an earlier post I'm not familiar with the D3200 but this thread made me go back through my pictures of performances taken with a succession of digital cameras most of which had notoriously worse low light capabilities and resolution than yours and yet I regularly got some pretty acceptable results.</p>

<p>Someone who has a D3200 may be able to point you in the right direction more than me but I'm suspecting that this camera is primarily designed to be used for taking high resolution jpegs set on auto everything and if it automatically makes everything too dark (or too light) use the exposure compensation button to dial in the look that you are happiest with.</p>

<p>If your lens isn't really long enough to get the picture you want 24MP should be plenty big enough for you to crop later.</p>

[j_yee]

<p>I also should add my vote to earlier responses that suggested taking the photos before the performance begins or during rehearsal or like when the band members first show up and are setting up. You just want a good picture of your child in the band surrounding. So, it can be "posed" with the people and instruments around. Using a DSLR, I have just walked up to the band members as they have been setting up and sitting and made the shot. Not all of them are there yet and others are milling around. So, I just walk in among them, get my son and some of his other performers seated around him.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I hate to sound elitist or indifferent to money (of which I have none), but, if you could possibly spring for a full-frame body and a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, you are going to open up all kinds of possibilities. If, on top of that, you could manage a 24-70mm f/2.8, you could probably be ready for most things that are likely to come your way.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/10937599&size=lg"><em><strong>HERE</strong></em></a> is one that I took at 90mm a few years back. I had plenty in reserve had I wanted to bring in one particular person. I didn't need the extra exposure bias or the high ISO in order to get it bright enough. It was a well-lit stage, but it is always nice to be able to be able to turn up the ISO--and full-frame is excellent for that contingency. (This one is over-exposed, of course--I won't blame the gear for that.)</p>

<p>As much as people like to say that it isn't about the gear, though, well, sometimes it is. One good camera and one or two good lenses can make life a lot easier--and make for a much higher "keeper ratio."</p>

<p><a href="/photo/10943590&size=lg"><em><strong>HERE</strong></em></a> is a close-up from the same concert.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Just to illustrate old digital 10MP camera ISO 640, f 4.8 manual focus 1/30 s</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/545747_361285743916223_497487088_n.jpg?oh=a9b752ca853523e3ae02c14377188f91&oe=57A4EBE5" alt="" width="850" height="572" /></p>

<p>contemporary camera 32MP but with an ordinary zoom 24-85/ 3.5-4.5 @ ISO3200 f5.6 1/200s -2ev </p>

<p><img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1385349_948571551854303_1104973578541092669_n.jpg?oh=d668345ad1fab968eb5b0e710b789864&oe=57C0408D&__gda__=1472136388_dfc951a96105a4ed10bb84bc3897a4dd" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

<p>first pic 2012 second pic 2015</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Those are great exposures, Clive.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Thanks Lannie</p>