Taking pictures at a ball

[m._bingley]

<p>I tried taking pictures at a ball, and I found it challenging. The conditions are:</p>

<ol>

<li>Low light (low and constant -- this is not disco or club dancing where there may be spot lighting, but ballroom)</li>

<li>People constantly moving</li>

<li>No auto focus because the focusing lamp is too bright and distracting in a dark room where people are giving their all to the dance</li>

<li>Obviously, I can't interrupt ("Hey, can you guys just freeze right at this point?")</li>

</ol>

<p>I ended up using shutter priority (S = 125), but even with f/1.2 and the ISO all the way up, there is still some blur from motion. If I take a picture of the whole ballroom from the corner of the room, there is enough light. But if I get up close to individual dancers, there isn't. Also, since I have to manually focus, with a narrow plane of focus and constantly moving dancers, I don't get to choose my shots. I basically have to "pre-sight" (set the focus for a certain zone) and shoot when they come into the zone.<br /> Naturally, with the ISO so high, the noise is substantial. Often the pictures are dark so I have to do post-processing.<br /> Is there anything I can try to get better pictures (prior to post-processing)? I'm wondering whether I might just need to upgrade my Nikon D90 body.<br /> Thanks so much for your help!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you tried the same shoot with the same lens but with a current generation body (the D90 is getting very long in the tooth, especially in terms of shooting past ISO 400), you'd be shocked at the quality. Especially if you went with a larger (FX) sensor.</p>

[Ken Katz]

I have shot such events with both film and digital and usually used a flash aimed at the ceiling, along with a

reflector (Stofen, Lightsphere, or index card) to throw some of the flash directly towards the subject. The red patterned AF assist on my Canon Speedlights are far more effective than the white AF assist lights on the camera and much less intrusive. The result was generally pleasing and you can add varying amounts of ambient exposure into the

mix by adjusting the shutter speed. As described above, newer DSLRs have much better high ISO

performance than your D90 and likely better AF sensitivity.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Matt is correct that newer cameras have very good high ISO performance. 'Shocked' is pretty much a good way to describe it. ;-)</p>

<p>FWIW, I would never use flash at an event (ball, wedding, what have you). It's quite distracting and I prefer to keep the ambience. I'm not saying flash can't be used parsimoniously, but I personally would avoid it. YMMV.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>One is that you can time it for the parts where the motion is minimized. Many dance steps have some steps where they reverse direction, or otherwise slow down.</p>

<p>As above, flash is likely distracting, and a little hard from a distance. </p>

<p>I wonder if the AF will work with IR light. If so, you could use an IR heat lamp to help it, but not distract so much. (Unless it warms people up too much.) </p>

<p>Many cameras newer than the D90 are available for very reasonable prices on the used market. You might even find a D700 for a good price. </p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>In general, based on my own experience shooting dance (very long time ago using film camera's and manual focus) shooting moving subjects at 1/125th of a second does risk movement blur.<br>

That said, based on the same experience, and shooting catwalk using similar equipment and shooting technique, depending on the timing of the shot that risk/ nubmer of OoF shots can be limited (although with 1/125th you will inevitably end up with a number of them).<br>

If you shoot (ball room) dancers in the midst of a twirl or something similar, with only 1/125th you'll most likely get a OoF shot. But if you time your shot with the brief moment when dances 'freeze' after performing a 'figure' your chances for a sharp one will improve substantially.</p>

<p>Also, there are several details missing in your message; which could help to give more specific advice.<br>

- Is using flash allowed?<br>

If you could use flash your problem could obviously be solved easily (higher shutter speed - X synch for the D90 is 1/200th, more DoF by closing down the aperture, motion freeze thanks to short duration the flash)<br>

But from your description I get the impression you're not shooting people dancing just for fun, but rather for competition (<em>people are giving their all to the dance</em>) in which case flash would be just as distracting as the focusing light of the camera</p>

<p>-what lens are you using?<br>

Nikon only has two 1.2 lenses, a somewhat reasonable priced 1.2/50mm Ais manual focus lens, and the, also manual, very rare, and at around US3K -secondhand- very expensive 1.2 58mm Noct Nikkor</p>

<p>So an AF lens might be a better option<br>

A slow lens, like eg the 3.5-5.6/18-55mm or the 3.5-4.5/18/70 AF kitlenses, though will definitely be not up to the job under bad light<br>

But e.g. a 1.8/50mm AF might even under bad light be able to do a much better job with even an older body like the D90 (which according to some reviewers like DPReview has a usable high ISO up to ISO 3200).</p>

<p>That said, on certain Nikon speedlights, e.g. the SB800, you can turn of the flash while still using the so Wide-Area AF-Assist Illuminator<br>

Using that option, rather then the camera emitting a constant beam of light, the speedlight will, when the release button is pushed will, just before the picture is taken, give of a series of, in my experience for the human eye hardly visible flashes, with which the distance to the subject is measured.<br>

That info is instantly communicated to the camera.which will, when using an AF lens, make the lens focus at that distance (where hopefully your subject will still be) and allow a 'sharp' picture<br>

So the above combination (speedlight with flash turned of, but Wide Area AF assist turned on, and an AF lens) might be a workable option</p>

<p>- What AF settings are you using?<br>

The D90 admittedly is an older body with an older Af module, 'only' 11 AF points (although my D1H, and recently sold D70S only has/had 5)<br>

But having shot a fair bit of catwalk (sports as well) , one thing I learned from that is for shooting (fast) moving subjects using the correct AF settings is essential, and even with the D70S was very well possible.</p>

<p>Sure, a more modern body with a better/faster AF module will, AF wise, most likely give better results.<br>

But no matter how much better, using a slow lens or the wrong AF settings will annul those advantages and risk just as, and probably even more disappointingly, unsharp pictures</p>

[m._bingley]

<p>Geln's idea of using an IR heat lamp idea is very interesting. Has anyone tried it? AF would help. I'm learning about AF-assist illuminator on the speedlight. It sounds less intrusive than the lamp on the camera body.<br>

I did try to time my shots with pauses in the dance. The problem is that with a narrow depth of field and no AF, it wasn't easy. It normally takes me at least a second to focus, and by the time I get it, the shot is gone. So I tried to stay far away to create a larger depth of field, but that means cropping. At high ISO, a cropped picture looks bad. It's really beginning to sound like the only way to solve the ISO quality issue is to get a new body.<br>

I don't think I can use the flash, either. Maybe just once or twice. But more than that, people will probably complain. </p>

[m._bingley]

<p>Wow, Paul, that's a lot of help! Let me respond a bit later...</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>Geln's idea of using an IR heat lamp idea is very interesting. Has anyone tried it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've done it in a slightly different way. I used the SU-800 commander, designed to control remote flashes, but set it to not control anything. It provided the barely noticeable AF assist, which worked very well. AF makes things much easier when people are moving in low light. Using manual focus, it can sometimes make sense to pre-focus on a spot and then wait for a subject to move to it, but that is very constraining, and may not give you interesting results. It makes focusing, rather what your subjects are doing, primary, which is the reverse of what you want to do.</p>

<p>I agree that a more recent or FX body would do better on both autofocus and image quality, but the situation is complicated. The D7100 is available at very reasonable prices, and has an excellent AF system. You could do a little better with the D7200, and the most expensive DX body, the D500 will have much better AF. If you move to FX, be aware that the D600/D610, while providing excellent image quality in low light, is not as good for AF as the D7100 or D7200. The D750, at a higher price point, is great at both AF and low light image quality, even without focus assist. Not long ago, using the D750 and prime lenses of f/1.8 and f/1.4, I shot a very dimly lit event at 6400 ISO and was delighted with the results.</p>

[m._bingley]

<p>In response to Paul --<br>

1. There is no explicit rule about using flash. Knowing the crowd, I feel that they would tolerate a few pictures taken with the flash, but after that they'll complain. I know if I were dancing, I would, too. It's just too distracting even if you bounce off the ceiling.<br>

2. I was using the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens. (Sorry, I made a mistake and wrote f/1.2.)<br>

3. I started with ISO at 3,200, the camera in P mode, AF-S ("sport" mode) & auto-area for AF (3D tracking with 11 points is unavailable in the "sport" mode). That didn't work, and the focus lamp was distracting people. So I switched to manual focus. I dialed the ISO up to H 0.7, and still found the shutter too slow. So I set the camera in S mode (shutter priority), with the shutter speed at 125. (I'm not happy with any of the pictures, but my friends are -- as their reference point is the phone cam.)<br>

I'll look into using my speedlight for focusing. I'm considering upgrading -- low light has always been a hard problem for me to solve, and maybe it's time to retire the camera body that has served me for... eight years???<br>

I'm really appreciative of the help you're giving! This is pretty amazing you're so willing to share your knowledge.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>To your initial question: upgrading your camera body would assist greatly because as already explained, you can use a much higher ISO and get good results.</p>

<p>However, I think that choosing between an FX and a DX body is not necessarily a simple choice based upon which has the better High ISO performance. The consideration of the Depth of Field attainable for any given Shutter Speed should also be taken into account. I do a lot of Available Light Portrait photography where there is Subject Movement.</p>

<p>The point is, for any given shooting scenario, there will be a specific Shutter Speed slower than which will render an unacceptable image. Once we assess what is that particular Shutter Speed, we can then assess what Aperture we can use and what ISO we can use.</p>

<p>But note that for any specific FRAMING of the Subjects and when using the SAME APERTURE, <strong>we can attain a LARGER Depth of Field if we use an APS-C Format camera</strong> rather than using a 135 Format camera (aka “Full Frame Camera”). So, in practical terms and as you mention that having too small a DoF is a concern for you, note that if you choose a “Full Frame" camera, you will need to use <strong>more than</strong> One Stop SMALLER APERTURE to keep the same DoF at any given Framing, than if you used an APS-C Camera. That decrease in aperture size means that you will have to increase the ISO, because obviously you want to keep the Shutter Speed at the necessary point to create the least amount or the acceptable amount of Motion Blur.</p>

<p>On the Subject of Focussing: I think you should consider Zone Focussing Technique and probably make an habit of always FRAMING the Subjects FULL LENGTH. This technique requires the Photographer to have the ability to roam, or at least a certain freedom of movement. Using a NIkon APS-Camera and a 35mm Lens – if you keep 16ft distance from the Subjects and use F/2 you will have about 4ft DoF and the Framing (in Vertical Orientation) will allow a bit of headroom and floor space to nicely fit a 6ft man. 4ft DoF should be enough wiggle-room for you to get a majority of “in focus” clean shots, but you will need to learn how to move with action, to keep the Camera to Subject Distance constant - knowing (learning) the choreography is a great advantage. If you use a “Full Frame” camera and (for example) buy an inexpensive 50 mm lens, use F/2 and keep the Zone Focus Distance (16ft) you will get about the same Framing as described above, BUT your DoF will be about 3ft.</p>

<p>Depending upon the size of the hall and the number of people on the floor – and in terms of using a “Full Frame” Camera, my experience is a fast 35mm or a fast 50mm Prime are both suitable choices. However as the dance floor becomes more densely populated or at smaller venues, a 35mm lens on a FF camera becomes a necessity to allow a closer Focusing Distance. For example, this dance floor was very small and I used a 35/1.4 of a 5D: <a href="/photo/17500825&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17500825&size=lg</a> The lens would have been at about F/2.2, can't remember the Shutter Speed, but it wasn't all that fast, probably around 1/60s ~ 1/125s for the Dance Floor - it was dark inside and the floor was only lit by the spots.</p>

<p>So, if you choose to buy an APS-C Camera, then consider the value of getting a (fast) lens wider than 35mm, if the dance halls are small or if there are a lot of people o the dance floor. This point now impacts upon the choice of the format of the camera, because it is often the case that you can buy a fast 35 and a fast 50 quite inexpensively, but a fast 24mm is often (much) more expensive. I don’t use Nikon anymore, so I am not familiar with what is on offer.</p>

<p>Obviously, all that stated, if you can get a camera with wiz-bang AF and you can use the AF without causing concern to the performers, then that would be an elegant solution to you not using Zone Focussing.</p>

<p>On the question of Subject Blur (Motion Blur) the technique of TIMING the shot when the HEAD is not moving should be pursued. Please see the lower left image in the montage in the link, the dress is still moving, quite a bit.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p><em>The D7100 is available at very reasonable prices, and has an excellent AF system.</em><br>

The D7100 is indeed a neat little camera with, compared to e.g. a D70s (which I have personal experience with) and a D90 (from what I gathered from a friend using it) much better specs with regards to AF and high ISO (and the rest)<br>

Got a 2nd hand one a couple of months ago to replace my D70S and D2X, which compared to the FX bodies I use as my first choice (D3, D800, DF) really were getting outdated<br>

That said, based on my personal experience using the D7100 under bad light and on fast moving subjects, and assuming you have the cash, I would rather go for the D7200. It has a better processing chip which allows faster AF and better high ISO performance, and that's after all what the OP is after.<br>

Sure, a high ranking FX like a D750, even a humble D700 would be better, but that will cost a lot more, especially since the OP is shooting a DX lens (and consequenly will also have to upgrade his lenses)</p>

<p><em>I was using the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens.</em><br>

That should be able to do the job, fast enough as far as max aperture, in combination with high ISO is concerned, just like the AF</p>

<p><em>I started with ISO at 3,200, the camera in P mode, AF-S ("sport" mode) & auto-area for AF (3D tracking with 11 points is unavailable in the "sport"</em><br>

The ISO 3200 is a sensible choice, but then going with all kind of P and Auto Area/3D modes IMO is what cost you the shoot.<br>

Basically you are giving all the important decisions out of your hands and rely precooked 'good for most, but really not refined enough to handle specific, more demanding, conditions' automated settings, IMO a recipe asking for inevitable disaster.</p>

<p>Instead, my, based on years of shooting catwalk, sports (surf) and events, recommendations are:</p>

<p>Camera: Continuous Mode (high speed transport Camera Manual page 65)<br>

Obvious, just taking one shot and assuming it will be perfect is IMO especially with moving subjects a bit too optimistic)</p>

<p>Exposure : Matrix Mode (Camera Manual page 87)<br>

I personally prefer Manual Mode exposure, S Mode (shutter speed priority which will prevent the camera from contrary to A mode where the shutter speed is flexible, in auto mode choosing a too slow shutter speed) could be an option (but be prepared to have under exposed pictures)<br>

I also strongly recommend to stay away from Spot Metering mode, next to impossible to find the ideal spot for metering the correct exposure on a erratically moving subject like a dancer<br>

The D90 also has Auto ISO mode, in which the shutter speed and aperture you chose are left untouched, but the camera instead varies the ISO depending on the light conditions (my preferred option when not using flash and shooting under varying lighting conditions)</p>

<p>Now the important bit (as far as shooting moving subjects is concerned)<br>

Autofocus : AF-C mode<br>

Camera Manual page 54/56</p>

<p>Dynamic Area AF<br>

Camera Manual page 173<br>

you choose the AF point, aim it at the subject/area you want in focus, and the AF will track the subject while it moves.<br>

Better then 3D AF, since in that option, the camera has to first analyze what to focus on as the starting point, to then track the subject.<br>

The analyzing bit will cost some/extra time, causing a slight hesitation between the moment you push the release button, and the camera actually taking the picture. Also the camera may not focus on the area you were aiming for</p>

<p>Don't know whether the D90 has a custom focus priority (usually in AF S mode: if the release button is pushed, the camera will only take the picture when it thinks it's in focus, even if the subject has left the spot the camera previously focused on) or release priority release setting (camera will take the picture when the release button is pushed, no matter whether it's in focus or not. Yes you will risk unsharp pictures, but with moving subjects that is far more likely to be the case with AF-S/focus priority).<br>

So as you can gather I'd go for release priority</p>

<p>Also, obviously shoot RAW</p>

<p>In addition to that, rather then pushing the camera over ISO 3200 (which really is the highest iSO which will still give 'acceptable' - although that also is a matter of personal taste - results) don't be afraid to under expose.<br>

Although not up to the level of FX bodies (or the more or less same generation D3, year of release 2007, vs D90 year of release 2008) the D90 already has the much praised sensor type with high quality (in case of under exposure) shadow recovery modern Nikon DSLR's have<br>

So rather the going for ISO 6400 and higher with predictable bad IQ/noise results, shoot RAW, don't be afraid to under expose (in my experience up to 2 stops under exposure really should be no problem), and save the day in post processing by simply doing some creative shadow recovery (I for years use Nikon NX2 for that purpose, don't even have Lightroom or Photoshop)</p>

<p>My (additional) 2 cents</p>

[m._bingley]

<p>Thanks, William, Paul, and others for providing such thorough write up! My, even manual page numbers! I appreciate the fact that you took time to share your expertise so I can take some better pictures.<br>

<br />I'm strongly considering upgrading to the top DX body (D7200, it looks like). Well, it's a few weeks until Black Friday, so I can do a bit of research and think about my budget.</p>