Them boys don't stop jumping,, HELP!

[TexasPete]

I'm shooting a local band but they never stop the on stage activities.
too many shots are blurred or underexposed when the strobing moves.
I'm on a high iso, I dont really want to go any higher .
Any tips for catching them successfully.
Cheers.

[bacchanal]

What aperture/ISO are you typically using? It's possible that a faster lens or a higher ISO could help.

A couple of options come to mind:

1) Consider using flash to stop the action (if you're allowed to).

2) "Artistic motion blur"

3) Wait for static moments, such as when a performer is at a mic stand.

[TeenPhotog]

bacchanal is on it as usual.
sometimes when i'm in a situation like that, I underexpose a lot on purpose, bring it back up in dpp. I'm assuming you shoot raw. also another tidbit about underexposing, often the underexposed shot resemble the even better than a 'full' exposure.
good luck.

[TexasPete]

cheers folks,
I am well in tune with what has been said.
I don't like to use flash on performers but these boys are bonkers so they'd probably get a kick out of it!
The faster lens is a financial drawback
and the post processing is something I'm trying to avoid but in the name of
rock, I may have to bleed a little!
Anyhow, thanks for your insights, it heartens me to know I'm getting the wrong shots for the right reasons.
A terrible night of lighting didn't help maybe the next venue will be more newbie friendly.
I'm off to Germany for a few weeks so I'll upload the next gig when it happens.
here's a link to the unsatisfying session.!
such a martyr!
http://yourphotoportfolio.blogspot.com/2010/02/peoples-string-foundation.html

[Crimzon]

The 50mm 1.8 is only around $100 USD Its pretty darn fast. If a tripod is too obtrusive, a mono-pod might be a good compromise.

[narlus]

a tripod or monopod is only useful for static subjects, which doesn't sound like the problem here.

[Crimzon]

Any camera shake at a low shutter speed is exaggerated. So removing that shake would give slightly better results. Yes they are moving, and thus going to be blurry, and a tripod or monopod wont stop "them" from being blurry, but it might stop "you" from inadvertently blurring them, albeit slight, but a slight edge is better then no edge. It would also make the background more static making it look like you did it on purpose. Another bonus is that it might make it easier to pan. Which might be another idea. I know it isn't like cars, but its worth a shot.

[narlus]

i can get decently sharp photos well under the reciprocal focal length rule of thumb; in general practice, that's on the order of 1/20th or so.

for a person moving around w/ any sort of speed, a monopod or tripod just ain't gonna help all that much at that shutter speed. i assume we're not talking about some folkie sitting in a chair w/an acoustic guitar here.

[TexasPete]

Bang on Narlus, although the drummer is known to pick up an acoustic when a rocking chair is available.
Thanks for your input.

[Colin W]

I know most decent rockers are not posers but are you in a position to talk to them? Let them know how you getting good results will make them look good...dramatic pause looks cool. Just a thought.
I had a buddy who (with permission)strapped a remote flash on the bands light show rail with some sort of diffuser ( i forget the details) There was flash but no one could tell it was comming from his camera...He was a friend of the band so was able to crawl around their gear. You never know till you ask.
C

[DDCSD]

I picked out one of your photos and checked the EXIF. It was ISO 640, 1/13s at f/5.6.

You're going to have to bump your ISO up some more, whether you want to or not. ISO 640 just isn't realistic for almost any concert. Moving up to ISO 1600 will get your shutter speed up to 1/30s. I see you're shooting a 30D. I regularly shoot my 20D at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and find it more than acceptable. A little noise is fine for concert photos.

You're also going to need to open up your aperture, f/5.6 won't cut it. If that is as far as your current lens will open, you're going to want to get a faster lens. Shooting at f/2.8 would have brought your shutter speed up to 1/120s (assuming you shot at ISO 1600). That's about borderline for moving people, assuming you time your shots for when they aren't moving quite as much. I'd probably go to ISO 3200 to get my shutter speed up to 1/250s.

You could also get a good fast prime. At f/1.4, you'd be shooting at 1/500s (again assuming that you were shooting at ISO 1600 in the above example photo that I checked). 1/500s is overkill, but its nice to have that option.

[TexasPete]

Thanks.
Yep, that was my first session with my first digital and was throwing the settings around experimentally,, alot. iso being a biggy, i've never really been shooting with anything above 400 with the old slr. good news that I shouldn't fear going to dizzier heights. i've also since got a 1.8 lens (wow, I can appreciate what a 1.4 would do. appreciating the steep price rise too) AND a flash ! It's expensive this 'ere learning curve I'm on. oh, and radio gear.! tick.
All of the posts here have been awesome,
Technical and political,
alot more confident to get out there and shoot some great local heros.
I'm diggin' the rig mounted fill.
I'll get to know all of 'em, consider it rig mounted.!
Thanks again.:cool:

[scroller52]

also, if they allow flash, try playing with 2nd curtain flash. you can use a slow shutter to allow ambient light into the photo and the 2nd curtani flash will freeze your subject to give it less blur.

i'm still just experimenting myself

[themadman]

I'd shoot at the shutter speed needed and bump brightness in post processing. Use flash if allowed.

[René Damkot]

I picked out one of your photos and checked the EXIF. It was ISO 640, 1/13s at f/5.6.
Yep. And I guess exposure was bumped in post, since it's quite noisy. A well exposed ISO 1600 shot shouldn't be noisier...

Use a fast lens and ISO 1600+


also, if they allow flash, try playing with 2nd curtain flash.
1st or 2nd curtain only affects the timing of the flash. No other difference.

[TexasPete]

Hey right on Rene,
And I have a 1.4 takumar coming in the post right now!
I'm not too clever on the flash side, What's the 1st, 2nd curtain.
Cheers.

[bacchanal]

Hey right on Rene,
And I have a 1.4 takumar coming in the post right now!
I'm not too clever on the flash side, What's the 1st, 2nd curtain.
Cheers.

1st/2nd curtain tells the flash at which "end" of the exposure to fire.

With 1st curtain sync the flash fires at the very beginning of the ambient exposure (generally the flash burst is much shorter than the time that the shutter is actually open). In second curtain sync the flash fires at the very end of the ambient exposure. If you're dragging the shutter (using a relatively long ambient exposure with flash), you'll often get "light trails" from the ambient exposure. If you're shooting a moving object, 2nd curtain sync will make the light trails appear as if they're coming from the back of the object...as if it is moving forward. 1st curtain sync will give you the opposite affect. Not sure how important it really is for concert photography though.

[TexasPete]

Thanks Bacchanal, an interesting subject to research.
Time to get the manuals out again.

[MMX]

I regularly shoot my 20D at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and find it more than acceptable.

That´s interesting, I have 40D and I find it´s ISO 1600 noise unacceptable, I try to not go above 1000 (never tried 3200).

[MMX]

Use flash with 2nd curtain sync, here you can find how it looks like: http://photopit.com/
Creative/artistic blur can be nice, but when you use it only a few times, not every photo can look like this:

http://th09.deviantart.net/fs50/300W/f/2009/333/8/8/Translunaria_2_by_M_M_X.jpg

[DDCSD]

That´s interesting, I have 40D and I find it´s ISO 1600 noise unacceptable, I try to not go above 1000 (never tried 3200).


I guess I'd rather have a shot than put the camera away, regardless of noise. I don't have any choice with the amount of light I get at a concert, so I just have to deal with it.

The noise really doesn't show up (if you properly expose) on web-sized images or prints.

Better a little noisy than blurry.

[MMX]

The noise really doesn't show up (if you properly expose) on web-sized images or prints.


The problem is that when there´s not enough light to keep ISO below 1600 it´s usually so dark that the photos are underexposed anyway

[DDCSD]

The problem is that when there´s not enough light to keep ISO below 1600 it´s usually so dark that the photos are underexposed anyway


I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

[narlus]

my strategy was to ignore it.

[MMX]

How does an average concert photo look like? Usually it´s a person and behind him/her there´s very dark or completely black background, in other words the background is underexposed (because in real world it´s not black, there´s only not enough light to see it in the photo). So my logic says that the higher ISO I use, the more noisy will this large dark/black area be. I also know that it doesn´t contain any important information so there´s no reason to make it lighter. So what I do?
I keep the ISO high enough to capture details of the person, but low enough to avoid too much noise in the underexposed background. Then I open it in Photoshop and dodge the person only, which means that it will be properly exposed while the background will remain black and almost noise-free.
I don´t know how many concerts have you guys photographed but I do it for 2,5 years and it works.

[DDCSD]

How does an average concert photo look like? Usually it´s a person and behind him/her there´s very dark or completely black background, in other words the background is underexposed (because in real world it´s not black, there´s only not enough light to see it in the photo). So my logic says that the higher ISO I use, the more noisy will this large dark/black area be. I also know that it doesn´t contain any important information so there´s no reason to make it lighter. So what I do?
I keep the ISO high enough to capture details of the person, but low enough to avoid too much noise in the underexposed background. Then I open it in Photoshop and dodge the person only, which means that it will be properly exposed while the background will remain black and almost noise-free.
I don´t know how many concerts have you guys photographed but I do it for 2,5 years and it works.



In my experience, underexposing your subject and then pulling up that exposure in post (dodging) always leads to more noise. I'd rather have a little noise in my meaningless backgrounds than in my subjects.


But hey, whatever works for you.

[narlus]

plus, if it's just formless black in the backdrop, it's easy to get rid of the color noise.

[MMX]

In my experience, underexposing your subject and then pulling up that exposure in post (dodging) always leads to more noise.

Yes, you´re right. But Increased ISO has the same effect. The only difference is that if you inncrease ISO, you will get higher noise everywhere, while if you dodge, you will get higher noise only in the affected areas.

[René Damkot]

That´s interesting, I have 40D and I find it´s ISO 1600 noise unacceptable, I try to not go above 1000 (never tried 3200).
I used ISO 1600 as a default on my 1D2. Pretty much ISO 2500 or 3200 as default on my 1D3.
If you expose well, the noise is acceptable.

in other words the background is underexposed (because in real world it´s not black, there´s only not enough light to see it in the photo).
No.
"Underexposed" IMO means "not exposed to look the way you want it to look in your photo".

I also know that it doesn´t contain any important information so there´s no reason to make it lighter. So what I do?
You keep it dark.

I keep the ISO high enough to capture details of the person, but low enough to avoid too much noise in the underexposed background.
Again, the background is merely "dark". Not "underexposed".

Then I open it in Photoshop and dodge the person only, which means that it will be properly exposed while the background will remain black and almost noise-free.
No. It means your subject was underexposed to begin with...

I don´t know how many concerts have you guys photographed but I do it for 2,5 years and it works.
Ehm. About since 1992. :p

Yes, you´re right. But Increased ISO has the same effect. The only difference is that if you inncrease ISO, you will get higher noise everywhere, while if you dodge, you will get higher noise only in the affected areas.
No. Increased ISO gives better results if exposed properly.
Pushing an ISO 800 shot 2 stops will give more noise then a well exposed ISO 3200 shot.
Try it.

Simply put: If you change the ISO setting on your camera, the signal of the sensor is amplified before being digitised. So you have more info in the file.

[MMX]

I see that the main difference is in our priorities. You want to avoid the noise in the most important areas (usually the lightest areas with some textures - faces) while I want to avoid the noise in the areas where it is most visible (dark areas without textures, usually it´s unimportant background).

PS: From the camera´s point of view everything that is darker than 18% grey is underexposed, the camera doesn´t know how the photo should look like.

[narlus]

and it's far easier to control noise in the dark parts as compared to the bright parts.
can you post up some examples to further illustrate your point?

[René Damkot]

PS: From the camera´s point of view everything that is darker than 18% grey is underexposed, the camera doesn´t know how the photo should look like.

Don't agree. But that might be semantics. ;)
In my view, "underexposed" doesn't mean "dark", it means "darker the it should be, so needs to be corrected in post". That will bring out noise.

I agree that there's more noise visible in darker parts of the image, so Exposing to the right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) is a good idea. So exposing "correct" is better then underexposing at a lower ISO. You could just as easily set the black (clipping) level a bit higher to push the noisier shadows to black. ;)
Then again, nowadays differences are so insignificant that in most cases it's not a big issue: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=222969 (But it's an interesting subject nevertheless, and differences are more obvious in less controlled circumstances IMO ;))

When using the "Expanded" ISO settings, things are a bit different: ISO 3200 pushed a stop might well be better then ISO 6400 on a 1D3. Nice read: http://ishootshows.com/2009/01/28/push-processing-and-unity-gain/

All in all, the main disadvantage in locally brightening a file is (and why I try to avoid it as much as possible), that you get more noise locally. Which might be very visible. I prefer more "global" noise over a local "noisy part". Particularly if that noisy part of the image is the point of interest. I prefer to darken an other part of the image, since that's less obvious IMO.