Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Low Light Photography Question
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Jun 16, 2017 21:26:36   #
Nature_Shooter Loc: Chesterfield Missouri
 
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the lighting was extremely low. I tried something that worked however I am looking for advice for next time.

Here is the set up:

Lens: 70-200 (most shots were 170-200)
F2.8
ISO 6400
File Type: Raw
Canon 5D mIII
Using a tripod

Did not want to push the ISO any further but the shutter speed at this setting was too slow to freeze movement. It was not fast movement (she is only 3) but movement nonetheless. What I did was underexpose by 2/3 to 1&1/3 stops so the shutter speed was about 1/200 of a second. I recovered the brightness in post (Lightroom). The pictures will never be blown up to a large print but will end up in photo books that I purchase on line.

Is purposely stopping down like this when the light is low to obtain the shutter speed you need in hopes of recovering in post an acceptable method or should I increase the ISO and accept the further loss in quality? Or, is there another technique I am missing?

Thank you.

Reply
Jun 16, 2017 21:30:46   #
RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia
 
Personally I would increase the ISO and do noise reduction when post processing (possibly selectively).

Reply
Jun 16, 2017 21:41:19   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
Nature_Shooter wrote:
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the lighting was extremely low. I tried something that worked however I am looking for advice for next time.

Here is the set up:

Lens: 70-200 (most shots were 170-200)
F2.8
ISO 6400
File Type: Raw
Canon 5D mIII
Using a tripod

Did not want to push the ISO any further but the shutter speed at this setting was too slow to freeze movement. It was not fast movement (she is only 3) but movement nonetheless. What I did was underexpose by 2/3 to 1&1/3 stops so the shutter speed was about 1/200 of a second. I recovered the brightness in post (Lightroom). The pictures will never be blown up to a large print but will end up in photo books that I purchase on line.

Is purposely stopping down like this when the light is low to obtain the shutter speed you need in hopes of recovering in post an acceptable method or should I increase the ISO and accept the further loss in quality? Or, is there another technique I am missing?

Thank you.
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the light... (show quote)


Kevin, at 200mm you don't have but one other choice in lenses and it's pretty expensive!!
You were creating extra noise by underexposing.
You would be better off shooting at 200th and letting the ISO float on Auto ISO.
The only more viable solution is to use a shorter, faster lens and getting permission to get closer.
BUT the more wide open, the shallower the DoF gets. That's the trade off.
That kind of shooting is always gonna be tough.
Your choice is to stay at 6400 and get movement which comes out being a useless shot. Better to have gone up in ISO and deal with the noise the best you can, at least you get the shot!!!
I have shot 1000's of dance shots and ALWAYS use Auto ISO.
Auto ISO is not something to avoid but to use when it's appropriate. Movement is NEVER appropriate, so go with the lesser of the evils, noise vs blur!!
Use a 50 1.4 and get closer!!! Good luck
SS

Reply
 
 
Jun 16, 2017 21:59:36   #
ralphfr Loc: Long Island, NY
 
RichardTaylor wrote:
Personally I would increase the ISO and do noise reduction when post processing (possibly selectively).


Back when there was only film I believe sports photogs used to set the camera's ASA/ISO to a much higher setting to capture the images. I believe they called this pushing. I think this would cause the images to display more grain which is I believe what in the digital world would be the equivalent of noise. We have editing software to improve noise. I'm sure they had ways in the darkroom to improve grain. As I don't use much editing software I'm not sure how much room there is to remove the resulting noise but I'm sure other more knowledgeable hoggers can help with how far you can "push" the ISO and still get acceptable result with PP. Good luck!

Reply
Jun 16, 2017 22:20:32   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
When you underexpose at high ISOs and then brighten in post it tends to emphasize the noise. So you might be better off noisewise using a higher ISO to get a normal exposure. You could do some tests both ways and see for yourself which is best.

Reply
Jun 16, 2017 23:05:30   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
SharpShooter wrote:
Kevin, at 200mm you don't have but one other choice in lenses and it's pretty expensive!!
You were creating extra noise by underexposing.
You would be better off shooting at 200th and letting the ISO float on Auto ISO.
The only more viable solution is to use a shorter, faster lens and getting permission to get closer.
BUT the more wide open, the shallower the DoF gets. That's the trade off.
That kind of shooting is always gonna be tough.
Your choice is to stay at 6400 and get movement which comes out being a useless shot. Better to have gone up in ISO and deal with the noise the best you can, at least you get the shot!!!
I have shot 1000's of dance shots and ALWAYS use Auto ISO.
Auto ISO is not something to avoid but to use when it's appropriate. Movement is NEVER appropriate, so go with the lesser of the evils, noise vs blur!!
Use a 50 1.4 and get closer!!! Good luck
SS
Kevin, at 200mm you don't have but one other choic... (show quote)


👍👍👍👍👍 well said.

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 06:35:03   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Nature_Shooter wrote:
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the lighting was extremely low. I tried something that worked however I am looking for advice for next time.

Here is the set up:

Lens: 70-200 (most shots were 170-200)
F2.8
ISO 6400
File Type: Raw
Canon 5D mIII
Using a tripod

Did not want to push the ISO any further but the shutter speed at this setting was too slow to freeze movement. It was not fast movement (she is only 3) but movement nonetheless. What I did was underexpose by 2/3 to 1&1/3 stops so the shutter speed was about 1/200 of a second. I recovered the brightness in post (Lightroom). The pictures will never be blown up to a large print but will end up in photo books that I purchase on line.

Is purposely stopping down like this when the light is low to obtain the shutter speed you need in hopes of recovering in post an acceptable method or should I increase the ISO and accept the further loss in quality? Or, is there another technique I am missing?

Thank you.
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the light... (show quote)


You should have no trouble shooting this camera at ISO 25600. Of course you will have more noise than at base ISO, even at 25600, it records good detail, and as long as you shoot raw, you should be able to get some pretty outstanding images.

Look at some of the image samples on this page - which you can download as raw files:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/21

By setting your ISO to 6400 and underexposing 1 stop you are in effect shooting at ISO 12,800 anyway, and just using post processing to boost ISO as opposed to applying gain to the signal in the camera. That technique works better with cameras that are ISO invariant, but can work over a one stop range with most cameras but your best results will be when you use lower ISOs.

The other alternative is to rent a D4, D5 or even a D3S and a lens for such events - these are the high ISO Kings - and will outperform most other cameras by a couple of stops.

But I would try shooting at 12800 or higher, and not worry too much about the noise.

Reply
 
 
Jun 17, 2017 07:10:27   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
Nature_Shooter wrote:
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the lighting was extremely low. I tried something that worked however I am looking for advice for next time.

Here is the set up:

Lens: 70-200 (most shots were 170-200)
F2.8
ISO 6400
File Type: Raw
Canon 5D mIII
Using a tripod

Did not want to push the ISO any further but the shutter speed at this setting was too slow to freeze movement. It was not fast movement (she is only 3) but movement nonetheless. What I did was underexpose by 2/3 to 1&1/3 stops so the shutter speed was about 1/200 of a second. I recovered the brightness in post (Lightroom). The pictures will never be blown up to a large print but will end up in photo books that I purchase on line.

Is purposely stopping down like this when the light is low to obtain the shutter speed you need in hopes of recovering in post an acceptable method or should I increase the ISO and accept the further loss in quality? Or, is there another technique I am missing?

Thank you.
My granddaughter had a dance recital and the light... (show quote)


You can increase the ISO way beyond 6400 and not see much noise.

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 07:21:13   #
AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA
 
I have that same equipment mix and shoot high school basketball games. The lighting is terrible and the action is fast. I push the ISO up as high as needed to get about 1/500 on the shutter and f2.8 then I use Lightroom noise reduction to reduce reduce noise. Typically I am at ISOs greater than 10000. LR noise reduction is very effective.

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 08:05:36   #
david vt Loc: Vermont
 
AFPhoto wrote:
I have that same equipment mix and shoot high school basketball games. The lighting is terrible and the action is fast. I push the ISO up as high as needed to get about 1/500 on the shutter and f2.8 then I use Lightroom noise reduction to reduce reduce noise. Typically I am at ISOs greater than 10000. LR noise reduction is very effective.


I was hoping someone would comment on this topic WRT indoor low light sports. Thank you so much.

I am considering getting into this area do to the multiple teams my kids play on and need better equip than what I have. Not at the pro level and not blowing up huge, but just a dad whom wants to capture his kids well as they progress in their sports careers. I had been considering a used/refurb D7100 or D7200, but the comments above would indicate that I cannot push the ISO on the D7100 high enough as it tops out at 6400. UHH folks - do you agree?

(And yes, a D500 would be be great, but too much camera, and $$, for me at this point)

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 08:10:54   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
david vt wrote:
I was hoping someone would comment on this topic WRT indoor low light sports. Thank you so much.

I am considering getting into this area do to the multiple teams my kids play on and need better equip than what I have. Not at the pro level and not blowing up huge, but just a dad whom wants to capture his kids well as they progress in their sports careers. I had been considering a used/refurb D7100 or D7200, but the comments above would indicate that I cannot push the ISO on the D7100 high enough as it tops out at 6400. UHH folks - do you agree?

(And yes, a D500 would be be great, but too much camera, and $$, for me at this point)
I was hoping someone would comment on this topic W... (show quote)


I don't know Nikons but surely these two models go well beyond 6400!

Reply
 
 
Jun 17, 2017 08:26:28   #
AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA
 
I am not familiar with Nikons but can't imagine that the models you mention won't go higher than 6400 ISO. Get out there and shoot. Most of the sports will be out doors and the lighting won't be an issue. Basketball and Friday night football were the two sports that presented the challenge. The kids will only pass through this phase once, you really don't want to miss these memories.

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 08:29:14   #
david vt Loc: Vermont
 
The tech specs list the D7100 as ISO 100-6400 There is a note that it can "expand" to 25600, but I have not yet been able to learn what expand means. Maybe one of our more seasoned UHH contributors can expand (pun intended) on this. Thanks in advance

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 08:32:30   #
david vt Loc: Vermont
 
AFP. Hi. The reason I was interested in the low light was specifically indoor Bball in lousy school gyms...

Looking a a relatively fast zoom lens @2.8, but I think the ISO 6400 of the D7100 would be limiting in trying to get to 1/500 even with this lens.

Suggesting any tips more than welcome...

Reply
Jun 17, 2017 08:49:44   #
AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA
 
Bball is as tough as it gets. Generally there are brighter spots on the court as the lighting is uneven. I try to sit on the floor and concentrate on action in those bright spots. Best perspective when the camera is at players level and you would be surprised at how much illumination the bright spots provide. By the way I am 74 years old and I shoot at 1/500 to compensate for hand shake 1/125 should be fast enough to freeze action. Good luck

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.