Options
Suggestions for ultra challenging theatre shoot- help!
Non-flash stage photography is tough enough, but the "ultra challenging" part of trying to shoot the performances of my daughter's theatre camp is that the stage is barely lit (elementary school cafetorium - 'nuff said!).
I'm using a Rebel XT and my lenses are:
55-250is
50mm 1.8
28-105
I set up on a tripod and have the camera cranked up to 1600 iso, but even with that they're not great pictures - even if the camera's not moving, the kids usually are!! I used the 55-250 the most as it was the best length for where I could be positioned and I have to say that even though the 1.8 is faster, the pictures taken with it weren't noticeably better.
My professional life is in the theatre (although usually on the stage side of the footlights!), so by observing (and asking questions!) I've learned a little bit over the years about how theater photographers deal with the high-contrast, low-light situations that shooting onstage throws at the camera. One tip I was given - and have used wtih success - was to set the camera (Rebel xt) on aperture priority at 1 stop above widest (to avoid the softening of maximum aperture) and let the camera take it from there - if the stage lighting is more "hot spots" than a wash, I'll also add about 1/2 stop extra using the exposure comp dial.
However, the above paragraph has now completely exhausted ALL of my technical knowledge (sad, but true). Any suggestions to further improve my chances of my capturing something sharp? I shot about 600 images at today's show and even the 15 or so "good" ones aren't brilliant (they're all reeeaallly soft, to put it kindly) - I can clean them up a bit, but they're definitely not as crisp as I think they should be. I do, of course, realise that the situation and my not-fast-enough lenses limit what can realistically be done, but I'd like to try to do the best I can!
Any further suggestions to improve my chances given the equipment I have? Tx!
I'm using a Rebel XT and my lenses are:
55-250is
50mm 1.8
28-105
I set up on a tripod and have the camera cranked up to 1600 iso, but even with that they're not great pictures - even if the camera's not moving, the kids usually are!! I used the 55-250 the most as it was the best length for where I could be positioned and I have to say that even though the 1.8 is faster, the pictures taken with it weren't noticeably better.
My professional life is in the theatre (although usually on the stage side of the footlights!), so by observing (and asking questions!) I've learned a little bit over the years about how theater photographers deal with the high-contrast, low-light situations that shooting onstage throws at the camera. One tip I was given - and have used wtih success - was to set the camera (Rebel xt) on aperture priority at 1 stop above widest (to avoid the softening of maximum aperture) and let the camera take it from there - if the stage lighting is more "hot spots" than a wash, I'll also add about 1/2 stop extra using the exposure comp dial.
However, the above paragraph has now completely exhausted ALL of my technical knowledge (sad, but true). Any suggestions to further improve my chances of my capturing something sharp? I shot about 600 images at today's show and even the 15 or so "good" ones aren't brilliant (they're all reeeaallly soft, to put it kindly) - I can clean them up a bit, but they're definitely not as crisp as I think they should be. I do, of course, realise that the situation and my not-fast-enough lenses limit what can realistically be done, but I'd like to try to do the best I can!
Any further suggestions to improve my chances given the equipment I have? Tx!
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
Process the RAW file with whatever you have available, preferably ACR or RAW Therapee. Choose a "Tungston" white balance, but you may have to vary that slightly according to how the lights were filtered.
Use the "blinkies" in the RAW processor to determine when you are within a proper exposure and brightness. With scenes full of average tones, try to build the histogram with a mound in the center of the histogram. With scenes full of dark tones, build to the left. With scenes that are fairly bright, the mound should build to the right.
When you get the tones basically where you want them, sharpen the image (using USM sharpening if in RAW Therapee). You may need a fair amount of sharpening but if you see visible halos, you've gone too far.
By now you should have a fairly usable image and you can repeat these steps for additional images.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Now, I 'm going to be a total nuissance and just try to parse this information so I understand it (I talk a better show than I know - I'm catching up but, as I've said in other posts, I really have NO technique and have always let the camera do the hard work for me!)
"Shoot to the right"... meaning leaning towards under or overexposed?
Ok, today even with the 50mm set at 2.0, it was sooo dark onstage (elementary school with maybe 5 general lanterns onstage NOT focused where the kids were actually playing, thus grossly underlit) that I was usually lucky if I was getting speeds as fast as 1/50th. Aren't these exposure combinations going to be reeeeaallly underexposed (or is the theory that I can boost the exposure on the computer if I shoot in raw, since the information will be there however shadowed? Bear with me here, I'm trying to catch up in my understanding... !!)
At the moment, the editing software choices I have are Paintshop pro (v 8 or 9) and Picasa, and that's pretty much it. Can I do this with those?
Blinkies? Is that like the canon will blink overexposed highlights when you look at the info screen?
I think I understand this, even though I've never done it.
Thank you again so very, VERY much. I'm going to sit and read through anda fiddle with this tonight and see if I can make enough sense of it to try some of these techniques tomorrow.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Here are some of the ones I've tried to salvage from today (and you BET I shot loads to get these few!). As y'all can see, I've had to lighten, contrast-enhance and sharpen them until they squeaked (and then de-noise to try and make them at least passable); I'm not happy with them from that point of view, but at least it's captured what the kids *did* even if not photographically as gold-star as I'd like. (I can't seem to embed this link, so it'll just have to be ugly and old-fangled)
[URL="[url]http://picasaweb.google.com/mezzomg/AliceInWonderlandThursday?authkey=bkE0Qisv4Rw[/url]"]first batch[/URL]
We'll see how I get on tomorrow! I find the thought of shooting RAW mightily intimidating, but I guess it's time to cross that milestone and learn! (Thanks for the software link, too - perfect!)
Seriously, I know i'm gushing but I'm so grateful for the help - I love this hobby but I also know just enough to know I'm mighty ignorant, and the information (and handholding) is deeply appreciated!
Everything I've mentioned are just starting points. Try different things, experiment and find out what works for you.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Again, my thanks!
I'm still not getting the kind of crispness my mind's eye thinks it SHOULD be, but since I'm not in a position to sell my car and buy a 40D with a fast L telephoto, I'm trying to get used to what my lowlier equipment got
Definitely some better shots today. Yes, still grainy, still plenty of duds, but I captured a few that I'm pleased with.
I took your advice, Ziggy, and mostly stuck with the 50mm. Shooting today was complicated by a grumpy parent who complained that I was "too loud" yesterday (nothing but the shutter - yes, you can hear it but come ON people -this was a KID'S SHOW, not the Vienna Philharmonic, and nobody seemed bothered by the crying younger siblings, cellphones, and school loudspeaker that were also audible during the show... But I digress). Because of this, I moved myself off to one side and used the monopod instead of tripod (I had previously been set up beside the production table in the middle of the auditorium, with NOBODY behind me - I made sure nobody would be blocked just so I DIDN'T annoy anybody, but whatevaahhh...) and had some crappy angles eg audience heads in the way without using the telephoto, but the added stops were, as you said, vital to getting some more shutter speed and consequently some sharper shots. I was still only getting 1/125 at best but hey - that IS better than yesterday! I used the IS zoom for a few - some ok, some not so - but i just had to, yanno?!. And I did also shoot RAWs and now that I"ve got Therapee I can see why it's better... now i just have to learn how to USE the greater range it offers!
Anyway, as soon as I've worked my way through the 900 or so shots from both days (!), I'll post any that I think are worthwhile. None of them are pro caliber, but for a mere mom, I don't think I did too badly. It does help that, as a stage professional, I know the kind of pictures I like to get of my own performances so I have a strong mental idea of what kinds of shots/angles will and won't work, and I remember staging once I've seen it so I'm ready for "the good bits". But, photographically, I'm but a lowly n00b so it still amazes me that I get anything remotely good!
And I sure had fun doing it
In any case, I"ll stop rambling and get back to editing. Thanks again so much for nudging me one step further along in my photographic education
Today's needed significant tweaking as well, but they took a lot less post to get to a presentable stage, thus the image is a little bit less degraded. Or maybe becaues I KNOW how much I had to do to yesterday's I'm just more aware of it. I preferred where I was standing yesterday, but the off-center position I had today may have aided my finding more light on the stage, so I guess it had its fringe-benefits (grr
I'm still not 100% happy with them - too many compromises, helas - but in any case, I think I can compile a set of about 40-50 acceptable ones to distribute (which was the goal, so the families have something of their own to keep). Honestly, I don't know how you pros cope with the stress - I stick my neck out almost every day of my professional life, but I found this WAY more nervous-making than any performance I've ever done! I can't even imagine the pressure of doing (for instance) somebody's wedding, where you get one chance and it really MATTERS. My hat is off to you all!
Cheshire cat(s)
The Tweedles
More Tweedles
Signor White Rabbit
Mad Hatter's Tea Party
Mad Hatter
And, of course, continued suggestions on alterations/enhancements/whatever to aid my continuing to improve these (and some of the others from the two days) in post are warmly welcomed! Most of these I've still tweaked from jpg, but there are about 100 of them for which I also have raw, and will begin to find my away around that process as well in coming days.
Thanks again!
I embeded the above image real easy......cliked your link and then when I arrived at your picasa web album, I right cliked and opend "properties" expaned the dialouge box so I could hilite the whole location .....came back to this thread cliked reply......put the cursor at the end of Signor White Rabbit clikked down a few lines the to give space to the next link.... then I cliked the little photo square (yellow square with mountains in it) in the message tool bar and pasted the link in there......make sure the http:// stays hi lighted or it won't work cause you'll have too many http://'s in there.....
HTH...........or was I too confusing?
Teessssting one last time (a photo admirably addressing the truly bad lighting on offer).
Edited to add: in my initial "new post" editing screen, I'm getting an empty "broken link" box graphic. When I submit the message, there's just a big blank in the post. In the editing screen (the one I'm in to type this) I see the http://link with {IMG} tags.... but the pic isn't displaying for me. Is it showing up for anybody else?
Also, so's not to hijack my own thread (!!), I'm going to post this in the dgrin section of the forum. Thanks for your help!
Back here, place the mouse cursor where you want the image to appear in your post and left click. A text cursor will apear.
Now choose the "Insert Image" icon in the area just above the message box:
A dialog box appears. Don't click inside the box. The contents are already highlighted.
Now do a "Ctrl-V" to paste the link you copied earlier. ("Ctrl-V" means to hold the "CTRL" key and tap the "v" key. It's a shortcut to paste whatever is in the clipboard buffer.)
Click the "OK" and you should see your picture appear.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
[IM G]http://lh5.ggpht.com/mezzomg/SJzMSip6oKI/AAAAAAAAAso/KDZuiBg6DiI/IMG_7523s.JPG?imgmax=512[/IM G]
Then delete the space character between the "M" and the "G" to read "
BTW, what "you" added was, "[IM G]http://picasaweb.google.com/mezzomg/AliceInWonderlandDramaLearningCenterAugust2008/photo?authkey=bMDootTX-YY#5232345901326557026[/IM G]" which does not appear to be a valid image link.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
BTW, I am using FireFox 2.0.0.16
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Interestingly, the link I used was the one generatd by picasa in the pull-down dialog box it offers for "link to this picture". There's one choice for embedding (total failure - it appears to use the ahref tagging which I gather doesn't work with vb?) and one http:// general link; on inspection those - and the one in the address bar - all include the "authkey" syntax, and none of them work, as I have demonstrated all too well
So... (moving right along - I figure it's worth typing this out in case somebody else ever has the problem and searches for the answer!), I've finally figured out how to GET the link syntax you generated which does work: right click the picture itself and harvest the address from that. (And if that's what Art meant in his post, my apologies - I though you were referring to right-clicking on something else entirely!)
And all of this verbiage brings us to.........
SUCCESSSSS!! (Well, at least as far as inserting pix. "Sucess" vis-a-vis the pictures themselves is an entirely different matter!!)
So, short answer to the problem: if you are linking to Picasa, the only link which appears to work to insert a picture in this site is the one which you get when you right-click on the image itself. Ta da!!
Thanks
I could swear I heard that before ...
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Oops... I was in another window experimenting/writing when you posted your second reply and didn't see it before I hit "send" myself! Duh. Sawwwwwwyyyyyyyyyyyy
In any case, glad to have it figured out!
And, of course, thanks again for the shooting help. I have learned SO much from this batch, and it's given me courage to start experimenting with RAW over coming weeks. So much still to learn (my concept of "post" consists of, "Hmm... I have no clue what this button means - what happens if I move the slider THIS way?" - thank goodness for the undo button!), but I'm getting much braver about experimenting. It's all good!
In that case, "Great minds, thinking together."
Glad to hear things are working better and very happy to see the results. It looks like everybody had a great time.
Thanks too to Art. Always in there for the assist.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums