Performing arts lens advice

divamum

So, I appear to have volunteered myself for a little (photo) gig in support of a group of enterprising local singers (professionals) who are putting together a group and trying to pick up some of the slack left behind when the local big company declared bankruptcy before Christmas. No role for me in this show, but I want to show my support to my friends and colleagues for taking the initiative, and so have offered to take pictures for them.

I will be shooting the dress rehearsal and possibly the before-show reception. Obviously, I have experience with onstage photos as a performer and have done an OK job with some (low pressure) events of my young daughter's (ie little kid, non-professional level stuff). However, this one comes with a little more pressure to deliver (at least I think so!) and I'm trying to think ahead so I can do the most professional job possible.

I have never been to the venue, but will be visiting it at the first opportunity to see what I'm up against - my guess is it is a ballroom/reception hall type of space, but beyond that I know nothing at all.

In any case, I MAY consider renting a long lens to complement my Tamron 17-50 (the dress rehearsal shots will need to be no-flash). I have two telezooms (the EF 70-210, and the EFS 55-250IS) so it may not be essential depending on lighting and how close I can get during the dress (if I was close enough, the Tammy will be just fine, I'm sure), but I want to consider my options and plan ahead. The xsi is NOT the world's greatest low-noise camera, so to get the results I'd like to see, I'm sure I'm going to need the fastest lenses I can realistically (and affordably) have to hand for the occasion. (I have a 50mm 1.8 as well, but the focusing on it frequently makes me crazy, so I'm not sure if it will be terribly useful in this context or not; I"ll have it, of course, but...)

Recommendations? We have a pro service shop in town which rents (although I haven't checked their prices yet), but the gig is 6 weeks away so there's time to rent from borrowlenses or another mail service if necessary.

These would all be paired with my xsi.

- Would I do better with a fast prime (85 1.8 for instance?), or should I just deal with one of the 70-200s?

- Bigger aperture (my gut instinct) or high quality lens w/IS?

- What about the Sigma long lenses - would they be reliable enough in low light? I KNOW that I will want something with zippy focusing so I catch moments on the fly (which is, in fact, my only real reservation about the 55-250is - sharp, light lens, but it is NOT a fast focuser in poor lighting conditions, somewhat like the 50mm 1.8)

- If I do go with one of these fast teles, how do I support it? I've never used a lens which needed its own support, so I'm a little hazy on that (does the 'pod go on the lens and the body is left free-hanging?)

I know there have been some threads on gig photography and I will be re-reading those as well, but I'd be interested in folks' thoughts on this specific situation, particularly since anything I use will definitely be a rental and not a purchase.

Then there's the matter of (possibly) shooting the reception which means I need to go start reading all those threads in the weddings forum more carefully........ :huh:rofl

Thanks in advance!

Village Idiot

Is the dress rehearsal going to be well lit or is it using stage lights. Are they stationary the whole time or moving?

Fast aperture and USM/HSM is what you'll probably want.

divamum

Village Idiot wrote:

Is the dress rehearsal going to be well lit or is it using stage lights. Are they stationary the whole time or moving?

Fast aperture and USM/HSM is what you'll probably want.

Whoops, meant to mention this in my initial post: I don't know the position on stage lighting yet - I don't know the space so am not sure if it's an open room or has a raised stage of any kind. Performance will be "concert style" on book, so more stationary than usual, but most of these guys have sung the roles in many productions, so I would'nt be surprised if they wind up moving around a fair bit anyway. Agree that a quieter lens will be better but since it's a dress rehearsal that won't be AS big a deal as if they were to be shot in a performance situation (and I have the advantage of being a singer and knowing the show well and can thus anticipate quiet vs loud moments.) From my point of view as a photographer, FAST focusing even in less-than-optimal lighting conditions is going to be the big deal.

Specific recs for lenses? I know that Canon and Sigma both seem to have many different ~70-200(300) models, and I don't know them well enough to have a clue about which might suit best in the event I decide to rent one. Ta ever so!

aktse

Whenever I need capture performing arts in low light, I reach for my primes.

135mm f/2 -- fast, fast AF;
85 f/1.8
50 f/1.4





If you could only rent one lens, I would recommend the 135 f/2.

Do some searches for Rutt --- he does amazing ballet photography with the 135mm and the 85 f/1.2. He also has some post processing noise tips as well.

aktse

found some of his examples -- prepare to drool.

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=93364
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=58025
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61246
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=46510

and his workflow:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=206778&postcount=9

divamum

Wow, aktse thank you SO much for that! I'll definitely check out the 135/f2 - sounds like it might be just the ticket if the venue is too big (or I'm too far away) for the 17-50 to cover it all. I'll probably have to foot any rental bill myself so if I can manage with the Tammy I will, but this arms me with the information I'll need to make smart decisions if I do need a 2nd lens for the occasion.

And yeah, gorgeous examples - thanks so much for digging those out for me! Really appreciate it. (Have to smile, too: from my usual pov as a singer these are the kind of pictures I'm used to getting when I work for pro houses, so my standard and expectations are high - but from the OTHER side of the lens!!! rofl)

Art Scott

I have 2 lenses I rely on especially for performances.....my 24-70 f2.8 and my 70-210 f2.8 .......... I have used a 70-210 for well over 20yrs as my only lens for all my film 35mm work.....shooting everything from headshots to concerts and Huuuge weddings groups shots of over40 people in the shot......it is mostly a matter of knowing your equipment and also your confidence in your ability to use your equipment without 2nd thought.........I find that is when most people screw up their shots......is when they 2nd guess what they can do with such and such combo.

As I have gotten older I decided to not move around so much at performances, ie running from front of stage to back of performace hall to get wider shots with my 70-210 so Ipurchased the 24-70 and if the 17-70 had been available that would have been my real choice.

The performace pics on my site are shot with the combo of 24-70 / 70-210...the signed pic was a print scan using a nikon f70+ siggy 70-210........

So your 17-50 should do surperbly and not knowing your aperture of your 70-210 well if it is f2.8 then you should be great.....if it is f4.....it will work just push the iso a tad bit higher.

Good luck and let us see your finished product.

divamum

Thanks Art. I wish my long lenses were 2.8!! Not a chance - the EFS is only 5.6 at the long end (IS helps, but doesn't solve that), and the older EF is faster, but also a slow focuser (it's the pre USM one which I've had since film days). Glad to know that the tele 2.8 works well for you.

Keep those suggestions coming, folks! All recommendations welcomed

mrcoons

When I do plays or concerts I use 2 lenses, a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS). I own and dearly love a 135 f/2 (and it's usually in the bag) but with prime lenses you have to foot zoom and like Art I just don't move around like I used to.

Rent a 70-200 f/2.8 lens and maybe a second body (so that you don't have to switch lenses) and you'll be good to go. I used to own a Tamron 17-50 and its a fine lens for this sort of thing.

Have fun!

baldmountain

I'm not an expert but I'll throw out my $0.02. You will struggle with your slower lenses. I've been taking pictures of my daughters performances this year and the most difficult part is getting enough light. You can work around it a bit by choosing shots where the dancers pause. Taking pictures during dress rehearsal may actually be harder since they tend to not light the stage as much as they would during the live performance.

I took these using a 70-210 f4-5.6 and ISO 800 at 70mm from the audience. (Yes, I got the backs of other audience member heads. ) I have a BUNCH of blurry shots of dancers jumping and spinning.





Since you can move around I strongly suggest a faster prime. If I could afford it I'd go with the 85mm f1.8 or even a 50mm f1.4.

divamum

Thanks all. You've given me great info, so I feel more confident that if I have to rent a lens I can actually make an informed choice. Thanks!! thumb

I've now seen a picture of the space and it is a panelled ballroom (high ceilings, dark wood everywhere) with a small raised stage at one end. Stage has a curtain, so I'm hoping there will be at least basic stage lighting in place on the platform even if they aren't adding any extra. The space is apparently ~70x30 (including stage area? Not sure yet) so it's not huge - am wondering if the Tammy may do the job for most of it.... Once I see it for real (instead of a photo) I can make the call on the that.

However, I'm thinking I WILL need something to stand on since there's no balcony for me to shoot from above and it looks like the stage is maybe 4-5ft above eye level (again, assuming the photo wasn't a wide angle which distorted perspective). I have common-or-garden variety stepladder, but it wouldn't be very comfortable to use to shoot from. What do you all use?

Oh, and slight OT: Baldmountain,I'm curious where you've been stuck with dress rehearsal lighting that wasn't what you get at the performance!? scratch Bummer!! Perhaps not so bad if you're a choreographed dancer who would simply hit the mark onstage and not worry about adjusting for the light. As a singer, we're all trained to "find the light" - for anything other than a follow spot (where it's the operator's job to keep up with you), it is assumed that you will make the small adjustments to ensure that you're in the light as staged and planned (particularly in a houses or sets where there are dead spots onstage that they can't light because there's just no way to focus on those areas, the problem can often only be solved by the performer) In my experience (onstage rather than behind the camera!) lighting is usually pretty much up and running well before final dress rehearsal.

Anyway, was just curious - total tangent to my original topic, so I guess I have to smack my wrist for hijacking my own thread!!!

baldmountain

divamum wrote:

Oh, and slight OT: Baldmountain,I'm curious where you've been stuck with dress rehearsal lighting that wasn't what you get at the performance!? scratch

I was misremembering a bit. It was an on stage rehearsal, but not a dress rehearsal.

Like this:



And I have too many that look like:

divamum

baldmountain wrote:

I was misremembering a bit. It was an on stage rehearsal, but not a dress rehearsal.

Ok, that makes sense now

Yeah, I have many of the latter kind of shot from my daughter's shows... nothing like trying to shoot moving objects in a cave, eh?!

Thanks again for chiming in - really appreciate it

divamum

Ok, continuing with this... (and thanks to those of you who were chiming in on my other thread, too I'll get this figured out eventually!)

Called my local pro/rental vendor: for $35 a day I can rent a 70-210 2.8is (or non-is - same price). I'm assuming that the F4/F4is will be similarly priced (although I forgot to ask the price for those - does that seem likely they'd be the same or less?)

What are the differences in weight and handling? I prefer to handhold if possible and reasonable, but in reading reviews I see people commenting on how heavy both the 2.8s are. Do I need to invest in wrist braces?! Equally important, I only have an xsi, thus no metal body to leverage against the weight. Will the mount safely support one of these heavy lenses handheld, or would I need to 'pod mount the lens?

All thoughts on this latest chapter in the continuing story (!) welcome. Thanks!!!!

aktse

divamum wrote:

O

What are the differences in weight and handling? I prefer to handhold if possible and reasonable, but in reading reviews I see people commenting on how heavy both the 2.8s are. Do I need to invest in wrist braces?! Equally important, I only have an xsi, thus no metal body to leverage against the weight. Will the mount safely support one of these heavy lenses handheld, or would I need to 'pod mount the lens?

The 70-200 f/4 IS is 1.7 lbs
The 70-200 f/2.8 IS with tripod collar is 3.5 lbs.

Some people may consider that heavy, but I hand hold it on a regular basis, and only put it on a tripod if I'm setting up a landscape shot. It really depends on what you're used to carrying...

If you're using a tripod, it connects to the lens itself rather than the camera body and it should not matter what body you're using.

aktse

jlw wrote:

Incidentally, with all that dark wood and drapery, I'm betting you'll need a 50mm f/1.4 or 85/1.8 lens rather than an f/2.8 zoom, but that's another subtopic...

I still think a 50mm f/1.4, 85 f/.18 or the 135mm f/2 would be your best choice.

And the added bonus? They're smaller and lighter. The weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS feels normal to me, but that's what I'm used to. Other have used it, and have complained about the weight -- it's all relative.

Art Scott

divamum wrote:

Ok, continuing with this... (and thanks to those of you who were chiming in on my other thread, too I'll get this figured out eventually!)

Called my local pro/rental vendor: for $35 a day I can rent a 70-210 2.8is (or non-is - same price). I'm assuming that the F4/F4is will be similarly priced (although I forgot to ask the price for those - does that seem likely they'd be the same or less?)

What are the differences in weight and handling? I prefer to handhold if possible and reasonable, but in reading reviews I see people commenting on how heavy both the 2.8s are. Do I need to invest in wrist braces?! Equally important, I only have an xsi, thus no metal body to leverage against the weight. Will the mount safely support one of these heavy lenses handheld, or would I need to 'pod mount the lens?

All thoughts on this latest chapter in the continuing story (!) welcome. Thanks!!!!

If you use proper camera/lens holding method then the xsi will not have a prob with the heavy lenses......You may want to do as I have done.....I went to my local hunting dept (here in wichita I can buy these at: cabelas(which is their own brand of the same thing), gander mtn or wallymart or bass pro shop) a crooked horn outfitters bino system......it is a cross strap, crosses on your back to take the weight off shoulders and neck......mine are starting to loose their strength but all I need to do is replace the elastic straps wwith heavier duty elastic fopr several more years of use.

I misplced one this past winter andhad to purchase another....got it at wayymart for 15.99+ tax

divamum

Thanks again for the continued input, guys - really appreciate it

Ladder duly noted! (as well as the fact that the 85 1.8 has been mentioned more - and more positively - than ANY other lens in the various discussions, so I'm hearing y'all loud and clear... thanks for pushing me towards the right tools for the job )

Art Scott

Fire Codes And Trip Hazzards

jlw wrote:

I am now going to give out the Most Secret of All Secret Performing Arts Photography Secrets. What you need is a Werner Model 260 platform ladder:

Check with local Fire Chief and also the venues own fire codes......NOT ONE venue that I have worked in, in the state of KS even allows a 'pod.....they are deemed a trip hazard........Ladders, especially non industrial ladders are not allowed......especially in the house.......these are simple little things an event photog must know are fire code and house codes and rules........I have set many a "PRO" photog out on their ear (newspaper and news service photog) for trying break the no 'pod rule of the venues I was the facilities manager over (over 20 such venues on the WSU campus alone).....

when shooting in HS schools it is even more important to know the rules, because they will not want every parent with a cam to come sporting a 4'-step ladder or tripod to every show or event in the auditorium............

Remember also that metal ladders rattle and rattle a lot, that is way all stage ladders are supposed to be wooden and also for the no grounding effect for working on lights and electricity......................

divamum

I used to be a House Manager when I was in college, so you are absolutely right to mention this stuff. It is definitely important to ask venues about their regulations. Most professional organisations won't allow photography during a show except in very special circumstances, and it is particularly important to stay on teh up-and-up if unions are involved and/or if there is a particularly strict fire code due to unusual venue, hazards onstage etc etc.

However, I'm shooting rehearsals, NOT shows. I have assumed JLW shoots dress rehearsals too, judging from the angles many of his posted shots are taken ...

Good point, though, Art!

Art Scott wrote:

Check with local Fire Chief and also the venues own fire codes......NOT ONE venue that I have worked in, in the state of KS even allows a 'pod.....they are deemed a trip hazard........Ladders, especially non industrial ladders are not allowed......especially in the house.......these are simple little things an event photog must know are fire code and house codes and rules........I have set many a "PRO" photog out on their ear (newspaper and news service photog) for trying break the no 'pod rule of the venues I was the facilities manager over (over 20 such venues on the WSU campus alone).....

when shooting in HS schools it is even more important to know the rules, because they will not want every parent with a cam to come sporting a 4'-step ladder or tripod to every show or event in the auditorium............

Remember also that metal ladders rattle and rattle a lot, that is way all stage ladders are supposed to be wooden and also for the no grounding effect for working on lights and electricity......................

Ann McRae

Hi divamum

Thought you might like to peak at this post. I did some practice dance shooting, and have comparison shots from the 135mmf2.0, 85mmf1.8 and the 70 - 200f2.8 IS.

ann

divamum

An update to all of this, since the gig was last night. I did wind up picking up a used 85mm 1.8 and am liking it a lot (although the CA on it can be pretty bad - first lens I've had that gets purple fringing like that). That said, the event itself proved very frustrating, and I question whether ANY lens could have helped much!

The lighting was beyond bad. Because some of the group's borrowed equipment didn't work (they have today before the performance to get it remedied, thankfully) the ONLY lighting on offer was one (yes, one) lantern on a tree about 8ft in front of the stage on stage left... and it had a DARK RED GEL on it. Oy.

In any case, here's a good example of what it really looked like (this is straight out of camera - all I did was convert to jpg). This is NOT a white balance or underexposure issue - it really looked like that I was impressed the lenses could even focus, since it was like shooting in a red-gelled cave.....




In any case, I wound up shooting at 1600 and 1.8 most of the time (I used the 85 and my 50). I intentionally underexposed quite a few to keep the shutter speed up; I possibly went a little too far with that since the xsi doesn't like being underexposed and they are SO horribly noisy (even after noiseware and a lot of other pp), but I didn't want a lot of blurry shots either - even if the camera was steady, the performers move around which creates just as much of a problem.

In any case, here are two examples of the direction I'm going with cleaning these up - would DEFINITELY welcome comments on ways to try and salvage as many as i can! The combination of wide-open aperture and high noise really reduces the sharpness - it's frustrating, since I know *exactly* how razorsharp those two lenses are.



And my favorite "fix" - BLACK AND WHITE!! (while that's ok for my purposes, the organisation needs colour so I'm trying to "fix" as many of those as I can even if I also do a bw conversion. BW solves soooo many of the problems!)

Art Scott

Wow....really really terrible lighting there......Here is my thoughts.....good thing you were not a critic/reviewer....that could of put a show out...no opening or open and close with in hour soooooo baaaad.

Good Work on this B/W conversion!!!!!!


1- you did your best with what you had to work with......lighting wise
2- do not kill yourself trying to FIX.......do minor exposure and contrast (MINOR) and then if using full PS some unsharp mask to sharpen a bit
3- charge the hell out of them for putting you thru such a terrible night:D

Makes me wonder if they even have safty cables on the light fixtures:D

I thinkl I might have popped out a flash and taped on a blue, green, or yellow gel just to add some color to areas that had very little light........

ziggy53

divamum wrote:

... In any case, I wound up shooting at 1600 and 1.8 most of the time (I used the 85 and my 50). I intentionally underexposed quite a few to keep the shutter speed up; I possibly went a little too far with that since the xsi doesn't like being underexposed and they are SO horribly noisy (even after noiseware and a lot of other pp), but I didn't want a lot of blurry shots either - even if the camera was steady, the performers move around which creates just as much of a problem.

In any case, here are two examples of the direction I'm going with cleaning these up - would DEFINITELY welcome comments on ways to try and salvage as many as i can! The combination of wide-open aperture and high noise really reduces the sharpness - it's frustrating, since I know *exactly* how razorsharp those two lenses are.

...

If you are shooting images for promotional usage then you must "insist" that they provide you with a situation and conditions that allow that level of quality. That means specially staging actors and lighting just for the photographs. (Tell them I said so and, when they stop laughing, tell them yes, I do know what I am talking about.)

What you were subjected to is just nonsense and I would not expect too much quality because of the conditions.

Since the lighting in these images is red filtered that means that your imager is not really using the blue and green portions of the imager. Since most Bayer imagers have twice as many green photosites as either red or blue that means that you are working with as little as 25 percent of the total photosites active. There is no way that you can help but have visible grain in those conditions of high-ISO, filtered light and underexposure.

If you apply enough noise reduction to smooth the grain it will necessarily smooth the entire image and reduce the remaining detail.

One technique that I have tried exactly once, and it worked a little bit better than nothing, was to enlarge/resample the image to a 2x enlargement and then make a copy layer. Then I nudged the copy layer down and to the right at a very high magnification on the screen, trying to "fill in the blanks" of the original image.

With a very noisy image caused by filtered light this can have an effect similar to a video scan doubler (if you know what those are) and the visual impact is to produce the "appearance" of extra detail. Once done with the nudge operation I merged the 2 layers and downressed back to the original resolution and size. It was a lot of work but I do think the results were somewhat better than the original.

I don't have anything to show because this work was done at my previous employer and they retained the images.

As opposed to just conventional noise reduction you might give this a try assuming you have software capable of layers and accurate movement of the one layer over the other.

divamum

Ha - thanks Art! The lights were borrowed and because they could'nt get into the venue until about 4pm they just didn't have time to deal with the inevitable mishaps of cabling unfamiliar gear in an unfamiliar venue - they'll have it sorted by tonight when they perform, I'm sure. Of course, I'm still wondering why they didn't just take the darned gel off! Even badly-focused harsh white would've been better than that....

Those two final shots (a crop of the first one, of course) have had just about everything I know how to do thrown at them - noiseware, LABcurves USmask, high pass sharpening etc etc so I guess that's about as good as it's gonna get... (although if anybody has any other tricks to share... please DO!!!)

And no fee - I did it to support the group. This is a startup venture put together by some singers after Local Union Company declared bankruptcy - I wanted to be involved and show my support in some way and since there was no role for me and goodness knows I don't have any money to contribute at the moment (having lost 2 big contracts for this season when said-same Union Company went under) I thought of doing this for them to show my support. And, of course, it gave me a chance to do an interesting shoot

Thanks for all the input on this in the run up to it - I'll post a set of the final shots once I get them together. I've culled about 100 that are worth salvaging, so we'll see how I get on..... If I can present them with 25-50 that are truly useable for their website/future publicity, I'll be happy. Another friend of the company asked to shoot as well, so between us they should get something they can use!

divamum

ziggy53 wrote:

<---->
As opposed to just conventional noise reduction you might give this a try assuming you have software capable of layers and accurate movement of the one layer over the other.

Thanks Ziggy -- I will read through that a few times and see if I can figure out what you mean and how to play with it (I have PS and LR so pretty well-equipped software-wise). I hadn't considered the impact of the gel on the noise itself - that's useful info right there.

Btw, see note above to Art - this was NOT a professional gig, although I tend to self-impose professional standards in most things I understake, and therefore will be trying to produce the best images I can for them!