Question re: ND grad filter for shooting theater

Designsmith

A good deal of theater takes place under intense overhead lighting with dark backgrounds and floors. An exposure that shows detail in the actor's body blows out the face and shoulders. An exposure that shows facial detail may cause the actor's body and other elements on stage to get lost in the dark. Has anyone use a ND grad filter in this situation? I would be interested in hearing your experiences. Or any suggestions to address the situation.

Thanks for you help.

divamum

Designsmith wrote:

A good deal of theater takes place under intense overhead lighting with dark backgrounds and floors. An exposure that shows detail in the actor's body blows out the face and shoulders. An exposure that shows facial detail may cause the actor's body and other elements on stage to get lost in the dark. Has anyone use a ND grad filter in this situation? I would be interested in hearing your experiences. Or any suggestions to address the situation.

Thanks for you help.

Won't you lose too much light and thus shutter speed if you do that?

Theatrical shooting is high contrast - it's just the nature of the beast. I've had good luck with the spot meter in my camera and shooting raw so I can tweak more in post. Somebody recently posted their LAB curves processing technique for theater shots - I can't find the thread (anybody remember it well enough to pull it up?) but if I can locate it, I'll post a link. It was a GREAT tutorial in how to adjust for the conditions often found onstage.

ETA: The poster is Rutt, and here is one thread where he discusses his approach http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=98808&page=3&highlight=ballet+workflow But there was another one I saw just recently... I'll keep looking!

Designsmith

divamum wrote:

Won't you lose too much light and thus shutter speed if you do that?

You would loose some of course, that’s the nature of an ND, but not a great deal I think. (I hope.) I have a ND2 gradual graduated filter that is very light along its horizontal axis. I was thinking of placing that line in the top half of the frame, but I’ve not tried it yet.

divamum wrote:

Theatrical shooting is high contrast - it's just the nature of the beast. I've had good luck with the spot meter in my camera and shooting raw so I can tweak more in post. Somebody recently posted their LAB curves processing technique for theater shots - I can't find the thread (anybody remember it well enough to pull it up?) but if I can locate it, I'll post a link. It was a GREAT tutorial in how to adjust for the conditions often found onstage.

I too shoot in RAW, but have found to many otherwise good shots are still lost because of extremes in contrast. I’m planning on bumping HDR up next time to help that. And as you suggested to use the spot meter a bit more, maybe using the top center as the spot. That works OK for small, tight groups and individuals, but not so well with large groups spread across the stage.

divamum wrote:

ETA: The poster is Rutt, and here is one thread where he discusses his approach http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=98808&page=3&highlight=ballet+workflow But there was another one I saw just recently... I'll keep looking!

divamum, thanks for your insight and the link. I’ll be sure to study the info there and look forward to the other post you referred to. I checked out you blog. Have you ever done “My Fair Lady?” We’ll be shooting a high school production of that play this week. That is part of the impetus for the question above. I'd be interested in any insights into that play that would be helpful. Thanks again.

divamum

Designsmith wrote:

You would lose some of course, that’s the nature of an ND, but not a great deal it think. (I hope.) I have a ND2 gradual graduated filter that is very light along its horizontal axis. I was thinking of placing that line in the top half of the frame, but I’ve not tried it yet.

I just can't imagine wanting to give up ANY light in a theatre situation. In the past, I've been using 800 or 1600 ISO with apertures of 2.0 just to get reasonable shutter speeds that won't show camera shake (if handheld) or motion blur (even if on a tripod, the performers still move!), so even a small loss would hurt, IMO.

That said, remember that I'm still a n00b at this too - I'm experienced at being onstage, assessing shots others have taken of shows I'm in, and have done a few gigs of my daughter's from "the other side of the camera", but I claim no expertise and am learning too!! Perhaps Art, Rutt, or LJW (all experienced theatrical shooters) can chime in with their take on the ND idea.

I too shoot in RAW, but have found to many otherwise good shots are still lost because of extremes in contrast. I’m planning on bumping HDR up next time to help that. And as you suggested to use the spot meter a bit more, maybe using the top center as the spot. That works OK for small, tight groups and individuals, but not so well with large groups spread across the stage.

Remember that the even-ness - or not - of the stage lighting itself is going to determine a lot of this. I'm not sure one can expect to make the stage look like something it wasn't. Here's a link to a gal who does production shots for Washington National Opera (one of the largest-budget opera houses in the country, thus high production values and excellent stage lighting). You will see that many, MANY of the shots are high contrast, which (IME as a performer) is pretty typical unless the stage was bathed in LOTS of "sunny" light. ETA: In particular, look at the shots of Jenufa and Tamerlano - VERY VERY high contrast throughout.

divamum, thanks for your insight and the link. I’ll be sure to study the info there and look forward to the other post you referred to. I checked out you blog. Have you ever done “My Fair Lady?” We’ll be shooting a high school production of that play this week. That is part of the impetus for the question above. I'd be interested in any insights into that play that would be helpful. Thanks again.

I'm 100% opera, really - I did do Mme Armfeldt in a production of Sondheim's "Little Night Music" last year (and am LONGING to do a Mrs Lovett!!), but that was actually my music theater debut!

My Fair Lady is a Broadway classic - just get hold of the movie w/Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison to get familiar with it (the film varies slightly from the stage show, but it will give you enough to know what to expect when). Remember too that it was based on the George Bernard Shaw "Pygmalion" so if you read that you'll get a good sense of how the musical tweaked the original play to give it a lighter more "Broadway" feel.

One thing to accept in advance is that a high school stage is likely to have mediocre lighting at best (and high school "multipurpose" spaces are notrious for absolutely dire lighting) - my hunch is you will want every lumen you can get your hands on, and the limitations on the stage will be part of what the camera captures (also, inexperienced performers often don't remember to "find their light" and have a knack for putting themselves in pools of darkness, however unknowingly!!). I don't think you can expect to catpure evenly lit shots from an unevenly lit stage.

I would also certainly recommend trying to shoot at one of the final dress rehearsals if you can (you'll be able to move about more freely if there isn't a "real" audience, and it's another chance to learn the show and maybe grab shots that you might miss if you only do the performances).

HTH!

Art Scott

Remember also that the reason that a director or producer HIRES a lighting DESIGNER is to create a mood to help tell the story.....whether that be modern dance, ballet, opera or musical theatre...........if you expose for the subject you can always tweek the rest.......just keep the faces and exposed body from blowing.........also depending on the LD their can be a lot of expression on that black Marley Flooring......a lot of LD's use Gobos with various designs and the use of any type of ND could kill that effect.....also blk Marley absorbs the color from the lights and it will reflect those colors back to the camera.........of course if your stage crew is lazy and doesn't sweep and mop that Marley (or any stage sloor) before every performance, then you will start getting great shots of dirt on the floor:D.............

Edit.......I dove in before reading complete thread and will agree 100% with DM, especiall her last post directly above............

Designsmith

divamum wrote:

I just can't imagine wanting to give up ANY light in a theatre situation. In the past, I've been using 800 or 1600 ISO with apertures of 2.0 just to get reasonable shutter speeds that won't show camera shake (if handheld) or motion blur (even if on a tripod, the performers still move!), so even a small loss would hurt, IMO.

[FONT=&quot]I understand your point and agree that is the case in some, maybe most situations, but there some situations that provide more then enough light. I’m searching for another tool in our kit to produce the best images we can. For me one aspect of that is getting as much detail in the image as possible. So when a parent looks at the shot they can actually recognize their child. [/FONT]

divamum wrote:

That said, remember that I'm still a n00b at this too - I'm experienced at being onstage, assessing shots others have taken of shows I'm in, and have done a few gigs of my daughter's from "the other side of the camera", but I claim no expertise and am learning too!! Perhaps Art, Rutt, or LJW (all experienced theatrical shooters) can chime in with their take on the ND idea.

[FONT=&quot]I would like to hear from others as well. One of the great things about this place is that there is such a great range of experience and a willingness to share the knowledge gained from it.[/FONT]

divamum wrote:

Remember that the even-ness - or not - of the stage lighting itself is going to determine a lot of this. I'm not sure one can expect to make the stage look like something it wasn't. Here's a link to a gal who does production shots for Washington National Opera (one of the largest-budget opera houses in the country, thus high production values and excellent stage lighting). You will see that many, MANY of the shots are high contrast, which (IME as a performer) is pretty typical unless the stage was bathed in LOTS of "sunny" light. ETA: In particular, look at the shots of Jenufa and Tamerlano - VERY VERY high contrast throughout.

[FONT=&quot]One reason I like to shoot theater is the “look” that results from the lighting, but at the same time it is a challenge to record. I’ll study the shots on your link. I’m sure there is a lot to learn there.[/FONT]

divamum wrote:

I'm 100% opera, really - I did do Mme Armfeldt in a production of Sondheim's "Little Night Music" last year (and am LONGING to do a Mrs Lovett!!), but that was actually my music theater debut!

My Fair Lady is a Broadway classic - just get hold of the movie w/Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison to get familiar with it (the film varies slightly from the stage show, but it will give you enough to know what to expect when). Remember too that it was based on the George Bernard Shaw "Pygmalion" so if you read that you'll get a good sense of how the musical tweaked the original play to give it a lighter more "Broadway" feel.

One thing to accept in advance is that a high school stage is likely to have mediocre lighting at best (and high school "multipurpose" spaces are notrious for absolutely dire lighting) - my hunch is you will want every lumen you can get your hands on, and the limitations on the stage will be part of what the camera captures (also, inexperienced performers often don't remember to "find their light" and have a knack for putting themselves in pools of darkness, however unknowingly!!). I don't think you can expect to catpure evenly lit shots from an unevenly lit stage.

[FONT=&quot]Wow! Opera! That's a whole different world then the one I know. Thanks for the info re: MFL. That's a help. We're fortunate that theater where it is being performed is a good one. My family has worked and performed there off and on over the past 18 years so we know the facility, but, as you know, even with a great theater the lighting is up to the director and lighting designer and the results can be less then great.[/FONT]

divamum wrote:

I would also certainly recommend trying to shoot at one of the final dress rehearsals if you can (you'll be able to move about more freely if there isn't a "real" audience, and it's another chance to learn the show and maybe grab shots that you might miss if you only do the performances).

HTH!

[FONT=&quot]Actually most of what we will be shooting will be during dress rehearsals to keep from disturbing the audience during the actual performances. We’re planning a “scouting” rehearsal and two dress rehearsals with accompanying off-stage activity.[/FONT]

Thank you for all you help, your insight and willingness to share. It’s much appreciated.

catspaw

FYI, a gradiant filter can be applied in post-processing, at least within Lightroom2. I'd shoot straight and deal with any issues you have with the photos in the PP. With the light issues you definitely want to get as MUCH light as possible, regardless.

Designsmith

Art Scott wrote:

Remember also that the reason that a director or producer HIRES a lighting DESIGNER is to create a mood to help tell the story.....whether that be modern dance, ballet, opera or musical theatre...........if you expose for the subject you can always tweek the rest.......just keep the faces and exposed body from blowing.........also depending on the LD their can be a lot of expression on that black Marley Flooring......a lot of LD's use Gobos with various designs and the use of any type of ND could kill that effect.....also blk Marley absorbs the color from the lights and it will reflect those colors back to the camera.........of course if your stage crew is lazy and doesn't sweep and mop that Marley (or any stage sloor) before every performance, then you will start getting great shots of dirt on the floor:D.............

Edit.......I dove in before reading complete thread and will agree 100% with DM, especiall her last post directly above............

Thanks, Art, for the input. I want to capture that mood. That is part of theater as you say. I'm just trying to shave a bit off the hot end for really contrasty shots. Have you used a ND in stage work? I'd be intersted to hear or see how that came out.

Designsmith

catspaw wrote:

FYI, a gradiant filter can be applied in post-processing, at least within Lightroom2. I'd shoot straight and deal with any issues you have with the photos in the PP. With the light issues you definitely want to get as MUCH light as possible, regardless.

I've got a plug-in that works in PSP, but unfortunately it is for use on skies and therefore adds some shade of blue to the image. I know that there are ways of handling it in PP, but I like to do as much as possible at the point of capture. But maybe it's not the best way. That's why I'm asking the question. I've pretty much decided to give it a try during this next set of shoots if the occation presents itself so I'll see if it is satisfactory or not I guess. Thanks for the input.

Sam

Designsmith,

I have read through this and a couple of others with regard to low light shooting. I just finished shooting a performance of "The Miracle Worker".

I am not an expert in low light shooting, but I will pass along my thoughts anyway.

Please take a look in my events Gallery for the Miracle Worker. (I couldn't figure out how to insert a direct link. ) So you can judge for yourself if you want to pay any attention to my comments on this subject.

Looking at your equipment list I see only one lens that is suitable for low light. That's the 50mm.

Low light means shooting at ISO 800 minimum, and probably at 1600 to 3200 with fast glass.

If you don't have fast glass rent it. Even with image stabilization you want the fastest shutter speed you can get. I used a tripod with what I think is good success. My 70-200 is non IS. I didn't lock the ball head down for each shot, but it provided the stability needed to keep the camera, and lens as motionless as possible, and far better than my hand holding.

Expose for the brightest object in the shot, and bring up anything else, or what's possible in post.

In short low light needs a camera body with good high ISO performance, and fast high quality lenses.

In the end shooting in this kind of light is a total compromise. There are limits to what you can capture, and limits to what is possible in post. Pick the best compromise for each shot, or situation.

Sam

divamum

Designsmith:

Could you perhaps show us some pictures that you DIDN'T like, and also some examples of what you are trying to achieve? (Your own, or links to others' work). On the grounds that the proverbial "picture is worth 1000 words", it might help everybody better understand what look you're wanting vs what you're trying to avoid.

Sam raises a very good point about the lenses (shame on me - I didn't look at your list of gear :smack) - y FAST glass is an important componnet of top notch theatre shots.

If you're trying to get good detail shots of kids' faces, I'd be trying to get CLOSE shots, and making sure they're pin sharp (which brings us back to lots of light and fast glass) - I know that many of mine have suffered from either motion blur or just plain old fashioned camera shake (even with a monopod)

Lastly (and semi OT): opera isn't different at all from the stagecraft point of view - the only difference is that instead of talking about it, we sing high notes while we're dying/falling in love/declaring eternal vengeance :encore

Sam

divamum,

As a side note I have original recordings by many opera stars from 1915 to 1920, including Enrico Caruso.

The recordings are original, recorded acoustically not remastered or electronically reproduced.

I also have the machine to play them.

Now back to photography

Sam

Designsmith

Sam wrote:

Designsmith,

I have read through this and a couple of others with regard to low light shooting. I just finished shooting a performance of "The Miracle Worker".

I am not an expert in low light shooting, but I will pass along my thoughts anyway.

Please take a look in my events Gallery for the Miracle Worker. (I couldn't figure out how to insert a direct link. ) So you can judge for yourself if you want to pay any attention to my comments on this subject.

Looking at your equipment list I see only one lens that is suitable for low light. That's the 50mm.

Low light means shooting at ISO 800 minimum, and probably at 1600 to 3200 with fast glass.

If you don't have fast glass rent it. Even with image stabilization you want the fastest shutter speed you can get. I used a tripod with what I think is good success. My 70-200 is non IS. I didn't lock the ball head down for each shot, but it provided the stability needed to keep the camera, and lens as motionless as possible, and far better than my hand holding.

Expose for the brightest object in the shot, and bring up anything else, or what's possible in post.

In short low light needs a camera body with good high ISO performance, and fast high quality lenses.

In the end shooting in this kind of light is a total compromise. There are limits to what you can capture, and limits to what is possible in post. Pick the best compromise for each shot, or situation.

Sam

Sam, thanks for your comments. Your right. I do depend on my 50mm, but I use all of my lens, especially 70-210mm f4. I shoot at 400 to 800 ISO, only faster when I have to. I always shot with IS, but seldom with mono or tripod. Shake isn't my problem. The IS on the Sony is fairly effective. I do have trouble sometimes choosing the right shutter speed for the occasion, but I'm working on it.

There is always some compromise, but I try to set a goal for each series of shots and aim toward that.

Designsmith

divamum wrote:

Designsmith:

Could you perhaps show us some pictures that you DIDN'T like, and also some examples of what you are trying to achieve? (Your own, or links to others' work). On the grounds that the proverbial "picture is worth 1000 words", it might help everybody better understand what look you're wanting vs what you're trying to avoid.

Sam raises a very good point about the lenses (shame on me - I didn't look at your list of gear :smack) - y FAST glass is an important componnet of top notch theatre shots.

If you're trying to get good detail shots of kids' faces, I'd be trying to get CLOSE shots, and making sure they're pin sharp (which brings us back to lots of light and fast glass) - I know that many of mine have suffered from either motion blur or just plain old fashioned camera shake (even with a monopod)

Lastly (and semi OT): opera isn't different at all from the stagecraft point of view - the only difference is that instead of talking about it, we sing high notes while we're dying/falling in love/declaring eternal vengeance :encore

I'll try to post images of what I'm talking about, but I can't make any promises. I'm way behind and a week from now we'll have another 3000 shots to deal with.

One of the problems we often face with is a large cast. We can get close on certain actors, but by definition we miss others. Parents like to see their kids regardless of the part they play. Also, I've found that closeups tend to cause you to miss action. That is part of the reason we sit through a rehearsal without much shooting. We can note those actions shots as well as others that we need to be sure not to miss. The tough part is that no matter how hard you try to cover it all, there will be moments that you do miss, in the process disappointing the parents and actors involved. You do what you can.

Designsmith

divamum wrote:

ETA: The poster is Rutt, and here is one thread where he discusses his approach http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=98808&page=3&highlight=ballet+workflow But there was another one I saw just recently... I'll keep looking!

Thanks for pointing me to this link. It is comforting to find that we're pretty much on track. I also checked out the Washington National Opera site. There are some great shots there.