Low light shooting techniques
I'm a decently experienced ameuter that is trying to really increase my skill level, especially with low light photography. I am having difficulty figuring out the best camera settings to use in low light situations where you need to be highly mobile and obtain clean sharp images, such as weddings. Of course the best method is to use a tripod. But, what do you do when a tripod would be in the way, such as at receptions? I have had lousy experience with high iso settings (400-800) producing unsatisfactory grain. So I feel like I need to keep the iso setting as low as I can. But that forces you into longer shutter speeds where you can't hold the camera steedy long enough. Any thoughts?
0
Comments
It would be helpful if you told us what kind of body you have and which lenses you are using. Do you have a 50mm? How wide will it go? Having a fast 50 is awesome for low light situations. It allows you to increase your shutter speed while maintaining a descent ISO.
Let us know what equipment you have so we can give you more specific info.
Lisa
Sorry, I bet that would be helpful. I'm shooting with a 8 mega pixel Rebel XT DSLR with the standard EF-S 18-55 kit lens and a camera mounted speedlite 430 EX. I'm sure my lens isn't all that good. Which brings up a good point in relation to this topic. I'm wanting to move into more of a professional role with all this. Which also means I need to aquire some improved pieces of equipment, lenses being one of them. More thoughts?
1) Grab the fastest lens I had, and make sure image stabilization is on
2) Open the aperture as far as acceptable for depth of field
3) Slow the shutter speed as far as acceptable for stopping motion
4) If settings are not enough, raise the ISO speed, but beyond 800 gets too noisy
5) Hold real still, lean on something if possible, use any stable body positioning tips from the pros
The biggest problem was my lens, a 17-85 F4-5.6 IS. I often felt boxed into a corner because the lens was so slow that even with IS it was hard to get a high enough shutter speed. IS doesn't stop subject movement, just mine. Your 18-55 kit lens, with a max aperture of 3.5-5.6, is similarly limited. On both lenses, just the act of zooming in reduces the max aperture to f/5.6...you can't get any low light shots that way! The tiny aperture pushes the shutter speed so far out that even IS and high ISO on the XT don't have enough range to compensate.
What ultimately saved me in low light was the purchase of the 50mm f/1.8, and later the 17-55 f/2.8 for more focal lengths and with IS. These lenses give you so many more stops that it can make the difference between getting the low-light shot, and not. The constant aperture on the 17-55 is critical because it means you are still getting f/2.8 when zoomed in fully. Huge difference versus the kit lens.
But the XT is still quite limited compared to today's bodies. Buying a Canon 7D was the other side of the equation, once it came out, because that raised the usable ISO speeds. To answer your question, buying a more sensitive camera would help you, but I think buying a faster lens would help you even more, and it would help you with the camera you have now. I used the XT and fast lens combo rather happily for 3 years before feeling like there was a body I wanted to upgrade to. (Although, I don't shoot for a living.)
The other thing that helped was taking the external flash and bouncing it off something, to augment the dim light in a way that would look somewhat natural.
Great info. Thanks for the advice. I definitely think my first big purchase is going to need to be a lens.
Also remember that most of your noise is in the darker regions so if you underexpose you will have noiser image. If you can, shoot RAW, push your exposure to the right (in RAW there is a little headroom above when the camera says you've over-exposed), and if you can use some denoising software or plugins (I use NoiseWare, but there are several very good ones out there) to reduce the noise when you need to. The faster lens will help you be able to expose to the right much better and thus get better noise performance.
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
There is also some really good advice happening over on another thread. In this thread I talked about faster zooms, but you could get better image quality in lower light for less money if you use fast prime lenses; give that other thread a read.
What manufacturer is your 17-55mm? I see Sigma has a 18-50 f2.8-4.5 on b&h for $200. That seems pretty affordable. Is it any good?
You might find the ISO 1600 is more useful than you think when you look at prints. Do not make your decision entirely on your monitor's screen - much of that noise disappears when you print the image on paper. Black and white images tolerate grain much better than color, the chroma noise disappears entirely.
I shoot ISO 1600 images with a 40D frequently, and find that if they are not under exposed, they are quite useful. If they are under exposed, they are much less satisfactory.
If you do not use a higher ISO, your only choices are a faster lens, a longer shutter speed ( not really much help in the dark ) or raise the ambient light with more lights or flash or reflectors. It really is that simple.
Good prime lenses tend to be faster than most zooms. Most zooms bottom out around f2.8, while good primes frequently reach down to f1.4 or better. It is hard to beat good glass in skilled hands.
NoiseWare, used selectively on an adjustment layer, can be very helpful. I would not attempt low light shooting without something like it.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Also, breath control and "being in tune" with your heart-beat.... Take the shot between "thumps" and at the end of an exhale - If you find yourself holding your breath, you missed the opportunity; try again. The trick is to RELAAAAX.
Also, try taking a series of shots with the camera set on "Rapid Fire". You'll find that the 2 or 3rd image will be MUCH crisper than the 1st (usually).
Cheers.
Disappointed with AF of Tamron 28-75 2.8, me less happy.
I use that technique too, because you will cover a short span of time in which the subject moves (blurs), and stops. You never know exactly when they'll be still, so you "spray and pray" the time span and keep the frame where they're not blurry. Works at concerts too. It doesn't have to be the whole subject moving, either; when people are talking even a smeared mouth is distracting.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Sounds like Marine Sniper techniques.
It isn't any different. What we're doing is an attempt at holding our *weaponry of choice*, as s t e a d y as possible, in order to hit a goal... I've actually hit good crispness "using all the above" (with exception of a mono pod) with a 300mm and cropped camera sensor, at (take a deep breath...),,, a mere 1/8th of a second.:wow And have blown that same said pic to a size of 12" x 36". :yikes
Rapid Fire: My meaning is that the camera torques over when we hit the shutter for the 1st exposure. By shooting a string in succession (I'll go for ~5), the subsequent shots become clearer because the camera gets a chance to stabilize - Try it all out; with a wee bit of practice, I'm sure you'll be amazed at what can be accomplished!
And, oh ya, in case you're wondering how this'll help out with noise issues; you *should* be able to reduce ISO in low light situations.
Good Luck!
Don't be afraid of high ISOs, they're necessary at times. I shot at 3200 with my 7D recently and surprisingly they turned out very nicely.
I typically metered off the brightest point in the photo. Helps add a little saturation and contrast back to high ISO images.
And don't worry about the body, the XT was pretty capable in my experience.
But yes, to repeat what everyone else has said, glass is very important in lowlight. I have an f/2 and f/1.4 lens which save me many times over in lowlight. Lot of 2.8s, and only one sliding aperture that I use from March to October.