Photographing a Play - Feedback Requested

indiegirl

Hello, everyone!

I've been so busy (good thing) that I haven't been able to come around much lately (bad thing)! I shot a gig yesterday and although I am happy with a lot of what I got, I am still pretty bummed by stuff not being tack sharp.

I was at least 200 feet away in a balcony, shooting with my 70-300 most of the time for run of the show. Then I was able to get on stage after the show for some posed shots. I did use my 50 and my 24 for some shots, too. I don't know if it's possible to get action shots in a theatre setting that are as crisp as I'd like.

Take a look and let me know what I could do differently. I think you should be able to see my exif data for each shot. I played around quite a bit.

Thanks!

divamum

Good to see you!!!

Looking fom my phone right now so can't really comment on the aesthetics, but.... 1/80 @300mm? Were you on a tripod? If not, that would certainly account for lack of sharpness ....

angevin1

indiegirl wrote: »

Hello, everyone!

I've been so busy (good thing) that I haven't been able to come around much lately (bad thing)! I shot a gig yesterday and although I am happy with a lot of what I got, I am still pretty bummed by stuff not being tack sharp.

I was at least 200 feet away in a balcony, shooting with my 70-300 most of the time for run of the show. Then I was able to get on stage after the show for some posed shots. I did use my 50 and my 24 for some shots, too. I don't know if it's possible to get action shots in a theatre setting that are as crisp as I'd like.

Take a look and let me know what I could do differently. I think you should be able to see my exif data for each shot. I played around quite a bit.

Thanks!

I don't know that lens, is it known for being the bestest? If not you can forget about the tack sharp from that distance I would say. I just went to check light over at a theater two weeks ago prior to shooting there and was surprised at the low light...as is ISO-3200 and slow Shutter speed low light. Also because i had my very bestest lens on, it could work, but not without appropriate light. Why not squirt that Camera up to 2k ISO?

And I thought some of your shots were quite nice!

divamum

Ok, back to this for real (didn't think I'd get to the computer today and wanted to reply in a timely manner, hence the short post last night )

TOUGH lighting conditions - theatre shoots are always hard (Tom, now you know why I love my fast glass so much! ), but this one is moreso since you have not only the high contrast of the lighting, but also of the white set/costumes vs dark skin tones. Loads of built-in challenges there. I think you got some excellent shots, although I do see what you mean about some of them being a tad softer than one would ideally like.

Notice how #7 & 11 are tack sharp - they look to have been taken with a 50mm/iso 4000 (rock on 7d!)/ ss1/100. Sharp, sharp, sharp.

#1 &2 are 300mm, iso 1000 ss1/80 (again, I'm guessing you must have been using a tripod or monopod at that speed?). For the longer lens I would for sure have bumped up the ISO to allow a faster SS (even on a monopod that might have caused some minor camera movement if you weren't using a remote) and might have dropped the aperture down too - at 200ft you can squeeze enough DOF out of it even at f5.6 (DOF master says you have about 30ft of dof using a 300mm on a 7d at that distance); I probably would have even gone to f4 if the lens allowed it (and didn't suffer from sharpness issues at wider apertures)

I think Tom's on the right track that lens may not offer optimum sharpness - I don't know the lens either, so I'll let others who do chime in on how much that's contributing to the softness. There's no doubt that fast, sharp glass definitely pays for itself in this situation - bought my 135L for exactly this purpose, and it has never let me down (you can see many examples in my performance galleries, here http://divamum.smugmug.com/Opera-Concert-and-Theatre - all of the BCO shoots are in TERRIBLE lighting - usually one lantern either side from FOH, so horrible shadows and not many lumens).

The other thing you can do with the lens you already have is take advantage of the 7d's 18mp resolution and shoot wide with the 50mm and then crop down. I regularly do this when the light is poor - the shorter FL means I don't have to worry about keeping shutter speeds so high, and the 7d means I can crop ludicrously deep without losing image quality.

If you do want to pick up great theater glass, consider Canon's very affordable 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 (I've had both and, while they're both good, I actually preferred the 100 f2 which is sharper at f2 than the 85 is at 1.8), the more expensive but unrivalled 135L f2 (tack sharp at all apertures and also a superb portrait lens if you have the space to use it), and Matt Saville raves about the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (if you can get your hands on one for Canon - they're plentiful for Nikon, but I haven't been able to find a used one for Canon, plus I believe there are more copy inconsistencies in the Canon version). Some people have also had good results with the 70-200is - I decided to go with primes for the time being, but do find myself wanting a zoom sometimes; I'm considering investing in the 24-70 at some point (especially if it comes out in a Mk II version with IS!)

HTH!

pathfinder

divamum wrote: »

If you do want to pick up great theater glass, consider Canon's very affordable 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 (I've had both and, while they're both good, I actually preferred the 100 f2 which is wider at f2 than the 85 is at 1.8), the more expensive but unrivalled 135L f2 (tack sharp at all apertures and also a superb portrait lens if you have the space to use it), and Matt Saville raves about the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (if you can get your hands on one for Canon - they're plentiful for Nikon, but I haven't been able to find a used one for Canon, plus I believe there are more copy inconsistencies in the Canon version). Some people have also had good results with the 70-200is - I decided to go with primes for the time being, but do find myself wanting a zoom sometimes; I'm considering investing in the 24-70 at some point (especially if it comes out in a Mk II version with IS!)

HTH!

Don't you mean longer, Diva? The 100mm focal length is longer than the 85, and the85mm f1.8 is wider ( a larger aperture opening ) than the f2 100mm. The 85mm lens also has a very slightly wider field of view, but hardly worth mentioning in comparison with a 100mm lens. When I think of focal length differences in field of view with lenses, I think of doubles or halves - 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 etc. No real difference between 100 and 135, or 85 and 100.

Lots of us think the 85mm f1.8 is a stellar bargain, small, light, fast, and inexpensive ( relatively speaking )

divamum

Sorry, was typing in haste and didn't proofread properly - I meant SHARPER!! Have corrected it now

indiegirl

Thanks so much, Diva, Pathfinder and Tom. I appreciate it. I will look into faster glass, for sure.

philsphotography

One idea I have used in plays, or dance, is to take pictures during the last dress rehearsal. The lighting will be the same, but you will have freedom to move about the cabin - so to speak. Another added bonus, they may rehearse the same scene a few times. Lastly, if you a going to shoot on the night of the show as well - you're already familiar with the show.

indiegirl

philsphotography wrote: »

One idea I have used in plays, or dance, is to take pictures during the last dress rehearsal. The lighting will be the same, but you will have freedom to move about the cabin - so to speak. Another added bonus, they may rehearse the same scene a few times. Lastly, if you a going to shoot on the night of the show as well - you're already familiar with the show.

Thanks, Phil!

divamum

I'd actually assumed you were at the final dress, Jesse - were you shooting a performance? It's almost impossible, IME. You're limited as to where you can be - and that tough lighting is even tougher from a distance - and always worrying about bothering the audience. In my experience from the other side of the stage (ie on it), professional theatres usually only allow shooting during rehearsals, too; in many cases, the togs will come to the two final dress rehearsals (or dress tech plus final dress) to ensure the grabbing the "money moments".

indiegirl

Yeah, a performance. NOT ideal. I try to get in on the final dress but it wasn't possible for this shoot.

angevin1

indiegirl wrote: »

Yeah, a performance. NOT ideal. I try to get in on the final dress but it wasn't possible for this shoot.

YIKES!
I shot a rehearsal tonight, and during the opening they stated that NO photography would be allowed during the performance.
I can see that. Essentially after getting my shots tonight, I'd never be able to pull of a Stage shoot with folks in the house...I'd be all in their way! So really Jesse, good work!

Overfocused

I can't even view the pics its passworded, lol

Don't be afraid to use ISO around 1600-3200 with a F2.8 or F4 constant telephoto. I was 300 feet away with a Canon 70-200 F4 at a dance show once and I could still crop out tack sharp images that are big enough for 8x10s, possibly 11x14s. As long as it's properly exposed noise isn't an issue unless your camera is older (like 5+ years)

indiegirl

Overfocused wrote: »

I can't even view the pics its passworded, lol

It's password-free now. Sorry about that.

Overfocused

They're really good! Although the previews are only like 600 pixels, I understand the original probably is a bit blurry. Either way they're really nice for the web or smaller prints.