Something new for me

Leonie

I don't do people photos much and usually when I do it's in a studio where I have control over the lighting. My daughter (on the left) did her first live gig last night and I took my camera along for a learning experience. No flash used, high ISO and large aperture with as slow a shutter speed as would allow for me (wobbly) to hand hold. Here is one of the photos. I'm so proud of her to get up there on stage and sing her heart out, she did so well considering she had a horrible head cold. I'll have more opportunities to photograph this type of event as she'll be performing at the end of each term with her singing school so any tips for improving next time would be welcome

D3Sshooter

Looks that this worked for you as well, even when you do not have the controls as in a studio. Nice picture. Tells a story.
What was she singing ?
Tips, hmmm I would possible use with the same ISO settings a fill-in flash. Just to get the extra sparkle.... But a minimum fill-in.

Leonie

Thanks for looking and commenting I think this photo was taken during Teenage Dream (Katy Perry), she sang three songs during the gig. It was tough to get in a good position around the audience and at the same time avoid unwanted distracting objects like mic stands, music stands, band members etc. But it was a good experience to get out of my comfort zone and I'm looking forward to the next gig so I can get some more experience

adbsgicom

Nice job, and congrats to her on her big gig!!

divamum

High ISO + fast glass is the way to go. I think you did fine. What were your settings here?

Generally, I avoid using flash for live music - I know that in more popular music circles people don't mind it as much as classical musicians (where it is banned entirely in almost all venues) but, I would still avoid it if at all possible. In addition to the distraction factor, it's hard to be in a position where you can use it effectively, plus it messes with the stage lighting (eg gel/smoke effects) etc etc. Also, speaking as a performer, it can be highly distracting from the stage to see flashes going off ...

Leonie

Thanks for the lovely comments My settings were f4.0, ISO 1000, shutter speed was 1/160 and was using my 100mm macro lens on a Canon 5D. I might have been able to get away with a larger aperture but I always get nervous that too much will be out of focus then. Divamum thanks for your thoughts about using flash. I decided not to take my flash along with me because felt that it would be too distracting for the performers. Andrew, thanks I'll pass on your congrats to her. She loves singing but also enjoys performing and not stage shy at all (definitely doesn't get that from me!) so it was lovely to see her up there doing it all so naturally and enjoying it so much.

divamum

PUSH THE ISO!! rofl I don't think the 5d is quite as spectacular as its newer sibling the 5dII, but I bet you could easily have gone to 1600. For peformance gigs, I frequently bump my 7d up to 1250 (my favorite - for some reason it produces the least noise), 1600 or even 2000. The 135L f2 is a SUPERB performer in these conditions - if you can swing the cost (around $1000 in the US - not sure of UK pricing), highly, highly, recommended. If you can't swing that, then the 85 1.8 or its sibling lens 100f2 (same design - only difference is the focal length) are also great lenses, and very affordable for the quality they produce.

Although it may not look like it, these were all taken in dire lighting conditions (much worse than you had above - just a couple of lights either side plus an annoying shadow from the way they flagged the supertitles projector - it made it near-impossible to do wider shots because it always cut through somebody's head!) - the 135 always performed admirably, and I also used my 50 1.4 a lot. I was shooting dress rehearsals so had full freedom of movement in the house, which really helps.

1250 - 1/320 - 135L




1600 - 1/200 - f2.5 - 135


These show how bad the lighting was!!! 50mm f2.2 ISO 1250 1/320 (I could have dropped it, but my guess is I'd just switched from the 135L and didn't have a chance to change the settings)




More performance shots of assorted kinds at my smugmug site, under Opera, Concert and Theatre


ETA: Here's a wider shot from a different performance, which shows the setting and that flippin' shadow behind them from the supertitle setup! Drove me nuts

Leonie

Not sure the older 5D (which is the one I have) is quite so good with a higher ISO as the newer MKII, but having said that the noise wasn't too bad once it had been filtered in Photoshop using the Topaz noise filter. So next time yes will try upping it a little more and see how I get on. I see what you mean about that shadow, what a nightmare to deal with. I'll take a look at the lens you recommend, I think the 85mm or anything wider will be too wide for the 5D, remember it's full frame. The 100mm lens I used worked well but being a prime lens, and with an audience in the way, it was difficult to move forward or backward so a zoom would have been useful. Towards the end of the performance I moved further back to get a wider shot, not my daughter this time but some other performers, thought I'd attach the photos to share anyway though.

Leonie

And one other of my daughter

divamum

Ok, your lighting was worse You did a great job given those conditions! The last one of your daughter is very good indeed - well done!

I think the 135L is really the obvious choice if you can afford it. They do turn up used so it's worth looking around. It's also an astonishing portrait lens. It's one of Canon's "Holy Trinity" and I swear it has magic dust ground into the glass - it just has that extra "sparkle", even in poor conditions.... It's also ENTIRELY sharp at f2, wide open.

The other option, I suppose, would be a 70-200II is, but you'll probably need a mortgage for it - it's over $2k in the US so I shudder to think what the European pricing will be! I find I often want more than 2.8 anyway - IS is great, but camera shake isn't always the problem with slower shutter speeds in these conditions.

Leonie

I've thought about the 70-200mm lenses but I don't like them being white and also they seem very big. Just had a quick peek at the 135mm lens and it looks nice, excellent reviews and a reasonable price just under £900 which is a lot cheaper than the 85mm f1.2 lens I had looked at a few months ago and then decided against. I love the 100mm macro lens that I'm using now, use it for portraits a lot, but at times I need a little more reach and looks like the 135mm might but be the right choice. Thanks for suggesting it, I'm going to seriously consider that one