Need some help

topic posted Mon, April 14, 2008 - 1:37 PM by  Anahata
Hi I started doing photography last year professional. Well I have been shooting belly dancers for about 3 years all shows with a flash. It is great for stop motion, but now I want to shoot with just stage lighting. I recentaly got a new lens to go on my Olympus E-500. It is a 50 mm 2.5 lens for low lighting. I am having some troubles with it when shooting shows. I have tried so many different settings and still am having trouble . The problem is when the ladies move it is blurry except the very center focus. Can anyone help me get this worked out. I have a HUGE show coming up May 3rd and would like the pictures to look good witout using a flash.
Thank you,
Anahata-(Charity)
posted by:
Anahata
Omaha
  • k0
    k0
    offline 13

    Re: Need some help

    Mon, April 14, 2008 - 2:59 PM
    Ok, so you're not having the blurring problems with the flash, only without? What's the fastest shutter speed you've been able to use and still obtain a properly exposed image?

    I assume you've tried the largest possible aperture and set the ISO to the max? (1600 on that camera)

    What lens did you get? I also have an e500 and am considering a brighter lens.

  • Re: Need some help

    Mon, April 14, 2008 - 5:28 PM
    I was forced to learn how to do this on the fly at 3rd Coast Tribal this January, when they decided to forbid flash photography for the first time. I used a Canon 85mm/1.8, and had the ISO set at 800 to 1600, with the shutter going at about 1/50. Any slower shutter speed, and I got too much blurring from the dancer movement and my own camera shake (I used only a monopod).

    How far from the performance area are you? What you describe sounds to me like your depth of field is too narrow. The more knowledgeable photogs on here can probably correct me, but IIRC the depth of the focus plane varies proportionately with focal distance. In other words, if you set your aperture at 2.5 and focus at a person 100 feet away, you might get their entire body in focus. However, if they are only 20 feet away, you may only get from the nose to the shoulder in focus.

    The only solution I know to it is to jack up your ISO and reduce your shutter speed as much as possible, or try to get farther away. And take lots of pictures! With a really narrow depth of field, I find it is really hard to know until after the fact if you actually caught what you want. It doesn't take much movement by a dancer to suddenly have her veil or bracelet in perfect focus, and her face blurred. I took about 2,000 photos over two 3-hour shows, and reduced it down to about 150 that I liked. But once I learned to use depth of field, I feel it's really improved the quality of my photos.

    If you're interested, the photos from that shoot I did are at:

    kinglyam.smugmug.com/gallery...26_JE8TG
    kinglyam.smugmug.com/gallery...71_4mu4q

    Good luck at the show!
    • Re: Need some help

      Mon, April 14, 2008 - 6:11 PM
      Some very nice stuff, Chris! Far better than if you'd used flash, for sure.

      And DoF isn't neccesarily your enemy. A shallow focus plane can really clean up your composition (such as Chris' shot at kinglyam.smugmug.com/gallery...40_KGJbt ). Just make sure to manually park your focus point between the dancer's and compose the shot from there.

      And personally I don't get the monopd thing. With the right technique, most photogs can handhold anything short of a 200mm at any shutter speed sufficient to stop a dancer's motion (in my experience, the break-off point is around 1/15 sec... your mileage may vary).

      So set the aperture as wide as you fastest lens allows (preferably 2.0 or faster), crank the ISO (and invest in NeatImage, Noise Ninja, or other third-party noise software), put the camera in aperture-priority mode (in order to get the maximum shutter speed possible) and fire away. You can even tweak your manual exposure compensation a stop or two (depending on the lighting and backdrop) to buy yourself a shutter stop or two. Underexpose a stop and shoot in RAW to recover shadow detail. Anticipate action (counting the music with the dancer will help you know when the dancers' going to do their breaks, which are frequently more "posey"). And fire away!

      This shot www.taboomedia.smugmug.com/gall...7fcxs was taken at 1/4 sec and this one was www.taboomedia.smugmug.com/gall...3DqCd was 1/13 sec. (both handheld, of course). Other than the shots of the band on the actual stage, I don't think a single shot that night was faster the 1/20 sec.

      And do share afterwards... It's great to learn from one another!
      • Re: Need some help

        Mon, April 14, 2008 - 9:13 PM
        Thanks, Brad! Good point on the exposure compensation, I forgot about that. All of my shots in those two sets were set at 1 to 1.5 stops below what my meter was telling me was proper. That's pretty easy to get away with when you have spotlights, I think. Though I only use the in-camera meter, and in the last few months I've learned to ignore it and just check my review screen periodically.

        I've also started to get away from the monopod. But 1/4? Wow...I'll have to stay away from the caffeine to get that! Maybe I'll work on that myself at the show I'm doing tomorrow night.
      • k0
        k0
        offline 13

        Re: Need some help

        Tue, April 15, 2008 - 11:55 AM
        Brad, those are some very nice shots, what did you shoot them with? Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of the e500 is no image stabilization of any kind ... well ... except for the type that screws into the hole on the bottom. :)
        • Re: Need some help

          Tue, April 15, 2008 - 12:18 PM
          Thanks! Those were shot with a modest Canon 40D using the nifty fifty 1.8... no IS, just leaning against the side wall (which is the poor man's IS, right?)
      • Re: Need some help

        Tue, April 15, 2008 - 6:30 PM
        Wow Bard that is so helpful and great pictures! I am going to try everything I have learned here and hopes it works. I will get a chance to test shoot a week before the show so that helps. The lighting was really bad too, it was all yellows, orange, and white. Plus the back drop was wood and the carpet had yellow and brown in it so TONS of yellow looking! I will keep you posted!
    • Re: Need some help

      Tue, April 15, 2008 - 6:26 PM
      Those are some great pictures Chris. I think my biggest thing is I want each picture to be crystal clear and it can't be every time. I think I need my shutter speed higher, I am not sure I did that. Something so simple yet not sure I did. Sorry I am new at all this still. Thank you so much for your help and sharing those wonderful pictures!!!
  • Re: Need some help

    Sat, May 10, 2008 - 8:42 AM
    OK so I took everyone advice and take about 580 pictures. After looking through them I ended up with about 300. I would say out of those 300 about 50 are good and maybe a few GREAT ones. We had so many problems with the background being wood and the carpet was yellow and red. The lighting was home made for the back part of the stage and the front part was can lights. All in all the longest part was getting the noise out of them. Then I had to go in a sharpen most of them because the noise reduction left them fuzzy looking. Not sure why I may have done something wrong.
    I want to say thank you everyone for your help, it made so much difference. I just hate that with the stage lighting you can't get GREAT pictures of wings spinning or veils flowing. Oh well just part of the business. Thank you again!!!!!!!!!
    • Re: Need some help

      Sun, May 11, 2008 - 10:14 PM

      > ... Then I had to go in a sharpen most of them because the noise reduction left them fuzzy looking.
      > Not sure why I may have done something wrong.

      No, this is par for the course. NR leads inevitably to a loss of sharpness, the trick is to balance the NR and the sharpening and the rest to get the best results; and the whole thing is very much subjective. Some people will "overuse" NR (or "underuse" it) by the standards of others. Some will "oversharpen" (or under) by others' standards. Etc...

      Sony's a100 camera (now discontinued) had a bare minimum of hard-coded in-camera NR, and as a result:
      - at ISO-100 with a sharp prime lens (e.g. a 50/1.4 at f/8) would (ever so slightly, and only visible to extreme pixel-peepers) out-resolve other 10MP cameras costing substantially more money (also tested with very sharp primes).
      - at ISO-1600, had worse noise than other 10MP cameras costing rather LESS money.

      Sounds like your results are par for the course. I don't doubt that in time you'll be getting the best results the gear can produce; sounds like you're well on the track!


      - Steve

Recent topics in "Performance Photography"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Kosmos Camp 2008 Pix Posted Brad 0 August 20, 2008
Stationary versus Mobile Brad 11 August 11, 2008
Some non-USA photos Chris 2 August 11, 2008
Tribal Massive Pix Posted Brad 2 August 4, 2008