Low-light action shots

[Rommel]

I've been having a bit of trouble with this recently. (I'm new to photography, so I may be doing many things wrong...) I need to take action shots of people dancing in low-light, indoor conditions. In general, a flash is not an option. The lens I have been using is the Nikon kit lens that came with my D80 (18-135mm/f3.5-5.6). I realize it is not the fastest lens, but it's what I have at the moment. I was trying to take some pictures today by bumping up the ISO to 1600, and having the aperture fully open. I was only able to get adequate light at 1/20 shutter speed. At this speed, most any movement is blurred. This was probably the worst lighting situation I can imagine, but is there anything I can do to get faster speeds?

Also, for comparison, how much difference would a f2.8 lens make? Not that I can envision myself justifying purchasing a lens like that with my current lack of photographic skills, but I am just curious...

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Rommel

...I was trying to take some pictures today by bumping up the ISO to 1600, and having the aperture fully open. I was only able to get adequate light at 1/20 shutter speed. At this speed, most any movement is blurred. This was probably the worst lighting situation I can imagine, but is there anything I can do to get faster speeds?

There are 2 things you can try (no guarantees here, but let's work with what you have). The first, is to switch to shooting in manual, if you weren't already, and try shooting at between 1/40 and 1/60 with the aperture wide open. You should be able to get some decent shots with these speeds, and although you will still likely get some movement blur. Next, if you aren't shooting RAW, try doing that because you have more of a change to salvage the shot in post processing. Don't rely 100% on seeing things on the LCD because you may yet be able to salvage a shot in post-processing.

Originally Posted by Rommel

Also, for comparison, how much difference would a f2.8 lens make? Not that I can envision myself justifying purchasing a lens like that with my current lack of photographic skills, but I am just curious...

A faster lens will make a world of difference in this situation. Not sure if you've already considered it, but a 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor runs near $100, and in low light it makes a world of difference.

These were shot using the 50mm, handheld at 1/60 and 1/40 respectively at f/2.2 for example, and both had quite a bit of work done in post processing:

[Bail]

Thanks for the tip!

Not trying to Hijack a thread but it's in the same subject. I've tried concert photography and I think I'm Horrible



There's a sample. I like the catch the emotion of the band members but I can't seem to do it.

----------------------------
Some tips I've learned that help me so far.

Set your camera for burst mode - I found take taking multiple shots at the same time will help. 1 out the 5 shots will turn out ok. Just hope you have a big memory card

Biggest Aperture as possible (Smallest F Number) - Images come out more sharp at a bigger aperture. The only down side to that is you won't be able to focus the entire stage.

Use RAW (If you have) - As Nicole Pointed Out before

Higher ISO - I'd say around 800. Sometimes I use 3200 (like in the above picture) which could lead to a lot of noise in your picture. I fight that by over exposuring a little bit (Up to 1 Stop over) so when it comes to RAW Processing time, you can adjust the exposure down which will get rid of a lot of the noise and I also use a Noise Ninja which get rid of even more noise.

Next time I go out, I will try the manual mode (I was shooting in Aperture Priority mode).

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Bail

Thanks for the tip!
I like the catch the emotion of the band members but I can't seem to do it.

I think you're well on your way to getting good low light action shots. I think this one turned out really well.

The only tip I have for getting more emotion in your shots would be to change your position and try to get single band members in some shots, and try to capture their faces.

I have seen some great band shots on Flickr and they all seem to have this in common. They focus on one person in many of the shots. People like Delineated and Lindes have some really fantastic shots of musicians / bands. Maybe having a look at those will give you some ideas for how to get more emotion in your pictures?

[Fraggleroxer]

www.s95003690.onlinehome.us/bands
www.s95003690.onlinehome.us/warped

check them out

[Bail]

Is this more around the lines? Not really sure since I took the photo.



I love Delineated's gallery.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Bail

Is this more around the lines? Not really sure since I took the photo.



I love Delineated's gallery.

I think that this shot conveys much more of the performance atmosphere. I like the way that you've really gotten his face as the subject.

[Rommel]

Thanks for all the helpful information. I was shooting in manual mode with the aperture wide open - had even taken off the UV filter to get more light in. I was shooting in burst mode as well. Because of that I was shooting in JPEG mode, rather than RAW. But since everywhere I read people seem to be saying, "only RAW", I'm going to switch over. (with a little weep as my 2GB card goes from 500 pictures to the 150 mark). The images I took at 1/40 were super dark, but maybe post processing can do wonders? I have 0 experience at post processing, so maybe I should try there for a little bit.

Also, thanks for alerting me to the inexpensive prime lens - for some reason I was only considering zoom lenses which were definitely too expensive at this stage.

Both of your shots are great by the way

[AZ4Runner]

Rommel,

I've been having a bit of trouble with this recently. (I'm new to photography, so I may be doing many things wrong...) I need to take action shots of people dancing in low-light, indoor conditions.

Way to start off with some of the most difficult shots out of the chute. Action photography generally requires high shutter speeds to "stop the action" (or prevent blur). Unfortunately, when you shoot higher shutter speeds you have to either open up the aperature and/or increase the ISO for a proper exposure. Remember, when the shutter speed goes up, the amount of light hitting the sensor/film goes down, so you have to overcome that loss through ISO or aperture settings. Unfortunately, low-light, indoor (no flash allowed) photography doesn't do well with high shutter speeds.

The lens I have been using is the Nikon kit lens that came with my D80 (18-135mm/f3.5-5.6). I realize it is not the fastest lens, but it's what I have at the moment.

Remember, that the f3.5-5.6 label is the largest aperature your lens can provide at the extremes of your zoom. I.e. at 18mm the largest aperture is f3.5 and at 135mm the largest is f5.6. The first time I shot volleyball indoors with my primary lens (the 18-200mm/f3.5-5.6), I was shocked at how dark things were. My shots at 18mm seemed to be ok at shutter speeds of 250, but dropped off considerably when I zoomed in. The difference there being the maximum apertures. I had never realized how bad the lighting was in that gym until that point in time.

I was trying to take some pictures today by bumping up the ISO to 1600, and having the aperture fully open. I was only able to get adequate light at 1/20 shutter speed. At this speed, most any movement is blurred. This was probably the worst lighting situation I can imagine, but is there anything I can do to get faster speeds?

In order to get a non-blurry image you're going to have to bump up your shutter speeds. My guess is probably around 250 (that's 1/250th of a second) or more depending on the speed of the dance. Unfortunately, when you do that you have to increase your ISO (which you may have maxxed out at 1600) and/or increase the size of your aperture. You can get the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for around $110 new.

Also, for comparison, how much difference would a f2.8 lens make? Not that I can envision myself justifying purchasing a lens like that with my current lack of photographic skills, but I am just curious...

Remember for every stop you go is a multiple of 2 in light. So going from a 5.6 to 4 would allow twice the amount of light in. From 4 to 2.8 would allow another 2x light. (4x the light from 5.6 to 2.8) I was shocked at the difference I would see from my 18-200 mm/f3.8-5.6 and my 50mm 1.8 lens in the same gym. It was like night and day, literally.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by Rommel

Also, for comparison, how much difference would a f2.8 lens make? Not that I can envision myself justifying purchasing a lens like that with my current lack of photographic skills, but I am just curious...

One of the things I find kind of neat about photography is that there's three variables -- ISO, shutter speed, and aperture -- that all directly come down to one thing: how much light is recorded. Shutter speed and ISO are pretty easy, since they're obviously linear: double the ISO, double the light sensitivity; double (well, half) the shutter speed, double the time light is allowed in. Aperture is actually the same thing, and the standard sequence of stops is arranged for convenience -- each stop is also a doubling.

Therefore, and I'm going to highlight this because it's the key point , for each increase in f/stop, you can double your shutter speed.

The sequence is:

1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

and so, going from 3.5 to 2.8 would buy you a little bit, but not quite enough to double your speed. If your example shot was at the wide end of your lens, you'd be able to maybe go to 1/30th of a second instead of 1/20th. On the other hand, if you were talking about the long end, where your current lens is limited to f/5.6, you'd be moving two whole stops -- allowing you to shoot 4x faster, at a pretty-usable 1/80th of a second (but still not very fast for sports).

Unfortunately, since wide angles intrinsically gather more light (they're getting it from more areas), it's much more expensive to get a zoom lens that's f/2.8 in the telephoto ranges. And, if you do have one, the downside of a wide aperture for many types of photography is that you've got a relatively small depth of field, so it's impossible to make the whole scene in focus -- a problem that would get even worse with a f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens.