DSLRUsers.com

I must admit I've never done this sort of photography or much lowlight photography before, but I now have a new respect for you guys that do this. I now see why a D700, and VR is almost a necessity for this sort of shooting. It's just so difficult. It was as if the lighting guy was purposely stuffing up the lights every time I tried to take a shot. Things weren't helped by the fact that the Espy must have sold twice as many tickets as they were licensed to. You couldn't move, let alone shoot, but I was lucky in that I managed to jump up on the window sill right at the back. BTW, DeLaSoul rocked!

These are the closest things I've got to keepers. All shot with a D300, 80-200/2.8, almost always at 200, 2.8, and iso3200. Shutter speeds varied from 1/30 to 1/100. C&C appreciated...

The last has a lot of impact, probably more so if the light on the left was cropped.

I quite like the colouring and lighting in the third image, and the fourth is definitely a great shot as well - but I do agree with Glen. That light to the left is so bright that it's a distraction, and I think the image would be improved if it were cropped out

wow, I love those guys, last saw them in 1991!

I like the last shot. I think it is the angle what makes it more interesting.

I like them, quite like De La Soul as well.

As always, thanks for the feedback.

I tend to agree that the spotlight in the last shot is a bit distracting, but I know the sax player, so wanted to keep him in the shot. Will see how it looks cropped.

For those that do this sort of thing, do you think I'd get another 3 or 4 stops with a D700 and say 70-200VR, instead of D300 and 80-200??

kab wrote:For those that do this sort of thing, do you think I'd get another 3 or 4 stops with a D700 and say 70-200VR, instead of D300 and 80-200??

YES I would say so, the VR will let you hold at least 1-2 stops slower and the higher iso proficiency of the D700 is worth another 1-3 stops (dependent on what you prefer).

I wish I had a D700 for the low light ability. rarely shoot higher than 1600 on my D300 and when you want to keep the flash off you really would like all the extra stops you can get.

kab wrote:For those that do this sort of thing, do you think I'd get another 3 or 4 stops with a D700 and say 70-200VR, instead of D300 and 80-200??

I'm not too sure about VR lenses, since they do move around, shooting 3 or 4 stops slower than your current shutter speed might just get motion blur on the subject. I never really liked VR (aside for fast action panning) and don't think that lens would improve your photos.

My wild suggestion is the D700 with the Sigma 100-300 f4, since at f4 & 6400iso on the D700 would look better than the D300, but you'll be spending alot more with similar functionality. Wait, get closer would be the better option...

aim54x wrote:

kab wrote:For those that do this sort of thing, do you think I'd get another 3 or 4 stops with a D700 and say 70-200VR, instead of D300 and 80-200??

YES I would say so, the VR will let you hold at least 1-2 stops slower and the higher iso proficiency of the D700 is worth another 1-3 stops (dependent on what you prefer).

With your current setup, even 1/100th is likely to be too slow, assuming you're shooting hand-held because you don't say otherwise. You'll get a couple of stops extra light sensitivity from the D700 but the VR may not make a that much difference because under about 1/80 you'll get motion blur. I don't think the equipment is particularly the issue here.

The first shot works best for me though I suspect you could wring a somewhat better balance of tones out of the image with some regional adjustments. The second one for me doesn't survive the blast of the light. The third one I don't find the yellow caste that appealing and just because the camera sees it that way doesn't mean the camera was right. I think it might work better cropped in and converted to mono. The last shot has something going in it but you didn't nail it technically, the highlights are too burnt out. I don't agree that cropping the light out helps because the composition is weaker without it but the tonal range is all wrong. You might have done better had you waited for the person beside the light to have his head in front of it. Alternatively, especialy if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom, you may be able to pull the highlights back to some extent at least.

Essentially you're painting with light even if the light is provided. I think you need to contemplate more what it is that you really see and make more decisions about what you select and how it appear on the back of the camera. Check your exposures with your histogram and you can probably get the compensation quite close by trial and error. A better camera wouldn't be a handicap but it's probably not the issue. Persistence and experimentation will get you a long way.

Regards,
Murray

These are difficult shooting conditions, but you also need to try to understand the (shitty) lighting better.

Typically, stage lighting is harsh, uncompromising, and very high contrast, with a few very bright spots, and many dark ones. The default camera settings, which typically use an average metering schema of some sort, rarely work.

Looking at these images, I suspect that you've used matrix metering, and yes, it's trying to average the scene as it sees it. There are hotspots where parts of the subject are brightly lit, and rather than some rich dark areas, the lesser-lit regions just appear soft and under-exposed, which for me is far less satisfying.

Far better, I think, to switch to spot metering, decide upon the prime subject for your image, and expose for that. You will get a well exposed primary subject, and good, rich dark areas where there was little available light.

While a D700/D3 will offer you a couple of extra stops and some extra dynamic range, I think that you should concentrate on getting the exposures nailed as your first priority: poor exposure will remain an issue regardless of the camera body in use.

Thanks for the tips. I don't really have any intentions of buying more gear at the moment, but was really just wondering.

All shots were definetly handheld, and like I said range from 1/30 to 1/100. Murray and Gary, I think you're both right in that I should have used spot metering or even manual metering rather then matrix. I really only had shutter speed to play with, and probably should've hardwired it at around 1/100.

The last shot is processed quite a lot and I can bring back quite a bit of highlight detail, so may look at processing it differently.

cheers....