Photographers! Shooting indoor events

[Danoz]

As an eclectic assistant of all-things-technology at our health policy non-profit, I've found myself immersed in several different kinds of medium-- the newest of which has been digital photography (since about September). I watched DVDs, played with settings, took the camera all over the city (http://flickr.com/photos/danoz) it is a Nikon D80-- yet, for work related shots, we hold large events in a basement w/ unflattering, unnatural top lighting. Since speakers are moving, I tend to shoot at about 800 ISO on a portrait setting and then use a heavy flash attachment to get the shots I need... there's something cold and unnerving about the images, though they are a vast improvement from what we've shot in the past with an old Cannon. When I try to shoot higher ISO with less flash I get these grainy images that don't work well for anything. What I'd like to do is purchase better flood lighting for the back of the room-- but I'd still like to find a warmer, softer setting that isn't flashing the heck out of the speakers.

Luckily it's been approved for me to take courses now, but I would like to improve what I'm doing in this regard.

Advice?

 

[Mr. B]

Disclaimer: I'm an amateur and hate camera flash . I just pretend it doesn't exist... but if my advice doesn't help you should try bounce flash.

More than likely, the lens you are using isn't fast enough. F2.8 is usually what's needed for successful indoor event photography at ISOs under 1600. As a personal example, I shot a college graduation in a poorly lit basketball arena with my F4 telephoto lens at ISO 800 and had rather limited success. I've used this same lens for shooting music performances in tents with similarly inconstant results.

Until I can afford the $1000 lenses required to do it right, I've resorting to renting lenses over the internet. If this is a singular event you are shooting, I would suggest you consider dropping around a hundred bucks (maybe less) and rent something fast and expensive. I can recommend http://www.lensrentals.com/, I've done business with them a few times and I couldn't be happier. I currently have a canon EF 24-105mm F4 lens en route which I'm going to use to shoot the French Quarter Festival next weekend.

 

[JustKate]

Your non-profit is going to let you shell out for flood lighting? I am so so so so so jealous. Mine just nixed my new strobes, which are needed to replace strobes that, OK, are post-WWII, but not that dang much post-WWII.

Flood lighting is tough because it's tough on the people it's pointed at. At least that's my impression. I would suggest that you instead work on perfecting your flash skills, and then find ways to make the lighting warmer via software. As long as you're getting good exposures, almost anything is possible.

Edit: Mr. B's idea about learning how to bounce the flash is an excellent one, too.

 

[An Officer]

I would recommend three point lighting for classically pretty shots. Should warm things up a bit.

 

[Bears Discover Fire]

First things first, take that flash unit off the camera. On camera flash is the most unflattering, hard light out there. What you do is you take that heavy flash, and outfit it with an off camera cord like this and a diffusion cube like this, then hold the flash at a more or less 45 degree angle to the subject when shooting. This directionalizes and softens the light enormously.

Now, set your aperture to the exposure of the flash, but your shutter speed to one stop less than the ambient light. What you will get is a properly exposed subject that pops out of slightly darker surrounds. This is a trick photojournalists use to great effect when photographing important people at events.

If you really want to pimp it out, tape a Rosco 1/2 Sun or 1/2 Straw gelatin to the flash to take away the harsh blue/white color temperature of xenon flash and replace it with something warmer and more complimentary to the subject's skin tone..

 

[JustKate]

Oh, yes - the gels can be very helpful.

 

[Danoz]

First things first, take that flash unit off the camera. On camera flash is the most unflattering, hard light out there. What you do is you take that heavy flash, and outfit it with an off camera cord like this and a diffusion cube like this, then hold the flash at a more or less 45 degree angle to the subject when shooting. This directionalizes and softens the light enormously.

Now, set your aperture to the exposure of the flash, but your shutter speed to one stop less than the ambient light. What you will get is a properly exposed subject that pops out of slightly darker surrounds. This is a trick photojournalists use to great effect when photographing important people at events.

If you really want to pimp it out, tape a Rosco 1/2 Sun or 1/2 Straw gelatin to the flash to take away the harsh blue/white color temperature of xenon flash and replace it with something warmer and more complimentary to the subject's skin tone..

This is exactly the kind of advice I'm looking for. Thanks!

 

[backstept]

or you could simply swivel your flash to aim up and behind you to bounce off the ceiling and white balance to a warmer temperature . . . not as fancy as some of the other solutions mentioned, but it'll save you money on extra equipment

 

[Bloodwhiner]

Hot lights are not the panacea you crave.. They look bright to the eye but actually through very little light over any distance. If you get f4 @ 1/60 from beyond 20 feet I would be surprised. For a shoot I was on, we used three 750watt floods set about 12 feet from the stage with a low white ceiling. At ISO400, we got 1/250 @ f2.8

Better off getting basic strobes. An affordable studio strobe such as Alien Bees from Paul Buff are about $280 a head. It will not be TTL though.

Another option is just getting a couple speedlights like the SB-800. They are around $350 a head. they are not as powerful but far more compact and you retain full TTL flash capability. I personally would go that route.

Then balance the strobe temp to the existing light (likely fluorescent) by using a gel.

 

[JustKate]

^ ^ Yes, and also, believe you me, you will get sick and tired of lugging that stuff around. If you have one room where you will set it up, it won't be bad, but if there is more than one and you have to set it up and then set it up again...

Reminds me too much of the old days when I had to carry this enormous camera and a bag full of lenses and flash units and film and...

 

[Small White Car]

Another great effect to try...get some kind of tall, bounced flash like others here are talking about...the taller and the further away from the lens, the better.

Then, rotate your camera sidewise so the flash is off to the side instead of on top.

It's certainly 'an effect' that you wouldn't use for every shot, but every now and then it's pretty cool.

But the bottom line is, using a flash doesn't mean your shots have to look like you've been using a flash. With ceiling bouncing your shots should look pretty natural, even when they weren't.

And finally, don't be afraid of flash-less, high-ISO gain. It's not always a bad thing.

 

[JustKate]

Very good point, Small White. And as I said before...there's always software!

 

[Bloodwhiner]

^ ^ Yes, and also, believe you me, you will get sick and tired of lugging that stuff around. If you have one room where you will set it up, it won't be bad, but if there is more than one and you have to set it up and then set it up again...

If it's your job then you are being paid to do it correctly and as the employer I don't care if it means a bit of extra effort on your part.

That is what was expected of me when I was a photographer and that is what I expect from my staff of photographers now.

 

[JustKate]

^ Well, I guess that puts me in my place!

It's not "his job" - it's one of many odd jobs he has, just as it's one of many odd jobs I have. I'm glad he's trying so hard to do it well, and he should try to do it well, but let's keep this in perspective: The "job" is to get a good shot, not to build muscle mass. If it can be done without lugging around 50 pounds of equipment, there's nothing wrong with that. At all.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

50 lbs.. please

two nikon strobes weigh about 1.5 lbs together... add two lightweight stands and maybe, just maybe you'll be at 5 lbs total with the sling bag to carry it in.

Even if it is just part of his job, it is worth doing well if the employer wants it and is willing to pay for it.

 

[Sky]

The only problem with bouncing the flash off the ceiling is that in many spaces the ceiling is too high to get enough "bounce". A flash diffuser could work well; also, you could just have something with you to bounce the flash from of just bounce it off a wall or a person or something. Just keep in mind that surfaces with different color will create a "bounce" of different color, so try to find a person with a white shirt.

 

[JustKate]

Yes, Bloodwhiner (I do love your screen name, BTW) - I agree that doing a good job is worth taking some trouble over. And I was exaggerating, perhaps, about the strobes' weight, but not about how cumbersome they are. My strobes, which supposedly have lightweight stands, weigh...oh, I don't know, maybe 25 pounds, but they are cumbersome as heck, particularly if you are carrying a camera and whatnot at the same time. Of course if he has a camera caddy to help him, that's no longer an issue.

But we're talking about strobes here, and are strobes really the answer to Danoz's problem? He said his issue is shooting "large events," so how would strobes help there? It sounds to me - but perhaps the events he's talking about are a lot different from the ones I shoot (where I need to shoot speakers and members of the audience and so on - as though he's going to need to be more mobile than that, if I'm reading him correctly.

And I also think strobes are pretty hard on the people being shot - they are harder on the eyes than a flash, at least if the people I shoot are anything to go by. In the studio, it isn't so bad because getting their photo shot is what they are in the studio for...but if they are trying to speak and answer questions from the audience, not so good.

I think he either needs lights ...or to learn how to really work that flash and to maximize his software skills. Flash lighting doesn't have to be harsh, and room lighting isn't necessarily soft.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

Justkate,

First, apology if I came across harsh - did not mean too.

I'm beginning to wonder if a better camera might not be the answer. Something that can handle low light better. It is way out of his budget but the Canon 5Dmk2 is amazing at ISO3200 and higher. It has less noise than most cameras at 800. Plus it gives you really fantastic video.

I'd like to know what his average lens length is for these shoots. He might just need a faster lens, like an 85 f1.8 or 135 f2.

If he does need mobility than a portable diffuser for the strobe might be the answer. Something as simple as an omnibouce. For around $10 it may be worth a try.

 

[JustKate]

^ Oh, no problem - you didn't really come across as "harsh"...more "aggravated." As though you'd had one too many photographers whine about how hard his/her job is.

And I don't see how a defuser can hurt - it costs almost nothing, so it will do no harm to his budget or his shots.

 

[Mr. B]

I'd like to know what his average lens length is for these shoots. He might just need a faster lens, like an 85 f1.8 or 135 f2.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I've been following this topic and all the talk about heavy flash gear when all that's needed is faster glass.