Shooting in low light situations. Advice please

[KeithM]

I have recently tried to take photos of my grandchildren at indoor events ( a nativity and a party) in poor light with mixed results. I am a RAW newbie and am still learning to use Lightroom 4. Kids don't sit still for long so I needed at least 1/125. My f/2.8 lens was wide open. Here's my question. Which should I do?

1) Hike the ISO value to the max and deal with the noise in Lightroom

2) Keep the ISO down and deal with the underexposure in post- processing

3) Leave the camera at home

Keith

/Should have added, I don't have the option of a flash unit

[Polar01]

Keith you do not state what your ISO or camera and model, not knowing I would suggest a combination of #1 & #2 forgetting about #3.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

I have recently tried to take photos of my grandchildren at indoor events ( a nativity and a party) in poor light with mixed results. I am a RAW newbie and am still learning to use Lightroom 4. Kids don't sit still for long so I needed at least 1/125. My f/2.8 lens was wide open. Here's my question. Which should I do?

1) Hike the ISO value to the max and deal with the noise in Lightroom

2) Keep the ISO down and deal with the underexposure in post- processing

3) Leave the camera at home

Keith

/Should have added, I don't have the option of a flash unit

Option #3 would be the easy way out. Would be great to see some examples. I'd consider option #1 as the way to go. What were the sources of light available? Is it possible to position an extra light source in situations like these? You could probably get some good rim lit shots that could still contain some heavy shadow.

[Colin Southern]

Always take the ISO as high as you need. High ISO doesn't really cause noise; under-exposure at high ISO REVEALS noise when the image levels are adjusted in post-processing. Or in other words, when shooting at high ISO you need to push the exposure to the limit -- you can't afford the (roughly) 2 stop safety margin that the camera enjoys when shooting a reflective scene at base ISO.

Under-exposing at a lower ISO and then attempting to fix in PP will give you more noise.

Generally, noise is only an issue when photographers stress over their images at 100% magnifications; when you look at the entire image, it'll look fine.

All of the above is the "B" answer by the way - the "A" answer is to use a flash.

[KeithM]

Hi Allan and John, thanks for your replies. I was shooting with a 5diii at ISO 12,800 and the results were often both underexposed and noisy. Looking again at the EXIF data, I was stopped down to around f/4.5 at times. I was not 'posing' the kids so an additional light source would have been impossible.

If I can make the question more general - which is easier to adjust in lightroom, ISO noise or underexposure?

[KeithM]

Hi Colin, thanks for that. I think your explanation answered my last question very clearly

[Colin Southern]

If I can make the question more general - which is easier to adjust in lightroom, ISO noise or underexposure?

Keith,

You may have missed my reply above (we were typing at the same time).

It all comes down to signal-to-noise ratio; with under-exposure the sensor noise level remains the same but the signal is less (think of it as getting dirtier water towards the bottom of the well). With high-ISO modes it's much the same except the camera amplifies the signal (and the noise) rather than you doing it yourself, but the advantage of the 2nd approach is that one type of noise is reduced.

But again, don't sweat the noise - you'll only see it at high magnifications unless you're under-exposing at high-ISO. (the two rules for high ISO shooting are (1) "Push the exposure to the limit" and (2) "compose to reduce cropping) (which makes the noise more visible).

There are a zillion noise reduction programs out there, but in my opinion, most don't do a good job. It's always a tradeoff between noise and image sharpness with them.

Sounds like you need to invest in a flash - grab yourself a Canon 600EX-RT and get on with it man

[Colin Southern]

Case in point - this was shot a few years ago on a 1Ds3 (a camera that didn't have a particularly great high-ISO performance) at ISO 1600 (1 off maximum), and a foreground flash into a shoot-thru brolly.



PS: I should have added that I've just seen your addition about not having a flash unit. Stop making excuses man - if you can afford a 5D3 and lenses, you can afford a 600EX-RT that doubles the usefulness of the rest of the gear!

[inkista]

+1 on getting a speedlight. Bounce flash sounds like it may be your new friend.

Suggest you look at this Neil van Niekerk article on shooting kids with (flagged) bounce flash. You don't have to get a 600EX-RT, but it will make you happiest. At least get one that can do eTTL-II, and has a 360-degree swivel head. A used 580EX or 580EXII will work, too, but there's a whole extra slew of features you can use with a 5DMkIII/600EX-RT combo once you go off-camera.

A flash can do a lot more for your images than a lens can; it can be used with all your lenses, and it will typically cost less than the next lens you're probably jonesing for. Just a thought.

[DanK]

I agree--if they allow it, a bounced flash with a bounce card is the way to go.

If you are stuck without a flash, there is only so much you can do. Once you have opened up to the widest aperture you have and have slowed the shutter to the slowest you can use, you have reached the limit of the amount of light your camera can take in. At that point, as Colin says, you have two choices: amplify the signal in camera (by boosting the ISO), or amplify it in postprocessing (by brightening the image). From what I have read, you get better results amplifying in the camera.

I'm not as sanguine as Colin is about noise. If you are displaying in low resolution, like on the web, it won't be too apparent, but as you enlarge, it becomes more so, and it is more apparent on featureless areas. I generally try to avoid noise reduction, because it reduces detail as well. If you do need noise reduction, the NR in Lightroom (at least since version 4) is quite good and can be applied selectively.

However, with proper exposure, the 5D3 should give you only a modest amount of noise at ISO 12,800. I just ran downstairs and snapped one, to which I did nothing at all, other than reading into lightroom, changing the white balance slightly, and exporting as a jpeg. I will post it below. It was too slow a shutter speed, and the depth of field is insufficient, but the plain area on the left should give you an indication of noise levels.

So my suggestion is use the ISO control to get an appropriate exposure in camera, see what it looks like, and only use NR if you need to, and then judiciously.

[KeithM]

Thanks Colin and inkista. I am totally ignorant of flash photography, you have set me some homework. Great link to Neil van Niekerk btw

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin and inkista. I am totally ignorant of flash photography, you have set me some homework. Great link to Neil van Niekerk btw

LOL - most of the time when I hear photographers say "they prefer natural light" my first thought is "they don't know how to use flash"!

In all honesty, it DOES have a learning curve, but for the type of shots you're after you'll have that nailed in about 5 minutes, and the rest of it isn't rocket science either.

Grab a copy of Syl Arena's Speedliters Handbook on Kindle and have a read whilst your 600EX-RT is on it's way (hell, I'm up to 6 of the damn things!)

Trust me, in low-light situation like you have, natural light sucks!

[LocalHero1953]

Last resort - go B&W: stressing low light exposures often gives colour problems, and colour noise is more unpleasant than luminance noise, so you are more likely to get acceptable shots by avoiding colour.

[xpatUSA]

Always take the ISO as high as you need. High ISO doesn't really cause noise; under-exposure at high ISO REVEALS noise when the image levels are adjusted in post-processing. Or in other words, when shooting at high ISO you need to push the exposure to the limit -- you can't afford the (roughly) 2 stop safety margin that the camera enjoys when shooting a reflective scene at base ISO.

Under-exposing at a lower ISO and then attempting to fix in PP will give you more noise.

While the advice is as good as it gets, I've often wondered about the last statement. So I pointed the trusty SD9 into a dark corner and fired off two shots. The first at ISO400 with zero exposure comp and metered center-weighted to zero on a knot in the wall boarding. The second at ISO100, the only change made to the camera settings - hence the metering said -2EV. Both raw, FWIW.

Then converted to TIFF, using dcraw which automatically brightens by "stretching" the tones - effectively making darker images brighter. Thus no post-processing actually needed in the test, dcraw fixes it for you .

The main point being made here is that, if only the ISO is changed, the sensor exposure does not change and one would expect identical noise results from images made equally bright. And so it turns out (ISO400 at left):



cheers,

[Colin Southern]

While the advice is as good as it gets, I've often wondered about the last statement. So I pointed the trusty SD9 into a dark corner and fired off two shots. The first at ISO400 with zero exposure comp and metered center-weighted to zero on a knot in the wall boarding. The second at ISO100, the only change made to the camera settings - hence the metering said -2EV. Both raw, FWIW.

Then converted to TIFF, using dcraw which automatically brightens by "stretching" the tones - effectively making darker images brighter. Thus no post-processing actually needed in the test, dcraw does it for you .

The main point being made here is that, if only the ISO is changed, the sensor exposure does not change and one would expect identical noise results from images made equally bright. And so it turns out (ISO400 at left):



cheers,

Exact results vary by camera model, but the fundamental difference is that if you vary the ISO then the gain of the analog signal is amplified before it hits the analog-to-digital converter, so ADC noise remains the same.

When you adjust the result in post-processing you're increasing ADC noise as well.

Have a Google on the topic and I'm sure you'll find more info, with supporting images for typical cameras.

[xpatUSA]

Exact results vary by camera model, but the fundamental difference is that if you vary the ISO then the gain of the analog signal is [varied] before it hits the analog-to-digital converter, so ADC noise remains the same.

True of most cameras indeed, Colin, but not on the SD9 which was, after all, the camera used.

In each image in my post, the raw data sent to the converter was about the same, even though the metering said -2EV for the ISO100 shot. That was because the ISO knob affects the metering but does not change the gain going from the (3) sensor analog outputs to the 3 ADCs. The ISO selection is also written into the raw file as metadata, to be used appropriately by the converter. So, with the same exposure and the same read noise, thermal noise and ADC noise and with the images made equally bright, the noise was about the same between the two images - as could be seen.

I guess that's the trouble with unqualified statements; there's always exceptions waiting to break the rule, eh? In fact, when I said . . .

The main point being made here is that, if only the ISO is changed, the sensor exposure does not change and one would expect identical noise results from images made equally bright. And so it turns out (ISO400 at left):

. . . I too should have made it clear that I was talking about my camera and those of it's ilk that do not have a VGA in front of the ADC or do not have a VGA embedded in the AFE.

cheers,

[Manfred M]

I always find it amusing when people complain about not getting the perfect shot when shooting at ISO 12800. Not all that many years ago, when digital was still a new technology and film was still being used for a lot of "serious" photography, ISO values beyond 800 were mere dreams, and we still managed to get the shots.

Bottom line - too dark; JUST ADD LIGHT. If you can't; then shoot at those high ISO values, but know your equipment well enough to understand its limits and live with the results.

[rpcrowe]

Colin turned me on to the 600ex-RT and I love it. However, for many photographers, the 430EX-ii is all the flash that they need and at about 1/3 of the price of the 600ex-RT...

The "flag" I use to modify my flash is the Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro and I absolutely also LOVE that piece of gear...
www.dembflashproducts.com

[Colin Southern]

Colin turned me on to the 600ex-RT and I love it. However, for many photographers, the 430EX-ii is all the flash that they need and at about 1/3 of the price of the 600ex-RT...

My only caveat to that is "choose carefully" because if one ever "catches the flash bug", then the radio side of the 600EX-RT won't talk to the likes of the 430EX ii (it can be controlled with the optical side of the 600EX-RT, but that's a much older technology and one that - frankly - I think a lot of people would like to forget about).

[IzzieK]

After I bought my D90 I used to use one called Lightscoop (www.lightscoop.com) I have since given it away but I can assure you that it works good, apart from its portability.

....... The "flag" I use to modify my flash is the Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro and I absolutely also LOVE that piece of gear...
www.dembflashproducts.com