I will soon be going to a show and I’d like to take some great pictures. I will be sitting in the fifth row so my camera’s flash will most likely not work (plus I wouldn’t want to interfere with the performance.) There will be some stage lighting but I don’t know how much. The photos will probably range from full zoom (details, faces) to panoramic (entire scene). I have a Minolta Maxxum 5 with a Sigma 28-200 3.5/5.6 IF. A tripod is of obviously not an option.
Any ideas about what kind of film to use? Any useful “tricks”? I would like to get the clearest, sharpest pictures possible (within the limitations of my lens). I have very little experience in this field, so instead of particular combinations, I will probably fare best setting the camera to “AP” mode or something like that.
For those in the know, as a reference for the kind of tonality/sharpness I prefer, I usually use Kodak Royal Gold 200/outdoors 400/indoors and I’m pretty happy with it. However, I am open to any suggestions – I would like the best possible results, and the price of the film is not very much an issue.
If you’re going to be shooting with the existing light, get some 800-speed negative film (I personally recommend Fuji).
Look into buying a cheap monopod. It’s basically like a tripod, but with only one leg. It’s not as solid, of course, but it will help you hold the camera more steadily. An inexpesnive one will probably set you back less than $20.
One of the main problems with stage photography is that you are generally shooting very brightly lit subjects (actors) against very dark backgrounds. If you use your camera on an automatic setting, the chance for it to mis-read the light and select an improper exposure is high.
If your camera allows you to set the exposure manually, zoom in close on an actor and then set your exposure based on that reading. Of course, if they change the brightness of the lights from scene to scene, then you’ll have to re-set your exposure. If you’re stuck with automatic mode, then try to fill the frame with your subject as much as you can. Luckily, Fuji 800 is a pretty forgiving film when it comes to improper exposures.
If you have control over the aperture setting (and I’m pretty sure you do on a Maxxum), stick to the widest apertures you possibly can. In simpler terms, use the low numbers like f/3.5. You’re taking pictures of moving subjects in fairly poor light, and it’s easy to get motion blur. Using a wide aperture will let you use higher shutter speeds to better freeze the action.
with 3.5/5.6, you are going to need the fastest emulsion you can find - 1600 is available in E-6 (slide), don’t know about C-41 (print).
for all things photo, see www.bhphoto.com - if they don’t have it/can get it, it probably doesn’t exist (generally, generally).
If this a a normal (read: really dark) theatre, I’d suggest putting the camera on aperature priority, set it wide open (3.5 - 5.6, depending on the zoom setting), and pray a lot. If the shutter reads more than 1/100 of a second, you are looking at shake.
Ultimate wing-and-a-prayer setup - set it on manual, set shutter to 1/100 (to eliminate shake) and aperature wide open (to get as much light as possible).
If you shoot E-6 and know a shop which deos custom processing ($), most films can be “pushed” 1 to 1.5 stops.
Also, see if you can borrow or rent a faster lense - you are looking for 1.4 - 2.8 (I love my 1.4’s)
I can’t find a better lens, so the one I have will have to do. BUT:
I used it before in another venue with the Royal Gold (ISO 400) and the results were fair although far from great. (I just set it on AP <aperture priority> and prayed).
I checked out the “bhphoto” link (very good site, BTW) and it seems to me the best I can do for print film is 800. I’m thinnking of choosing between Agfa Vista-800 and Kodak Kodak Portra-800. There is also some Fuji, even in 1600 “flavor” but for some reason whenever I used Fuji I was not very pleased with the results. (Superia and Velvia). I am tempted to give the Agfa a try but I’ll also try something else if I hear reasonable arguments about it.
I’ve used Fuji’s 1600 speed transparency (slide) film before. Grainy doesn’t even begin to describe it, however, it’s useful in situations where nothing else would work. It’s also somewhere in the neighborhood of $10+ a roll, IIRC.
However, it’s a bad choice for the situation here: remember that those stage lights are all going to be tungsten, and so slide-film pictures would have a horrendous orange cast to them. Negative film will have the same thing, but most computer-based printing machines at photo labs these days will do a passable job of correcting for that when making prints.
Speaking from experience shooting lots of things in bad light, I’d avoid 1600 speed film of any kind - it’s just too grainy. Stick with 800 instead. If the light is really dim in the theater, you can do a workaround known as ‘pushing’.
To do this, set the camera’s ISO(film speed) to 1600, even though you’re only using 800. Shoot away as normal, and then take it to a decent photo lab (i.e. not Walmart) and tell them you want them to “push-process 1 stop”. In my opinion, Fuji 800 ‘pushed’ like this to 1600 looks better than Fuji 1600 film shot at 1600!
I’ve had very good success with almost every Fuji product I ever used.
I still like Kodak. But not the consumer grades.
Most AGFA is pretty darn good. Their color balance seems a little warm, though.
Fuji slide film and Fuji print film are two different things (of course! ;)). Speaking as a newspaper photographer from back in the days when we actually used film, Fuji 800 was industry-wide the film of choice whenever you wanted to shoot something in crappy light - night sports, stage performances, church stuff, you name it. It rarely let me down, even when ‘pushed’ as described to 1600 (or even, at times, to 3200!)
I worked in the Theater in Long Beach, California for a year or so and they had a rule for no photography during any show. But, perhaps that was for flash photography, I don’t remember exactly.
to put it another way: Which film will have the least graininess at 800? One of the reasons I’ve given up on Fuji is its graininess IMO a given Fuji model will be more grainy than its “rivals” from ohter brands, plus the color balance/intensity somehow never felt right to me.
Further: how does the Kodak Portra differ from the Royal Gold? Are they in the same league? (as I said, the royal Gold seems to best suit my personal taste in color balance; but the Royal is in a league above the “regular” Gold) Is the Agfa very different? (as in too different to be “doctored” in the lab)
[I went to the same show a while ago and there were plenty of ppl taking photos, with and without flash; no one ever complained]
Which reminds me - don’t be surprised if they kick your butt out of the theatre - SLR’s are noisy things - the mirror popping up (thud) the shutter firing (click) and the film advance (whiirrr) are really annoying in a (supposed to be) silent place.
I definitely wouldn’t reccomend the 1600-speed color films; they’re intended for photojournalists who have to get something, and don’t care how bad it looks (the newspaper reproduction process makes the grain less obvious). Go with the 800 (I’ve always used the low-end Kodak Max, and it works fine), brace your elbows against your body to minimize shake, and pray to the deity of your choice. Don’t trust the autoexposure, zoom in on one of the performers and set it manually. It’ll stand being underexposed a stop or so, but with a f/5.6 lens, you’re pretty much out of luck. That’s why newspapers pay out the wazoo to supply photojournalists like me with f/2.8 lenses (although there’s a downside to all that glass: a 300mm f/2.8 is heavy).
Royal Gold is high-end consumer-grade, Portra is for professionals. Portra’s more finely controlled quality-wise, and stored in a refrigerator to keep it as constant as possible. Royal Gold is just thrown out on the shelf with everything else.
Two points: 1) If this is a professional performance of any kind, chances are good that they have a prohibition against any kind of photography, flash or not.
B) You may want to contact a pro photo shop in your area and see if you can get custom push processing. That way you would expose 400 EI film at 1600 or higher, and they will compensate for it in the processing. Of course, you’d be well advised to test this technique in advance with lighting as close to the real thing as possible to see if the results are satisfactory.
Unless you have permission from the performance venue,
DO. NOT. TAKE. PICTURES.
Seriously. It’s the height of bad manners and surely violates the contracts of the performers. You could have your camera confiscated and the performers will think curses at you.
Unless you have permission from the performance venue,
DO. NOT. TAKE. PICTURES.
Seriously. It’s the height of bad manners and surely violates the contracts of the performers. You could have your camera confiscated and the performers will think curses at you.
Since this seems to be a concern, let me say that:
This was done before at the same show without problems
Some fans actually share photos from the show on the performer’s official website (which has a discussion board).
I was going to check the venue’s policy at the entrance anyway. A 200 zoom lens on a SLR is not something you keep in your pocket, and it’s bound to get some attention from the staff. (I did leave my camera at the box office before, but it was somewhere else; policies differ and I respect them).
I think I’ll go with a Kodak pro 800, and perhaps I’ll try push-processing, depending on the quality of the “raw”. Thanks to everybody for their advice/contribution (if there’s something else, keep ‘em coming, there’s still time).
Doesn’t anyone use fixed prime lenses any more? You can get modest telephotos with f2.0 or 1.4 apertures depending on how much you want to spend. I’m partial to a 85mm f2.0 Nikkor which is my “normal” lens and I’m looking forward to getting a DSLR so I can have the equivalent of an 80mm f1.4 for the cost of a 50mm standard lens.
(although there’s a downside to all that glass: a 300mm f/2.8 is heavy).