Stopping action in low light

[PicDaddy]

I have a 5D and have been trying recently to play family photojournalist and take some people pictures at some recent events which are indoors at night.

I am using the Canon 24-70mm L lens wide open at f/2.8 and I have the camera's ISO amp'ed up to 1600.  However, in the typical illumination of the various rooms in the house I am getting shutter speeds of 1/8 to 1/25.  Even at 24mm this is barely enough to eliminate camera shake.  At 70mm (which is what I prefer), this shutter speed is way to slow.  

Needless to say, 1/25 isn't fast enough to stop the action of the kids playing with the new baby, etc., etc.   Do I have to use ISO 3200?? Do I need a faster lens?  Not sure if the 50mm 1.4 will do it as it is only 1 stop faster.  I won't even go into the fact I already have too little DOF as it is....  

I hate to underexpose due to all the noise, but I am otherwise getting 98% blurry shots!!! Am I being unrealistic to think that any camera can capture this stuff?

[Ray]

The answer is clear and unequivocal. In those circumstances you have to use a flash attachment. If you use a lens with IS, then 1/25th is fast enough to stop the camera shake, but not the action.

[Phuong]

wow this is where a 350D beats a 5D  
Ray was right. with IS and/or shorter focal length you may stablize the subjects, but not alway freeze them. these are two totally different topics. 1/25 (or even if you managed to get 1/60 by bumping iso to 3200 or open the lens wider) simply isn't fast enough to stop the actions. this is especially true if there were kids running around.

so since the room can't be any brighter, your best bet is to use a flash.

[John Sheehy]

I hate to underexpose due to all the noise, but I am otherwise getting 98% blurry shots!!! Am I being unrealistic to think that any camera can capture this stuff?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's a reason there's a Tv-pri mode on your camera.  It is *THE* low-light AE mode, IMO, even though it is not very popular.  In most informal forum surveys, most people say they use Av and M - one more than the other.  I don't see Av as being very useful in low light, unless you're on a tripod and your subject is still.

I use Tv-pri hand-held in low light with my 20D at ISO 1600 (3200 is fake and doesn't help if you're shooting RAW; I don't know about the 5D), and just let the images under-expose as they might.  Depending on what you're going to do with the images, pushes to 6400 are quite useable.  I've pushed images up into ISOs in the millions, hand-converting from RAW, and binning the results, and the random noise reduces at the smaller sizes, but the one thing left is mostly horizontal and slight vertical "banding".  Banding does not decrease relative to the signal as you bin (or downsample) because it only exists in one dimension, rather than reduce like random noise does.  There is no reason why an intelligent algorithm couldn't remove most of the banding, but RAW converters seem content with their current limitations.

I've removed banding myself, but I have to use a mixture of software; lots of saving, loading, layering, resizing etc.  It would be nice to have  RAW converter that allowed for pattern noise to be removed before conversion, but after promotion to 16-bit linear.  It is my opinion that most of the subjective noise in the shadows of RAW files from recent Canon cameras is the banding, even if it is not blatantly banded.  The banding creates troughs and crests as wide or tall as the image, upon which the random noise is pushed up or down, and when both go down or both go up, you get a broken grid pattern, which the brain locks into and fails to ignore to the degree it can ignore purely random noise, which is actually quite nice looking in moderation, IMO.  No amount of pattern noise looks nice.

[PicDaddy]

The answer is clear and unequivocal. In those circumstances you have to use a flash attachment. If you use a lens with IS, then 1/25th is fast enough to stop the camera shake, but not the action.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was trying to avoid the use of flash, but it looks like I have no choice.  I actually bought a 580EX, but haven't yet cracked the code on how to make it work without creating that artificial look.  I think the answer is somewhere between bouncing the light off the cieling and decreasing the overall brightness of the flash.

The other problem I had using flash was that it didn't increase the shutter speed.  I think the camera was still trying to properly expose the background.  I'm not sure.  What I got was a blurry picture of a kid overlayed on top of a nicer sharp flash exposed picture of a kid.

Sorry if this thread has turned into 'how to teach the niewbie flash 101'...

[PicDaddy]

I use Tv-pri hand-held in low light with my 20D at ISO 1600 (3200 is fake and doesn't help if you're shooting RAW; I don't know about the 5D), and just let the images under-expose as they might.

Can I ask what software you use to do RAW conversion and do remove the random noise?  

If I can't get flash to help here, then its off to the "John Sheehy school of denoising underexposed images"...

BTW -- I have been trying to find out if ISO 3200 in the 5D is done via hardware (real) or software (fake)...reading on the internet I heard both claims...Canon says nothing on the subject.  However, the fact that you have to enable ISO 3200 via a custom function is probably a good indicator that it's fake.

[Jonathan Wienke]

The situation you're describing is pretty tough. I've done a lot of shooting in low light situations, mostly concerts with some kind of stage lighting. You have reasonably fast glass, and are shooting at max ISO, so the only other options are to use flash or increasing the room lighting somehow, like replacing a 60-watt incandescent bulb with a 150-watt-equivalent (~25 watt actual) fluorescent bulb, or something like that. If your ceilings are white or at least neutral-colored, I highly recommend bouncing the flash to avoid harsh shadows, redeye, and other common shortcomings of flash photos. I recommend shooting manual mode with the lens aperture wide open, shutter speed just fast enough to avoid motion blur, and flash exposure compensation set to achive a well-exposed shot. This setting will vary depending on the overall color of the subject; mostly dark-colored subjects may require a -1 stop FEC, while mostly light-colored subjects may require up to +2 stop FEC.

You may find some of the information here and here helpful.

PS: Try using the shortest focal length lens you can get away with, and get closer to the subject. You'll get wider DOF, faster flash recycle times due to the shorter subject distance, and less blur from camera shake. You can handhold a 17mm lens down to 1/20, but not a 100mm. Just remember that focus-recompose sucks, especially when shooting with wide-angle lenses and small subject distances.

[Richard Dawson]

Jonathan's information concerning flash, as with other topics, is very complete and may include this.  If it doesn't, another option you might consider is shooting in Av mode and setting the appropriate custom function for flash sync speed to 1/250 second.

This is accomplished on the 20D by setting custom function 3 to 1.  It's probably the same for the 5D.

As already mentioned, bounce flash can be a real help.

Hope this helps.

[PicDaddy]

I recommend shooting manual mode with the lens aperture wide open, shutter speed just fast enough to avoid motion blur, and flash exposure compensation set to achive a well-exposed shot.

Thanks for the help.  I really like this idea.  

If I understand what you and everyone here are saying...its basically, open up the lens max, set to highest ISO, fix the shutter speed to 1/125 (or something), use a flash, and tweak the FEC to get the best exposure you can without the deer in the headlights look.

I'll try this out tonight though I am worried the subject will be properly exposed and the background will be way dark....  I refuse to clean this up with photoshop as I haven't the time....

Thats basically the best you can do...beyond this you have to spend time cleaning up noise in RAW conversion   .

Thanks for your links to the other sites. I plan to do some heavy reading this weekend.

[Sheldon N]

If the space in which you are shooting is enclosed with a nice lower ceiling (preferably white in color) then bounce flash is another option.

Put the camera in Manual mode, stop the lens down a couple stops (f/5.6 or so) and set a faster shutter speed of around 1/125. Also, set the ISO down to 100 or 200. This will completely eliminate any ambient light from the photograph, and the flash will completely light the scene. Then, point the flash head straight up, or angled slightly toward the subject - it's sort of like playing a bank shot (off the ceiling) when shooting pool. Your 580EX also has a nifty white card that can be pulled out of the flash head when doing bounce flash. Some of the light reflects off the card directly onto the subject, helping create a catchlight in the eye and to knock down the shadows that form under the eyes due to the overhead lighting effect.

A little flash exposure compensation can help as well, I usually use about + 1/2 stop.

You'd be amazed at how much bounced flash can light up a whole room. It really helps to eliminate that "black background" look from direct flash.

[PicDaddy]

another option you might consider is shooting in Av mode and setting the appropriate custom function for flash sync speed to 1/250 second.

Can you explain a little more what effect this will have.  If I understand correctly, will this get the camera to use the flash for more than just fill?

I'll try it.  If this really works, I am wondering if I can lower the ISO or stop down the lense to get more DOF....OK now I am just being greedy....

[Jonathan Wienke]

Can you explain a little more what effect this will have.  If I understand correctly, will this get the camera to use the flash for more than just fill?

Basically that function will lock the shutter speed at 1/250 when using flash. IMO it's easier to use manual mode and set the shutter speed to 1/250, with the added bonus of other shutter speed options available if you so choose. In manual mode, adjust the shutter speed to control the amount of ambient light that appears in an exposure, and FEC to control the degree of flash lighting in the shot.

Say you're shooting your family doing something in front of the Christmas tree, which is decorated with the standard colored lights. Turn off the flash, and shoot a few test shots to adjust your shutter speed to properly expose the tree lights (capturing the colors without blowing everything out to an overexposed white). Then turn on the flash and adjust FEC to properly expose your family and the rest of the room.

On the subject of noise elimination, my tool of choice is Neat Image, but Noise Ninja is also very good. Don't use the noise reduction in the RAW converter; instead, convert the RAW, perform noise reduction, then some initial sharpening. Photokit Sharpener is well-regarded as a good all-around package, and Focus Magic is an excellent tool for reversing the effects of a digital camera's AA filter. I use it immediately after Neat Image, and then my own Midtone Sharpening Actions for additional sharpening.

[John Sheehy]

Ray was right. with IS and/or shorter focal length you may stablize the subjects, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Shorter focal lengths don't freeze subjects; they just reduce the movement to a smaller area on the focal plane, so the motion is physically smaller on the recording medium.  If you crop the WA to the same FOV as a telephoto, it will have just as much subject blur with the same shutter speed.  It will actually be worse, and less de-convolutable, because the pixels are bigger.

Same is true with camera shake without IS; a crop from a WA will show just as much shake as the telephoto and be worse because of the larger pixels.  With IS, things become a little more complex for the camera shake aspect.

Using a WA lens to freeze motion relative to subject, rather than the frame, is counterproductive.  You use a WA lens because you want a wider FOV.

Same false economy when you use a shorter FL macro and get closer to the subject - you still need as fast a shutter speed.  You choose FL of a macro based on the working distance and perspective you need (AOTBE).

[John Sheehy]

BTW -- I have been trying to find out if ISO 3200 in the 5D is done via hardware (real) or software (fake)...reading on the internet I heard both claims...Canon says nothing on the subject.  However, the fact that you have to enable ISO 3200 via a custom function is probably a good indicator that it's fake.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Minolta 7D seems to use amplification for 3200, and it has to be enabled specially, too.  Then again, Minolta may just be a little bit more clever than Canon in covering their footsteps.  The Canon 10D, 300D, 20D, 30D, and 350D all have very obvious RAW data, showing that there is no gain-only ISO 3200.  Perhaps Minolta read my posts or someone else's who also noticed this and decided to hide it a little better with their cameras.  I was comparing 7D shots with the same f-stop and shutter speed yesterday at ISos 1600 and 3200, and they both had the same patterns in the histogram, and the ISO 1600 pushed to 3200 had more line-banding and chromatic noise than the 3200 shot.  Of course, the 3200 could have been dithered.  The LSB from the 3200 shot made into a B&W one-bit image had no obvious patterns, and looked like real noise.  There wasn't more noise in the 3200, though, so I don't think dithering could have been done unless it was done selectively - lower values added only to brighter pixels, etc.  These files will keep me busy for a while trying to figure out what type of trickery, if any, is used.  It might just be gain, though.  Stranger things have happened.

Where can I download a 5D 3200 RAW file?  Mathematical pushes can be hidden, but if they aren't, and are obvious, then there is no question what is going on.

[boku]

While all of you have given very good advice - the one obvious thing that was missed was to get a faster lens. Consider something like the 50mm f/1.4. Yes, at wide open, you will have depth of field compromises (as well as need focusing skills), but it gives you an extra stop of light without having to resort to ISO 3200.

This isn't an absolute solution, but it adds one more option.

Frankly, I'd buy some brighter light bulbs.

As already mentioned, if you have low, white ceilings, the bounce flash is another option, just make sure you use a Stofen or white card to fill in the shadow pockets a bit.

[John Sheehy]

Can I ask what software you use to do RAW conversion and do remove the random noise?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a bit complex; it depends on the image.  The technique is always evolving, and is usually on a per-image basis.  It basically involves deriving the banding offsets from horizontally and vertically blurred flat areas of the image while the image is in a linear tonality, and then subtracting the map of offsets from the image, before applying blackpointing and gamma.  I've done this multiple ways, using IRIS, and the DNG converter in "uncompressed" mode to get the Canon black pixel borders that IRIS discards, and photoshop.  The black pixels can be used if there are no suitably flat areas in the image.  The problem is that there are very few pixels devoted to black (a *HUGE* mistake, IMO).  On the 20D, there are only 74 pixels at the left edge of each row of pixels, and 24 at the top of each column.  That leaves too much room for statistical error.  I wouldn't mind giving up 128 pixels on all 4 edges for better banding removal information.  

One thing is very clear no matter how I do it; line-banding is much weaker than random noise at the pixel level, but the more you bin the pixels or downsample the image, the more the random dot noise disappears, but the banding noise is persistent.  IOW, you need to eliminate the banding before binning or downsampling; it is fractal-like in nature, and keeps appearing no matter how much you zoom out.

[PicDaddy]

While all of you have given very good advice - the one obvious thing that was missed was to get a faster lens.

I love the idea of a faster lens, but I already have serious DOF issues.  For example, trying to capture my daughter and my neice in focus while they are playing together.  I like the FOV at 70mm and I want to fill the frame with them, so I am 4-5 feet away.  At that distance, my handy dandy DOF table tells me I have barely 3 inches.  The likelihood I can get them both in the plane of focus is not good.  I can't anticipate their movement well enough and frankly I am running out of ability to think about all these technical issues while I am trying to capture the mood of the situation.  I have really got a healthy respect for photographer who did this with film...it blows my mind how they ever got this right....

On the ambient light issue, I am happy to bump up the wattage at my house, but I can't get my family, friend, and neighbors to do the same.  

Been drooling over the 85mm f/1.2 but can't fathom the 2 grand...

[PicDaddy]

If the space in which you are shooting is enclosed with a nice lower ceiling (preferably white in color) then bounce flash is another option.

Put the camera in Manual mode, stop the lens down a couple stops (f/5.6 or so) and set a faster shutter speed of around 1/125. Also, set the ISO down to 100 or 200.

I am beginning to understand thisI think.  I love the idea of shooting at f/5.6 as it will double my DOF to 6 inches...which I can live with.  I also am indoors and usually have nice white ceilings.

Here's what I have:

1 - Use M mode...set the aperture to 5.6 if possible else 2.8
2 - Set shutter speed to something between 1/125 and 1/250
3 - Set to ISO 100 if background can be lit by flash, else higher
4 - Set the FEC to taste

Geeze this is an education.

[jani]

I love the idea of a faster lens, but I already have serious DOF issues.  For example, trying to capture my daughter and my neice in focus while they are playing together.  I like the FOV at 70mm and I want to fill the frame with them, so I am 4-5 feet away.  At that distance, my handy dandy DOF table tells me I have barely 3 inches.

Yes, but that's only if your viewing distance of your print is such that you just barely cannot distinguish the dots from the original pixels. That's a pretty big print viewed at a pretty short distance with your 5D. How likely is it that your family snapshots will, for instance, be printed 8x10 inches and viewed at 1 foot distance or less?

The likelihood I can get them both in the plane of focus is not good.  I can't anticipate their movement well enough and frankly I am running out of ability to think about all these technical issues while I am trying to capture the mood of the situation.  I have really got a healthy respect for photographer who did this with film...it blows my mind how they ever got this right....

On the ambient light issue, I am happy to bump up the wattage at my house, but I can't get my family, friend, and neighbors to do the same. 

Been drooling over the 85mm f/1.2 but can't fathom the 2 grand...

That will only get you worse DoF issues.  

But seriously: don't fret about DoF that much!

Make the limited DoF your friend instead; think of it as an opportunity instead of a limitation.

And keep in mind that the DoF "problem" is less on smaller prints.

Compare, for instance, the following:

http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/2780-4/_MG_8004.jpg
http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/2781-3/_MG_8004.jpg
http://jani.vikingmud.org/gallery/d/2811-2/_MG_8004.jpg

(Image with EXIF data, in case that is of interest)

[John Sheehy]

On the 20D, there are only 74 pixels at the right edge of each row of pixels, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, that should have read "left edge".