Shooting in low light

SMN · 2 Dec 2013 at 11:25

Hi all,

New to photography but i'm from a technical background so i think i'm picking up the terminology and ideas quite quickly.

I got a new lens this weekend, Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM, and thought i'd test it out indoors along with my walkabout lens (Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens) at an 'early xmas' party.

I struggled with the light being really low, but i didnt want to turn flash on as A) its irritating and B) it will flatten the photo.

I used my walkabout lens on ISO 800, lowest f-stop possible (to let the most light in) and a slow-ish shutter speed - about 1/30 - 1/40 as i was hand holding the camera. The shots all came out rather dark, and I had to get them to a half-decent standard by editing in Photoshop/Lightroom as I was shooting in raw.

Belows an example picture:

As shot

ISO 800, 42mm, f/ 4.5, 1/40 sec.

After edit

Edited in lightroom.

From my understanding, i should use a wide as possible aperture in low light, dial the ISO number up but expect noise, and use a slower than usual shutter speed. Does anyone have any tips? Granted i was shooting in manual mode, and i read yesterday i should be using a rough rule of 'shutter mode for moving objects, aperture mode for stationary objects' - so that may have helped me.

Is the darkness element down to something i'm doing, or is it that the aperture of the lenses above isnt a low enough F number to allow sufficient light in at a high shutter speed?

Thanks in advance - all the things / videos ive watched from references on here are really helping.

Cheers,
Sam

Janesy B · 2 Dec 2013 at 11:38

Those lenses are pretty 'slow' which doesn't help/ Did you apply any noise reduction in LR?

SMN · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:02

Janesy B said:
Those lenses are pretty 'slow' which doesn't help/ Did you apply any noise reduction in LR?

Ah, I did not - thats helped make it look better already! I was considering purchasing a cheap 50mm f/ 1.8 for scenarios like the one in my OP - as from what I can read it will allow more light in, allowing me to dial the ISO to 200/400 to get a better shot.

Does that make sense? Or have i mis-understood? Cheers for your help.

Hyburnate · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:09

Yes, you've got that corrects the 50mm f/1.8 is awesome in low light. Another thing to consider is bouncing a flash off the ceiling...

CGrieves · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:23

SMN said:
Ah, I did not - thats helped make it look better already! I was considering purchasing a cheap 50mm f/ 1.8 for scenarios like the one in my OP - as from what I can read it will allow more light in, allowing me to dial the ISO to 200/400 to get a better shot.

Does that make sense? Or have i mis-understood? Cheers for your help.

Yes more aperture means more light, which means a shorter exposure. On the other hand it also means shallower depth of field, so make sure you nail focus (sometimes a challenge in itself in low light).

A 50mm f1.8 is a good choice- lots of aperture for not a lot of cash, and a lot of fun to use.

Also bear in mind that if your subject isn't moving and you have IS, you can drop the ISO to reduce noise and rely on IS to keep the shot steady. Take a few shots to be sure.

I recently bought an old Pentax 50mm f1.4 and it gives a lot of aperture for even less cash than my Canon 1.8, and it's built like a tank. Manual focus though.

Janesy B · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:43

SMN said:
Ah, I did not - thats helped make it look better already! I was considering purchasing a cheap 50mm f/ 1.8 for scenarios like the one in my OP - as from what I can read it will allow more light in, allowing me to dial the ISO to 200/400 to get a better shot.

Does that make sense? Or have i mis-understood? Cheers for your help.

You've got it right, 50mm might be a bit long for indoors though. Perhaps swapping your walkabout lens for a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS would make more sense?

Just be careful when applying noise reduction on LR because you can make things look artificially smooth. Remember that the camera will not apply any noise reduction when shooting in RAW, it's left for you to do in PP. What body do you have?

Also the picture looked a bit underexposed to start with, I've noticed with my old camera (550D) that if I underexpose and try and raise the levels in PP, noise will be a lot more apparent than if I shot at the correct exposure to start with.

Hyburnate said:
Yes, you've got that corrects the 50mm f/1.8 is awesome in low light. Another thing to consider is bouncing a flash off the ceiling...

You shouldn't bounce flash unless you have a piece of white card or the flip out card that some speedlites have to throw some light towards the persons face without creating shadows.

a1ex2001 · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:51

for those sort of social party shots I always go with a bounced flash of the ceiling, it produces results more than good enough to document the occasion and saves you having to worry about continuously balancing shutter, iso and aperture to get decent results. The other advantage is you can then hand the camera to almost anyone in the room and provided they focus on a face they will get a decent result.

The trouble with the 50mm is while it will let you use a lower ISO you'll get wafer thin DOF at portrait range so in a social situation there is a good chance a lot of your shots will miss critical focus and you will still be checking settings in different parts of the room to keep your shutter high enough but not bump the iso over the edge.

Camera on Manual, flash on ETTL

SMN · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:58

Janesy B said:
You've got it right, 50mm might be a bit long for indoors though. Perhaps swapping your walkabout lens for a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS would make more sense?

I would love to, but its a bit rich for my blood at the moment

I'm going to Australia again for 4 weeks soon, so purchased my 10-20mm for some nice landscapes, cityscapes, etc (Uluru for example) - so my 'lens cash' is low for a while!

Janesy B said:
Just be careful when applying noise reduction on LR because you can make things look artificially smooth. Remember that the camera will not apply any noise reduction when shooting in RAW, it's left for you to do in PP. What body do you have?

I've got a 1100D.

Janesy B said:
Also the picture looked a bit underexposed to start with, I've noticed with my old camera (550D) that if I underexpose and try and raise the levels in PP, noise will be a lot more apparent than if I shot at the correct exposure to start with.

Yeah agreed, I'm still getting to grips with using the light meter on a half-press and then adjusting accordingly, its pretty tricky.

K.C. Leblanc · 2 Dec 2013 at 14:11

SMN said:
Ah, I did not - thats helped make it look better already! I was considering purchasing a cheap 50mm f/ 1.8 for scenarios like the one in my OP -

Just bare in mind you will also end up with fairly shallow depth of field when you shoot at f1.8.

An Exception · 2 Dec 2013 at 18:00

Is the below picture a 100% crop?
If it isn't, then I would say a body upgrade as well as a lens upgrade is in order if you don't want to use flash. I'm not sure if Canon have improved their APSC high ISO performance now with 700D's etc. but I remember when I had a 550D they were a little behind for a long time after.
A modern FF sensor will perform best, but some modern APSC's get very close indeed. I hear the new Fuji has very good ISO that's in a similar ballpark to FF.

After edit

Edited in lightroom.

For comparison below is ISO 25600 1/125 F1.4 using a modern full frame sensor.

100% crop

Below is downsampled to 18mp and then 100% cropped.

Hyburnate · 2 Dec 2013 at 18:42

Looks like 1600 on my 400D

Janesy B · 2 Dec 2013 at 21:22

A bit better, my 70D gives results that I am happy with up to 1600, I have fairly decent lenses too which helps a lot.

englishpremier · 4 Dec 2013 at 12:04

That noise reminds me of my Nikon D50 at 800 - 1600 iso. i.e bad. It was barely usable even at 1.8 35mm

My 5100 is infinitely better.

Sh4rkie · 4 Dec 2013 at 13:32

SMN said:
I struggled with the light being really low, but i didnt want to turn flash on as A) its irritating and B) it will flatten the photo.

Flash is the best solution for indoor low light shots. Pop-up flash isn't going to be great (could still be workable tho), your best option is to buy a speedlite with ttl and a rotating head.

If you balance the ambient light with some fill flash you'll improve the shots no end. Ideally bounced off a wall or ceiling (watch for colour casts of strong coloured surfaces) as this turns your small flash into a large light source that will be softer and wrap around things better. Failing that a stofen type light modifier will help spread the light better vs a straight on bare flash (it's not a massive difference but subtle enough to matter).

Flash doesn't have to be irritating or flatten a photo, used properly it'll add depth and dimension

Just remember when using flash, shutter speed controls your ambient light. The longer you leave your shutter open e.g. 1/80sec the more ambient light will appear in the photo. This is how you can turn a white background black, use a very fast shutter and enough flash to light your subject only. Aperture controls the flash exposure e.g. f5.6. So this controls how much light from the flash is captured. If you get the balance right you'll get a great low noise contrasty image.

Inazuma · 5 Dec 2013 at 19:35

SMN's picture isn't all that bad. It's a little dark, but wasn't the room dark? I'm of the opinion that you should most of the time keep the feeling of the room. Make sure to shoot in RAW and use Lightroom to reduce the noise a little and colour correct. DSLR's flash's are a nono. The ambient of the room is lost and you get all sorts of nastiness happening on the face and eyes. If you have to use flash, get a white card and bounce it off to the ceiling; and use a long shutter (down to 1/30th is alright).

This is ISO 1600, 28mm, f4.5, 1/100th on my past Sony NEX 6 with bounced flash.