Low Light Shooting in Church without Flash

Pegasus_Thrust

Pegasus_Thrust

Suspended / Banned
Messages
512
Edit My Images
No
Hi, This question has probably been asked a few times but I thought it worth another ask.

I've just done a christening for a friend in a church where the vicar asked that no flash be used and unfortunately it wasn't the brightest of churches particularly from the areas of the building I was allowed to shoot from.

I was using a D3 and a Nikon 50mm 1.4 at 2.8fstop (and on occasion a sigma 70-200 OS 2.8 & 2.8) at around 1600 iso with shutter at around 100th. The photos aren't bad but they could be better.
Yes I could boost the iso but this will only increase noise, I could lower the shutter speed but then I risk blur and I could dial it down to 1.4 but when shooting at a bit of distance I am a little apprehensive of using such a short depth of field for fear of the wrong thing being in focus etc. and I don't want to be snapping away like a mad man trying to get it right in during a religious ceremony etc.

Is there anything else I can do in future to improve this?.... either from a technical or method POV- any help would be appreciated
 
That is when a camera with amazing high ISO is really the only option, I shot a church wedding in a very very dark church and was down to 1/60th at f2, ISO 6400.

Of the choices you have I'd rather a noisy shot than a blurred one either through the subject moving or not enough DoF, I'd ramp the ISO up and work on it afterwards, a multitude of noisy sins can be hidden by a black and white conversion.
 
Cheers Mark. That's pretty much where I got to in PP- I did them in colour first and then opted for a B&W finish and it works better. I am going to have to test my ISO out a bit more in future I reckon.

...it's also sods law that more often that not the best light coming into the church is where the vicar's stood ie. where he doesn't want you lurking around
 
A D3 should be clean enough at even higher ISOs - see how far you can take it before noise is a real problem at your final use stage. Ideally do the test in a similar situation (darkish church).
 
In a dark place like a church as said above its all about balancing how much noise you are happy with and aperture your happy with to get the minimum shutter speed you need...ideally you keep the ISO as low as you can but again as said a noisy image is better than a blurred image :thumbs:
 
The iso on the D3 is amazing, my pro tog friend ramps it up at weddings, such a clean fantastic image, never a problem, you need to nail correct exposure though
or this is what will cause noise.Carry out some tests, and you will be amazed.
 
You're pretty much up against the basic point of photography, you need light to hit your sensor, fast lenses, low shutter speeds, higher ISO's are all you have without adding more light.

You've also nailed the important point, noisy sharp images are deliverable, clean blurred ones aren't. I keep saying this, but it seems people who are used to increasingly good digital cameras are word blind to it:

The customer that will complain about a 'noisy image' is a very rare beast indeed, you can work your balls off and they'll reject a perfectly lit, perfectly posed timeless image because 'they don't like the way their chin looks', but they'll never notice noise that a newbie photographer would think 'horrific'.
 
Exactly, Phil. Noise is only a problem for photographer - almost never clients. You should get very good images with that combo at ISO 6400 and even wider, which should give you at least two stops more - plenty speed to freeze action in a church.
 
Thanks everyone- happy I'm on the right track with it, I will do some tests and push the ISO more to ascertain a noise level I'm happy with.
 
Pegasus_Thrust said:
Thanks everyone- happy I'm on the right track with it, I will do some tests and push the ISO more to ascertain a noise level I'm happy with.
Click to expand...

You could; but would that help when you have to go further? You've brilliantly illustrated what I said about 'word blindness' to this issue.
 
My last post essentially was to demonstrate that I had read what people had responded and to thank them for their input, out of politeness basically.

Yes I am a newbie photographer and I am still learning and seeking advice on how to improve hence the original post, the solution for me in the short term at least is to use the tools at my disposal which would be to increase the ISO- if there is another way Phil, a way that would help me "go further" then please let me know, please don't just condescend- it is tantamount to rudeness.
 
Pegasus_Thrust said:
My last post essentially was to demonstrate that I had read what people had responded and to thank them for their input, out of politeness basically.

Yes I am a newbie photographer and I am still learning and seeking advice on how to improve hence the original post, the solution for me in the short term at least is to use the tools at my disposal which would be to increase the ISO- if there is another way Phil, a way that would help me "go further" then please let me know, please don't just condescend- it is tantamount to rudeness.
Click to expand...
Read my original post. There is nothing you don't know, it's not condescending or rude. It's just simple. And when raising the ISO is the ONLY answer, it's the only answer. And I'll say it again for clarity, no customer ever complained about noisy images. That's just what photographers worry about.

But you'll probably see the first bit as unhelpful, and ignore the bit about customers and noise, because it's easier to paint the pros* as unhelpful.

* I don't really consider myself a 'pro' in that way. I'm a part timer, and I might be blunt but I'm never unhelpful.
 
I have similar problems when shooting rugby matches between now and February........ I normally start off at ISO1600 this time of year and shoot wide open (f5.6) on my 100-400L, if the shutter speed drops much below 1/800 then action gets blurry, the only option left is to keep upping the ISO.

Shot under floodlights once (for the first time) and ended up maxing out to ISO12800....... they weren't pretty straight out of the camera, lightroom's built in NR helped out a fair bit but even though I wasn't particularly happy with them, the club loved them!

In less extreme situations it's only really the soft copy that will look noisy, printed images normally look fine.
 
1600 is nothing - I'd shoot that without thinking about it on my D7000. Even on my little LX7 I'd use it.

Presidence above all is shutter speed. However you get that speed is up to you but if I were in your shoes I'd have shot at f1.4 and increase my iso until I achieved 160th.

Tbh events like that I stick it in manual and auto iso up to 6400...if it's good enough for nikon it's good enough for me ;)

Get the shot worry about it later. Too many people arr worried about noise.my last wedding was shot pretty much all 5000-6400 and I didn't even apply NR.

My advice is to stop looking for the clean shot, if you want it clean, it's easy in PP.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
1600 is nothing - I'd shoot that without thinking about it on my D7000. Even on my little LX7 I'd use it.

Presidence above all is shutter speed. However you get that speed is up to you but if I were in your shoes I'd have shot at f1.4 and increase my iso until I achieved 160th.

Tbh events like that I stick it in manual and auto iso up to 6400...if it's good enough for nikon it's good enough for me ;)

Get the shot worry about it later. Too many people are worried about noise.my last wedding was shot pretty much all 5000-6400 and I didn't even apply NR.

My advice is to stop looking for the clean shot, if you want it clean, it's easy in PP.
Click to expand...

I think there's some truth in that, and when we get worried about noise, the temptation is to shoot at a lower ISO, hope for the best, and inevitably then try to boost brightness in post processing.

That is the worst thing to do. Under-exposure and brightening in PP creates far more noise than upping the ISO and letting the camera's A/D converter do the heavy lifting at source - it's much better at it.
 
markmullen said:
That is when a camera with amazing high ISO is really the only option, I shot a church wedding in a very very dark church and was down to 1/60th at f2, ISO 6400.

Of the choices you have I'd rather a noisy shot than a blurred one either through the subject moving or not enough DoF, I'd ramp the ISO up and work on it afterwards, a multitude of noisy sins can be hidden by a black and white conversion.
Click to expand...


As above, that is only too true!

Wwe shoot in fairly dark churches regularly and a blurred shot is a binned shot, a noisy shot can be fixed.

We often shoot at 6400 if needed on the 60D's, we also have a 20D as backup and to be honest, I still love the images it can capture and that is ancient by todays standards
 
Phil V said:
Read my original post. There is nothing you don't know, it's not condescending or rude. It's just simple. And when raising the ISO is the ONLY answer, it's the only answer. And I'll say it again for clarity, no customer ever complained about noisy images. That's just what photographers worry about.
.
Click to expand...

:plusone: the noise usually manifests in the dark areas, where pixel peeping photographers will spot it, but the client will be looking at the B&G and won't even notice. (The collorary to this is don't cock up the exposure - underexposed then recovered in PP is the worst possible combo for noise).

With a D3 you can easily push it to 3200 or 6400 without any loss of image quality
 
chris-red said:
Depends on the Camera, On my 20D it sucks and it grainy as hell, on my X100 is as you say nothing.
Click to expand...

even on a 20D the client doesn't care - I used to use a 20D as back up and regularly shot inside churches with it on 1600 , and I never had a comment from the client - from other togs sure, but the client doesn't notice noise (they do however notice blur.... Sharp but noisy beats blurred but clean hands down)
 
big soft moose said:
even on a 20D the client doesn't care - I used to use a 20D as back up and regularly shot inside churches with it on 1600 , and I never had a comment from the client - from other togs sure, but the client doesn't notice noise (they do however notice blur.... Sharp but noisy beats blurred but clean hands down)
Click to expand...

I've been told out of focus and under exposed photos look good. If my Girlfriend watches me edit she has no idea why I bin so many shots. If she was sorting my photos my hit rate would be 95%:lol:

I think it's fair to say most non togs don't know a 'good' photo:lol:
 
chris-red said:
I've been told out of focus and under exposed photos look good. If my Girlfriend watches me edit she has no idea why I bin so many shots. If she was sorting my photos my hit rate would be 95%:lol:

I think it's fair to say most non togs don't know a 'good' photo:lol:
Click to expand...
Bears no resemblance to what's a marketable photo.

You can't charge more than a quid for an out of focus or badly exposed image, but you can charge hundrerds for images that pixel peepers would call 'noisy'. There's a noticeable difference between user error and the limits of what the gear will produce.

I've sold 20d 'grainy as hell' images, and I'd do it again tomorrow no qualms. That's a million miles from 'images my mum thinks are awesome', my wife's a photographer and is my worst critic ;).

Whilst most 'non togs' wouldn't know a 'good' photo, it's amazing how much their knowledge increases when they've paid a 4 figure sum for the images. There's a difference between facebook likes and paying the going rate. The OoF barely recognisable facebook image taken in the ladies might be 'fab' or 'gawjus', but when there's money changing hands, perfectly focussed and exposed images will be rejected because 'my arms look fat!' :D.
 
Totally agree, we still take a 20d along with our 60D's to jobs and have no problem.

Hell I use the 60D at 6400 where needed and have had no complaints yet becaust like people say, normal people don't notice nor care if there is some grain in an image, if their face is smudged then they most certainly will.
 
Phil Young said:
1600 is nothing - I'd shoot that without thinking about it on my D7000. Even on my little LX7 I'd use it.

Presidence above all is shutter speed. However you get that speed is up to you but if I were in your shoes I'd have shot at f1.4 and increase my iso until I achieved 160th.

Tbh events like that I stick it in manual and auto iso up to 6400...if it's good enough for nikon it's good enough for me ;)

Get the shot worry about it later. Too many people arr worried about noise.my last wedding was shot pretty much all 5000-6400 and I didn't even apply NR.

My advice is to stop looking for the clean shot, if you want it clean, it's easy in PP.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

I shot a really 'dark' wedding recently, both church and reception using a DX and was mentally beating myself up over the potential noise levels. The couple were over the moon when they saw the pictures.

Coupled with shooting a Christmas party the other night with my D800 maxing out in the near darkness on the top end of the auto ISO (Hi1 and 2) - Pictures turned out great :-)

Shutter speed = win.
 
st599 said:
Buy a tripod and cable release.
Click to expand...

I tried several responses but they all sounded too sarcastic. :)

We're talking about shooting people, tripods are no help.
 
Phil V said:
I tried several responses but they all sounded too sarcastic. :)

We're talking about shooting people, tripods are no help.
Click to expand...

Unless used to stun the vicar, then you could get the flashes out.. ..
 
Great discussion guys, would you mind spelling out for a newbie how I'd be looking to set up a d7000 for this situation.

Would I manually choose the higher iso and wide aperture whilst allowing the camera to select shutter speed on the fly?
 
Hoot said:
Great discussion guys, would you mind spelling out for a newbie how I'd be looking to set up a d7000 for this situation.

Would I manually choose the higher iso and wide aperture whilst allowing the camera to select shutter speed on the fly?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless you can foresee a situation where the general lighting environment might confuse the metering whilst the light on the subject remains almost constant (e.g. strong back lighting from low winter light through windows). In which case shoot in manual and periodically chimp the result. Shoot raw, not specifically to correct the exposure later because it's far better to get it right first time, but so that you have the peace of mind to know you've a bit of latitude if needed. And don't be worried to really push the ISO, most viewers (assuming you're just a family member or friend and not doing this for professional reward) will be far more forgiving of a bit of noise (black and white hides a multitude of high ISO sins) as long as the overall exposure is ok, the image is focussed and there's no camera shake or subject movement blur.
 
Hoot said:
Great discussion guys, would you mind spelling out for a newbie how I'd be looking to set up a d7000 for this situation.

Would I manually choose the higher iso and wide aperture whilst allowing the camera to select shutter speed on the fly?
Click to expand...

I set auto ISO, widest aperture, & set my required shutter speed as this is key to getting images that won't be blurred. With my 70-200 with image stabilization 1/60th hand held is good but you must take into account movements of the people so I usually use 1/125th to allow for head movements, etc - especially the kiss shot.
 
Hoot said:
Great discussion guys, would you mind spelling out for a newbie how I'd be looking to set up a d7000 for this situation.

Would I manually choose the higher iso and wide aperture whilst allowing the camera to select shutter speed on the fly?
Click to expand...
As you can already see, there's not a right way.

I'll say what I always do, use your preferred working method and make sure you are in total control of your metering and focus. Don't be afraid of high ISO's because noisy is infinitely preferable to blurred.
 
Phil Young said:
I had an idea today and found this...

http://gizmodo.com/5912403/backpack-flash-turns-you-into-a-one person-photography-studio
Click to expand...

I've got something similar, though using a flash bracket rather than a backpack. I do look a total spanner using it, hard to get through doors and gets plenty of laughs, but the results are brilliant.

My rig has one flash firing through a small softbox, and a second gun for independent bounce flash. Lots of control too, like a studio on legs LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top