DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Taking Photos in dimly lit JAZZ CLUBS spell corrected

I tried to take photos in a dimly lit jazz club in NJ called Shanghai Jazz but with my N1 and it's 24 - 85mm zoom I had a 4 sec exposure wide open. This weekend I bought the 50mm 1.4 and trying to use it wide open with 800ASA film I was still at a 2 sec. exposure. What are the rest of the people doing with the same lighting, shooting in this club without flash? One of the patrons was giving enlargements to a headliner last evening (Winard Harper)and I was looking on with amazement. How are they getting good exposures? Is it digital perhaps? Does digital work well in low light? Any suggestions?
 
Zooms are normally useless in bars and some concerts. I've had tremendous success over the years with the 85 / 1.4 and Tmax 3200 @ 800 to 1600. Contax meters tend to underexpose in high contrast situations. I shoot concerts with 400 ISO rated @ 200. Works great. If the place is impossibly dark, it may be worth going to alternative lighting. I've had friends hold up high a hot shoe flash mounted on my monopod. Can easily be fooled for a stage spotlight. Hope this helps.
 
Rick, I sometimes photograph dancers in theatres and dimly lit restaurants. With an F2.0 lens and ISO 800 film (Fuji Press 800) I can use a shutter speed of 1/30th. But a jazz club may have much dimmer lights than a theatre.

I also used a digital camera (Sony DCS-F717), and found that it was impressive for it's great depth of field even when wide open, but when the white balance is set to tungsten, the blue channel noise is horrible, especially at ISO800 sensitivity. I therefore get best picture quality from the Fuji Press 800 in a Konica Hexar, but when I need large depth of field, the digital camera works better, although I have to spend a long time in Photoshop to remove the noise from the dark background.

You can see s&le pictures here:
http://alkiratech.tripod.com/photogallery/id42.html
Put your cursor over each frame to see which camera and film was used.

Regards,

Craig
 
Thanks for the info but this club has no theatrical lighting, just a few overhead lights. I'm using 800 ASA Fuji film, spot metering and with the 50mm wide open at 1.4 the exposure was 2 seconds. i guess it's just a matter of not enough light. I'm just wondering what a digital camera can do with this lighting? Because digital is having a great impact on my division of Fuji Photo Processing I'm not thrilled about going digital but would it be better in low light situations? Rick
 
Rick,

The variables are the same for both film and digital, except you can change ISO between each photo with digital and between rolls with film. If you get ISO 3200 film or you have a digital that can use 3200, the results will have grain or noise, respectively. What do you gain if you are using your 1.4 lens wide open? With ASA 800, the exposure is 2 seconds. If you increase to from 800 to 3200, you gain 2 stops so you can cut your time 2 stops to 1/2 a second. At 1/2 second you can't handhold the camera and if you use a tripod, your photo's will still be blurry because your subjects will not stand still for a 1/2 second while the film is being exposed. I think you said a supplemental light source is not an option. I agree with your supposition, there just is not enough light.

Good Luck,

Howard
 
The film that I've settled on is fuji nph. I've tried fuji hg? and fuji cu, both asa 1600 films at normal rating processed normal and one stop push. Real grainy with a lot of green "speckles" in the black areas. I tried both with 2 stop push developing with the camera set at 2400, with much the same results. Kodak supra 800 shot at 1600 with a two stop push is nearly acceptable. Can be cleaned up with a LOT of post processing in the editor that I use, Picture Window, from dlc.
The best combination that I've found is fuji nph developed 2 stops and shot at 1600. Nice blacks, good tone, not to "blotchy".
The last comment that I'll offer is the smootheness is seriously dependant on your scanner, that is if you scan. I use a nikon ls-1000, for previews and full scans to check details. Perhaps, because it's light sources are 3 RGB leds it's a real grain intensifier......
Any serious "want to print shots" I've been rescanning with a polaroid fs-4000 (a cold cathode, fluorscent, light source). Much smoother scans, more pleasant to my eye. MUCH,MUCH, SLOWER!!!!!!(scsi-2 interface)
As far as technique and equipmentgoes, I'm always using a monopod with the 85/1.4 and 28/2.0 or a tripod with a 300/2.8 tamron.
I have a lot of shots posted at www.wojosmojo.net
Check out the difference in the Antigone Rising set, the last shot scanned with the Polaroid, and the same shot somewhat in the middle scanned with a nikon ls-1000. Specefications aside, scanners differ in their handling of less than optimal negatives.....
The first set was taken using cu at 1600 and developed +2.
The second AR set was taken with nph rated 1600 developed +2
The others were made with various films.
Joe W.
 
Rick, it does seem to be a matter of just not enough light. Digital is not going to give faster shutter speeds, unless there is a low noise ISO1600 available in a digital camera, but even then, it'll still be a one second shutter speed, compared to your two second shutter speed at ISO800. As mentioned in my earlier post, I found the noise in the shadows to be very objectionable when using a digital camera in low light at high ISO sensitivities, especially if tungsten white balance is used. Tungsten white balance &lifies the blue channel, and in dim tungsten lighting, like a jazz club, there is almost no blue in the light itself, and the result from a digital camera in that situation contains lots of blue noise. I am sticking to film because it gives me better results than digital under those conditions. I've tried both, and film wins. But I use a Konica Hexar because it is much easier to hold still at slow shutter speeds. It's a viewfinder camera, so I can always see the subject even during the exposure, whereas an SLR hides the subject from me during the exposure, such that I never really know what I got until the film is processed. That would be the main advantage of a digital SLR in your circumstances, because you could review the shot to see what you captured. This is important if the subject is always moving, as the dancers typically are. (Mind you, I have also missed good shots because I was busy at the time reviewing an image. That's something that never happens with a film camera.)

Just as a long shot, however, have you made sure that your camera is in ISO800 setting? It could be that you left the camera in a non-DX mode, and although you have 800 film in the camera, the camera might still be set to ISO100. I imagine you checked that but I mention it just in case. I have made that mistake more than once myself.

Regards,

Craig
 
Joe W,

I visited your Web site and viewed nearly all your shots. Big thumbs up. I really like what you did in low and dimly light situations.

Howard
 
Thanks to everyone for your replies. I think we'll leave it as "just not enough light." It's not rocket science but what got me asking the original question is that i'm always seeing folks taking photos in this club but i have never seen their results. Two weeks ago a guy was shooting photos with an old Leica meterless rangfinder. I asked him after the show what exposure he was using, he said he didn't have a meter and was just guessing. Who knows what his results were. Years ago i took great photos in Lincoln Center of some jazz concerts and with the proper stage lighting I got great results, so as I said we'll leave it as "just not enough light".
Thanks again, Rick
 
Hi Rick this in most way is a restatment of whot others have said but may clarify in non adverage situations meters cannot be trusted the only guide is experiance you will only get an idear of whot you can GET AWAY WITH when you go out and shoot lots of film, go on its fun cheap and legal under these lighting these conditions. There will never be enougth light in situations like this so try to make the best use of whot is there, try to select a position that makes the best use of the availible light ie try to avoid hard side lighting or back lighting keep in mind that the eye has a very wide contrast range hence lots of the detail you see in the shadow areas will disapear if you expose correctly for the performer and frame your shots with this in mind, use any sort of suport you can even when standing try pressing your back to the wall if sitting hold the camera on the table or place your elbows on the table.
Just a quick word on subject movement all repetertive movements have a point of perfect stillness as when they reverse direction(performers moveing in time to music)use this to freeze motion takes a bit of practice but its worth it.
I looked back through your post to see whot type of film you were useing? If it is negative film and you have to send it out for D&P all automated printers will have a problem producing print from available light negs because of the unusual tonal balance and range and if you do not have access to a specialised printer and cannot print these neg yourself I would suggest you try reversal film as then you will see how the image looks.
When you look at negs shot in situations like this don't expect them to look normal, there are often large blank areas with only illuminated areas recorded, look at other photographs taken under the same situation and see just how little is recorded and how much is sugested by what is recorded.
By for now John
 
Back
Top