Metering for stage performances

[Anton Largiader]

I am in the situation of furnishing a camera for my FIL to shoot some ballet pics of my daughter. I can't be there and he knows his way around a camera. But since I myself have struggled with the brightly lit performers on a dark background, I was wondering what the best systematic way would be to determine exposure for front-lit contrasty situations. The ballet actually won't be that contrasty but some of the HS theater stuff I've shot sure is. So far my goal has been to determine an exposure and lock it down, as the overall light doesn't vary much.

Canon describes the metering modes here: https://www.canon.com.hk/en/club/article/itemDetail.do?itemId=10437

My initial thought was that viewing the scene in Evaluative would provide an exposure that balances the shadows and highlights. However, as the examples in the above article show, this is not good for backlit subjects (not that performers are backlit, but it shows flaws in the concept). Still, if it effectively prioritizes the brighter areas then maybe it's a good choice. However, the article calls out Spot for stage performers, which to me indicates that it's going to take both its dark levels and its bright levels from the performer. That would leave the rest of the scene really dark.

Probably not possible to go on stage with a light meter at this point.

For the immediate need, my instinct is to program a button for Auto-ISO and evaluative metering, have him pan the scene with that and get an ISO value to lock in. If the camera is set to Evaluative also, he can monitor the results as he goes. That still leaves me working on a good method for spotlit performers, but that's not an issue now.

I could also throw in some exposure bracketing.

 

[Mike_d]

I've only shot a few stage performances, but the first thing I discovered was the blown out faces against the dark background since the lights were on the performers. My solution was just to dial in enough negative EC to protect the faces. Of course this amount may change if there's a scene change and the background or lighting is different. Since your FIL knows his way around a camera, this is probably the easiest way and he can chimp to dial it in. Assuming you're shooting raw, it'll be easy to bring up the backgrounds if needed. Much easier than trying to recover blown out faces.

 

[Wilt]

If doing the shooting myself, I would use Spot metering pattern, and either

• aim at a mid-tonality area for exposure determination, or
• aim at a face to take reading and dial in EC to compensate the initial meter reading for skin tone of the metering target (Caucasion faces would be about +1EV brighter than mid-tone (and maybe +0.5EV for Latin face, not adjust EC for blacks)...and shoot with that one setting regardless of race of the performer

Actually I would put camera in Manual, and watch the meter indicator for signs of needing to adjust the combo of shutter+aperture (and do the compensation by biasing the indicator on the scale or not). One has to meter adjust EC, and lock in setting (in an autmated mode), before recompose and shooting, when using the above methodology....and probably your FIL would not be able to accomplish that.

I find that Evaluative mode can be fooled too much by the very bright lights or dark areas that are including in the frame to varying amounts, rather than exposing to the light which is falling upon the subject. The issue of blown out faces is, in part, the Evaluative metering putting too much importance of exposing for the vast areas of dark space in the frame.

The challenge is providing your FIL with a 'push here dummy' methology of utilizing your camera.
The added challenge is when lighting on stage performances changes frequently & rapidly during a piece...this is where shooting RAW and adjusting when you have more time comes in quite handy.
One could set up Auto Bracketing for each shot, to be on the safer side if shooting JPG, then accept the fact that the pose/expression is likely to be somewhat different in each shot (not ideal). T

 

[CyberDyneSystems]

I shoot/shot a lot of live performances, and came to find that metering is only half the battle. Test/chimp/check histogram and blinkies. Over and over. I would like to shoot fully manual, but as soon as a light cue changes, well, thats out. So I shoot evaluative, where the bias is towards the selected AF point, and I use exposure compensation. Chimp (look at your images on the screen) often and readjust as needed.

 

[Jerry L]

While my experience shooting performances is under 50 events, I do about the same as CyberDyneSystems. First thing I do is get a test shot of the stage area with and without actors and use that as the starting point. I wish there was a simple answer like just use P for perfect (that is a joke by the way) but I have never found any setting to work the way I would like.

 

[Well Bonded]

I could also throw in some exposure bracketing.

I would recommend using manual and showing him to use center focus on the subject and dial in exposure to slightly over the middle.

 

[Anton Largiader]

FWIW he did fine on the exposure. By skill or by accident, who knows. He even did dial it up later on when things got dim. With RAW there is just so much latitude for adjustment in post, it's amazing.

I think the AF and tracking were just really new to him and he didn't re-engage the AF point on her very often. We did a little practice with this at first and he had some time to practice earlier in the show, but picking up an R3 and just jumping right into tracking is a stretch for nearly anyone. I remember when I got the R7 I was giggling like a kid for the first ten minutes and then I was ready to throw it across the gym for the next hour. Re-establishing AF and tracking means you need to momentarily back off and start over, and although I do that every few seconds in sports it just wasn't going to be muscle memory for him and he didn't want to stop doing what he was doing. So he shot too long with the AF point off her, but then it drifted back around and some stuff was OK. Also, part of this is my fault because I totally meant to disable Eye-controlled AF (I have it on the SET button) but didn't, so I think he hit that by accident and then there was this circle moving all over the screen distracting him.

A bigger problem was that he just sat too far back. I should have sent him with a longer lens. The two square ones are basically 100% crops. She's the small one in this first pic.

 

[Anton Largiader]

Last two. You can see how wide the FOV was in the second one (and it is ever so slightly cropped).

 

[NeuroRx]

I try to keep my shots fairly simple, I shoot about 40-50 dance performances/year. I use a walk around lens 28-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 most of the time. My ss is 1/500 sec and ISO about 2000-2500 at f2.8. I adjust my ISO mostly in these shoots. Sometimes you get lucky and can get to 1600 but most stages aren't that well lit. 1/500 is the lowest with movement I think you can consistently get feet/fingers in focus. Depth of field is less important given how far back you are when you shoot.

 

[apersson850]

Is it a "requirement" that feet and fingers aren't subject to motion blur? I get that you can decide for yourself, but is that the common attitude in this kind of photography?
I take quite a lot of sports pictures, and there some motion blur typically enhances the impression of speed.

 

[Anton Largiader]

Blur has its place, but I think if you don't specifically want it, then you DON'T want it. A buddy of mine shoot trail runners at night and I think some blur is completely normal, even expected, there. I can't say exactly why, but it just seems OK. It's more of a real, gritty environment whereas with more formal sports shooting it's just seen as a loss of sharpness. If you want the blur, then you probably want more than the blur you get at 1/640.

All just my opinion, and I have not experimented with deliberate or controlled blur. For what I shoot, I think some 2nd curtain sync flash would be most appropriate, but flash is generally not allowed in those places. I know there is a lot that can be done creatively with blur; I should spend some time thinking that way.

 

[Mike_d]

Blur has its place, but I think if you don't specifically want it, then you DON'T want it. A buddy of mine shoot trail runners at night and I think some blur is completely normal, even expected, there. I can't say exactly why, but it just seems OK. It's more of a real, gritty environment whereas with more formal sports shooting it's just seen as a loss of sharpness. If you want the blur, then you probably want more than the blur you get at 1/640.

All just my opinion, and I have not experimented with deliberate or controlled blur. For what I shoot, I think some 2nd curtain sync flash would be most appropriate, but flash is generally not allowed in those places. I know there is a lot that can be done creatively with blur; I should spend some time thinking that way.

Motion blur is a bit like angled horizons: Either eliminate it or own. Anything in between will look like a mistake.

 

[apersson850]

I get the feeling that you are of the opinion that it's one of these two that rules:





Not something in between?

 

[Anton Largiader]

I think those are great examples of the two sides of this, but I would say that there definitely is middle ground. Some fast moving things (wheels, propellers, maybe even golf clubs) look unnatural when they're frozen. But in those cases, as with your panning example, there is usually sharp (only unintended motion, so as little motion as possible) and there is blurred (intended motion). And panning is kind of a special case of motion blur anyway because you are deciding the direction and amount.

For more complicate scenes involving multiple objects, multiple directions of motion, and a very even distribution of speeds I think it gets a bit murkier. I'm not saying there isn't any art awaiting you in there, but for instance sports pics tend to be more documentary and the motion you get from a too-long shutter is just a lack of sharpness. Sweat droplets flying, a puff of chalk dust, grass and dirt rising behind a cleated shoe, I (and many viewers) tend to like observing those in sharpness. On the other hand, conveying the motion with some blur is IMO fine if it isn't just seen as a flubbed shot (as Mike said, either own it or don't). A ballerina or skater in a spin, a gymnast doing a leap on beam, sure, I can see it. A gymnast doing a jump on beam, ehh, maybe if you get it right it wouldn't seem unnatural but 'up' isn't so easy to make natural. But I can see a possibility, so maybe it's worth a try. The next meet is in a week and a half and I can probably shoot some practices.

 

[apersson850]

Then we agree. I do cover the middle ground too, now and then. But when there are requests for my pictures for magazines and similar, it's usually those at about 1/2000 s that are preferred.
But here's a middle ground thing.

 

[Anton Largiader]

Do you use Panning Assist? If so, with which lens? I'm definitely interested in exploring this.

 

[NeuroRx]

Is it a "requirement" that feet and fingers aren't subject to motion blur? I get that you can decide for yourself, but is that the common attitude in this kind of photography?
I take quite a lot of sports pictures, and there some motion blur typically enhances the impression of speed.

For dance, that's generally important as hand and feet/toe placement is important to technique.

 

[apersson850]

Do you use Panning Assist?

Normally not, but that's mainly because I've not acquired any RF-lenses yet. There are only four EF lenses compatible with panning assist, out of which I have two (EF 85 mm f/1.4L IS USM and EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS II USM).
But the panned images above are taken with EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The sharp one with EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM.
The focal length actually used for the panned images is close enough to 85 mm so that they just as well could have been taken with that lens. I'm going to cover another orienteering event tomorrow. I'll try to remember to try out one of the two lenses I have that do support panning assist, so see what benefits I get.