Low light group event portrait

I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid) which
will be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few
tables. I've agreed to do it but warned them that's really extraordinary
shooting conditions. I have a 50mm f/1.2 but that's too long for most
cases on crop frame D200, otherwise I have f/2 lenses at 28mm & 35mm and
a 20mm f/2.8 AF though that starts getting so wide it distorts the
people at the edges. Even a 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye :-)

I suggested maybe turn on the lights for a few more formal group shots,
they don't seem to be planning to do any big prints, just wanting the
digital files for web or probably a small print in a corporate
newsletter or some such.

I don't have or know how to use external flash though I could try
reflecting the onboard flash with a white card at the ceiling.

I figure I'll do a custom WB setting and I'll bring a tripod though I
doubt that'll be useful for most of the candids. Maybe the 70-200/2.8 VR
could be tried for the VR at 70mm & further back for more candid stuff,
less of the photog in your face.

I probably should bring my laptop to check how it's working after the
first bit.

Any other suggestions? Should I back out & tell them to hire someone
else with flash because this is a hopeless assignment? I enjoy low light
shooting but this will be really rough.



Here's some examples with the 50mm f/1.2:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=2_human-world/4-People&PG=1&PIC=4
Click for enlargement.
The previous shot is soft due to the 1/3 second shutter speed:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=2_human-world/4-People&PG=1&PIC=3
This one shows the depth of field better (click for enlargement)
http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/bokeh/2007-04-03-50mm1.2/_PBF5404.jpg
though that'll be less extreme in a wider group view.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Paul Furman" wrote

I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid) which will
be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few tables.

What is the destination of the pics: Xeroxed company newsletter;
4x6" momento prints for the participants; www (how big); framed
8x10's in the company lobby?

If it's a same-old-same-old for the company newsletter
then nobody cares - I would bow to tradition and take the
pictures with an Instamatic 104 and a flash cube.

If it's the framed 8x10 end of the quality spectrum then I would
visit the restaurant a few days before hand, scope out the
lighting and duplicate it at home/studio. It doesn't have
to be exact but sorta should have the same mix of candles &
incandescent and maybe the same color-range(ish) of wall
coverings. Then find something that works - on your own
time.

If they are paying then they should get a professional job:
you walk in, take the shots, walk out. No farting with cables
and laptops. Either during cocktails or just after desert.

Using flash will just add to the color balance mish-mash,
see flash-cube, above.

Set up - Me it would be a 4x5 and b&w, er, the 20D, 35mm
normalish lens, tall tripod and possibly one of those
collapsible light reflectors. Bring my own step stool if
the chairs are fancy. Bokeh be damned.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote

I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid) which will
be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few tables.

What is the destination of the pics: Xeroxed company newsletter;
4x6" momento prints for the participants; www (how big); framed
8x10's in the company lobby?

They just want the digital files, that's all I got as a reply when I
asked so I'm guessing it's email & company newsletter.

If it's a same-old-same-old for the company newsletter
then nobody cares - I would bow to tradition and take the
pictures with an Instamatic 104 and a flash cube.

If it's the framed 8x10 end of the quality spectrum then I would
visit the restaurant a few days before hand, scope out the
lighting and duplicate it at home/studio. It doesn't have
to be exact but sorta should have the same mix of candles &
incandescent and maybe the same color-range(ish) of wall
coverings. Then find something that works - on your own
time.

If they are paying then they should get a professional job:
you walk in, take the shots, walk out. No farting with cables
and laptops. Either during cocktails or just after desert.

OK well, $300 which I figure at $50/hr with 3 hours of shooting & 3
hours of cleaning up the set. So 'professional' but not high budget.
That's why I wonder if they should just hire someone who does this kind
of work to show up for 10 minutes & set up a bunch of gear. I'm going to
sit down & eat dinner too; I know them and have done consulting for them
for other things & they like me & respect my work.

Using flash will just add to the color balance mish-mash,
see flash-cube, above.

Good point, thanks for confirming that. Digital may come out OK with
dialed down bounced flash but I wouldn't rely on more than a few
experiments that way.

Set up - Me it would be a 4x5 and b&w, er, the 20D, 35mm
normalish lens, tall tripod and possibly one of those
collapsible light reflectors. Bring my own step stool if
the chairs are fancy.

Why get up so high? Isn't it usually more flattering to shoot from below
making the subjects appear 'tall & powerful'? Just a way of getting the
whole table of faces in the frame?

Another consideration is if they don't have a private room, I really
shouldn't even set up a tripod (maybe once briefly) or spend too much
time hovering around with the camera 'like a pro' distracting the customers.

Bokeh be damned.

I warned them it's going to look 'artsy' & grainy & not like normal
lighting. If it's candle light, it should look like candle light IMO.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Paul Furman" wrote

Why get up so high?

Not so high, lens at 7ft. or so. It is common for a
wedding photog to get up one or two steps on one of
those aluminum-kitchen-folding-ladder-things for group shots.

Isn't it usually more flattering to shoot from below

Not in my experience, just expansive views of double chins
and nose hair. People looking down into the lens are scary,
looking up they are cute.

making the subjects appear 'tall & powerful'?

Er, they're sitting, right? Though having 1/2 the table
stand behind the seated half is the way to go if you
want everyone in the same shot. See wedding photog & ladder,
above.

You don't want them 'tall & powerful' - you're taking the
shot for the people who will be looking at the subjects,
and they want to see a lot of 'sweet old dears'.

Just a way of getting the whole table of faces in the frame?

That too. Don't have people twist in their chairs to face the
camera. I would do 1/2 the table at a time, but 1/2 standing
behind the seated ones works fine also.

Another consideration is if they don't have a private room, I really
shouldn't even set up a tripod (maybe once briefly) or spend too much time
hovering around with the camera 'like a pro' distracting the customers.

Pros don't hover: slam-bam-thank-you-maa'm

I warned them it's going to look 'artsy' & grainy & not like normal
lighting. If it's candle light, it should look like candle light IMO.

It doesn't have to artsy-fartsy, and aux lighting works with candles:

http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/olrlxmas.jpg

1-2 second exposure; standing on a step; tripod; longish lens (?).
It's easier to balance light sources in black and white.

If you are real lucky (and it is a good restaurant (not just the food, but
a staff that knows these things)) the auxiliary lighting will
be incandescent turned down with a dimmer so it has the same color
temperature as the candle light.

To me portraits look better in black and white - I think color
takes away from the form of the face.

* * * *

Whatever you do, don't do:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/...nner%20Out.jpg
http://www.caps.ou.edu/reu/reu03/images/DSCN2615.jpg
http://lotos.site.uottawa.ca/people/luigi/Hasan.jpg
http://www.tourismsociety.org/images...r%20graham.jpg
http://isi.cbs.nl/Bnews/01b/gani3.jpg

Note the way the on-camera flash enhances the yuck factor...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

a bunch of good advice

Great stuff, thanks much.

It doesn't have to artsy-fartsy, and aux lighting works with candles:

http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/olrlxmas.jpg

1-2 second exposure; standing on a step; tripod; longish lens (?).
It's easier to balance light sources in black and white.

* * * *
Whatever you do, don't do:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/...nner%20Out.jpg
http://www.caps.ou.edu/reu/reu03/images/DSCN2615.jpg
http://lotos.site.uottawa.ca/people/luigi/Hasan.jpg
http://www.tourismsociety.org/images...r%20graham.jpg
http://isi.cbs.nl/Bnews/01b/gani3.jpg

Now I'm scared, ack, that's why I'd never just hand them the memory card
(that's the way their request was phrased) eeeeeek!

Here's one with a bunch of your 'standing on a chair' shots:
http://www.photoshopnews.com/2005/10/25/the-pixel-mafia-2005-dinner

Whew, OK, it's possible to not make a mess of this :-)

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:16:32 GMT, Paul Furman wrote:

Set up - Me it would be a 4x5 and b&w, er, the 20D, 35mm
normalish lens, tall tripod and possibly one of those
collapsible light reflectors. Bring my own step stool if
the chairs are fancy.

Why get up so high? Isn't it usually more flattering to shoot from below
making the subjects appear 'tall & powerful'? Just a way of getting the
whole table of faces in the frame?

It's usually better to be a little higher than lower, and if there
are pitchers, bottles or flowers on the table, it may be essential
that you take the shots from a slight elevation.

If, as suggested by someone else, you scout out the restaurant
ahead of time, you could check with the owner to see if the
lighting, at least where your party is seated, could be increased
for a minute or two. Tipping him/her for the consideration would be
a lot less than renting bulky lighting equipment for a day.

You may want to take a couple of shots without any increased
lighting just to capture the ambience of the candlelit scene, but if
it's too dim to get good pictures where each person is clearly
identifiable, brighter lights will be a big help. Don't forget,
even if your dim light pictures are reasonably good, when reproduced
in a newsletter or reduced for the web, the results may be degraded
enough to produce "who was that?" questions when viewed at some
future date. I think that it's likely that the participants would
prefer pictures where fellow employees are clearly identifiable,
rather than murkier, but more artful shots.

Also, if you have to use the flash, try to position the camera so
that the people are lined up as parallel to the film plane (sensor)
as possible. If they're lined up parallel to the axis of the lens
(looking down a long, narrow table), you'll get terrible images,
with near faces blown out and distant faces too dark to see clearly.
This is also a consideration even if you're not using flash, since
if you have to use a fast lens wide open, the DOF probably would be
insufficient to have the near and distant faces sufficiently sharp.

Paul Furman wrote:

I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid) which
will be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few
tables. I've agreed to do it but warned them that's really extraordinary
shooting conditions. I have a 50mm f/1.2 but that's too long for most

Could be a lack of technique and skill on my part (and I am definitely not
pro or intend to be) but under similar conditions, candlelight and v dim
tungsten I've not managed to get many usable shots using Delta 3200 with a
28mm f2.8 hand held (Ricoh GR1v). Those that I do get are v grany and not
that sharp - not necessarily blurred, but not sharp.

Others may have had more success.

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid)
which
will be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few
tables. I've agreed to do it but warned them that's really
extraordinary shooting conditions. I have a 50mm f/1.2 but that's
too long for most

Could be a lack of technique and skill on my part (and I am
definitely not pro or intend to be) but under similar conditions,
candlelight and v dim tungsten I've not managed to get many usable
shots using Delta 3200 with a 28mm f2.8 hand held (Ricoh GR1v).
Those that I do get are v grany and not that sharp - not necessarily
blurred, but not sharp.

Others may have had more success.

Pete

Seems to me they have expectations of "record" photographs. That's
going to be difficult. I'd make it clear that "I'm an art
photographer. I'll make you some great impressionistic works very
evocative of the occasion. If you want record photos, maybe you could
get someone else..."

Or maybe just do the "Instamatic + flash" for the record and some
"very evocative" works as a bonus. That opens up the noise/grain of
high ISO and the blur of slow shutter, as acceptable.

Sounds like a real challenge, but I bet you can do it well.

--
Frank ess

Peter Chant wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid) which
will be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few
tables. I've agreed to do it but warned them that's really extraordinary
shooting conditions. I have a 50mm f/1.2 but that's too long for most

Could be a lack of technique and skill on my part (and I am definitely not
pro or intend to be) but under similar conditions, candlelight and v dim
tungsten I've not managed to get many usable shots using Delta 3200 with a
28mm f2.8 hand held (Ricoh GR1v). Those that I do get are v grany and not
that sharp - not necessarily blurred, but not sharp.

That's pretty much what I'm expecting, and hope I don't mess something
up but I've done tons of low light nature & street shooting so it should
be OK. I can do 3200 on this camera though it's really just a pushed 1600.

Others may have had more success.


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Paul Furman wrote in
. net:

That's pretty much what I'm expecting, and hope I don't mess something
up but I've done tons of low light nature & street shooting so it
should be OK. I can do 3200 on this camera though it's really just a
pushed 1600.

That's all it is on most cameras. In the Canon line, the 1Dmk3 is the
first to have ISO 3200 amplification at the photosite. The 10D and 1Ds
only amplify at the photosite up to ISO 800.

Most Nikons, as far as I can tell, only have one amplification at the
edge of the sensor (none at the photosites; that's a CMOS trick), and all
of the ISO variability is achieved with amplifying the signal again
before hitting the ADC (the D40 seems to be an exception, though, unless
it has very clean readout but very a very noisy secondary amp or ADC).
This increases the signal-to-ADC_noise level at higher ISOs, but that is
a relatively subtle difference compared to unique photosite
amplifications a la Canon. If I had a Nikon, I would tend to gamble more
in favor of extended highlights by under-exposing from a lower ISO.
Quantization from under-exposure is not much of an issue if read noise at
the new virtual bit depth is still about 1.3 ADU or greater. IOW, if the
read noise is 2.6 ADU or greater, you can under-expose by one stop
without significant loss; 5.2 or greater, 2 stops; 10.2 or greater, 3
stops, etc. Nikons are generally about 3-4 ADU at ISO 100, and about 15-
60 ADU at ISO 1600 (15 for the D40, and 60 for the D2X). I'm talking
here about functional RAW data; any given converter can lessen the
ability to get similar quality with under-exposure at a lower ISO by
blocking up the shadows, and other math issues. Converters are generally
not well written to handle under-exposure, and quantize the results by
working with too little bit depth.

Someone who has the time might make themselves useful by writing a
program that takes DNG files and scales the RAW data; an ISO 400 under-
exposed by 2 stops, for example, could have its RAW data multiplied by 4
within the DNG, and then the user could convert it with more precision,
and blend the results with an unscaled image to get the extra highlight
range, if used.


--


John P Sheehy