ISO, aperture and shutter settings and low light photography errors

In the interests of remaining open regarding my amatuer rock photography credentials and to emphasise that these rock photography articles are a series of thoughts and experiences on rock photography. I'm going to show a couple of the rock photography errors I've made in low light and their results.

This rock photography article is part of a series of 4, with 2 further, shorter appendices on tips and gear. You may wish to also visit these

Rock Photography and Concert Pictures: Part 1
Rock Photography and Concert Pictures: Part 2
Rock Photography and Concert Pictures: Part 3
Rock Photography and Concert Pictures: Part 4
Rock Photography Tips
Rock Photography Equipment

This is part 3 and like the others it hinges on a few ideas I've had regarding light required for concert photography (which over the last year have changed but largely remain true), aperture and ISO, plus of course the grainy finish which this gives as quality get traded in against  sharpness.

As I learn my camera(s) foibles I also become familiar with what shooting without flash does and this hangs me perpetually on the very brink of concert pictures acceptability.

I'll also be talking about my disasterous use of a Canon Powershot G10 at one gig and the then very successful use of the same camer at others, plus my reluctance to upgrade to the Canon Powershot G11, trading resolution for quality (yes you read that right).

An example of this being this awful image show here which is a result of shooting a band (the well know 80's band 'A Flock of Seaguls') in Brighton, in not great light (but still not bad) at 2.8, using the G10 because I would not have been able to take my 5D.

Concert pictures are rarely perfect.  

Rock photography and a higher ISO setting

When I started rock photography I was reluctant to push my ISO higher that 200 if indoors .... or 400 at a push. The reason being a preconception regarding perfection and graininess.

The images were awful except for a handful which were actually very good through fluke. Once I took this daft idea and transposed it wider into my rock photography I was immediately transported into a world of pain, heartache and wasted effort.

It was only when I realised the degree to which our human eyes adjust constantly in lower light environments did it become clear what was happening.

My subjective experience of light was what was preventing me from judging the best ISO.

In low light photography I sometimes shoot at ISO settings as high as 3200 ISO and even higher if the light is particularly bad.

Anything above this is past the point of acceptability but software can remove noise levels below this. Final images require untold levels of work and are still prone to colour and luminance noise. Personally, if this is going to happen I would prefer black and white.

I try to get away with 800 ISO or 1600 ISO and 800 on the Canon EOS 5D MK II Body looks just like 400 to my untrained eye. The truth is the 5d Mark II is VERY good at this.

The image shown here is what happens when you try to shoot at too slow a shutter speed. I was at maximum aperture at 3 stops too slow on the ISO and the net result is I had to have a shutter speed which was far too slow.

I like this image but it should be mentioned that that is another fluke. I have hundreds like this that I hate.

Concert and rock photography composition.

Filling the frame.  The substance of good concert pictures.

One of the mistakes I used to make was not thinking composition. Not being concious of the edge of the image in the viewfinder for no reason other than the area was dark.

I wasnt sure and I didnt think about it. Probably because I also was not holding the camera up to my eye properly.

This meant that I was safely putting every subject well within the frame and not filling the frame. This means I end up cropping in a lot, losing resolution. Nice to have the safety of this in the darkroom, but realistically is probably quite unnecessary.

What was interesting was that this occurred at certain concerts more than others. Take from that what you will but that will be down to a frame of mind rather than something technical or an unknown rock photography technique.

When I'm reviewing the concert pictures after the gig I generally delete those shots but here's one that slipped through the net.

As you can see there's a whole load of space not being used to tell the story of this chaps activities. Probably 20% at the top of the frame.

A small compact camera for rock photography and concert pictures. 

Does such a camera exist?

I decided to buy a smaller compact camera for rock photography. I thought such a camera would prove useful on holiday. Dragging cameras around on holiday isnt much fun.

With this is mind I decided to buy something with manual controls and shoots RAW. So the immediate choice was the Canon G10 as my compact rock photography cameras..

However, Canon have somehow squeezed 14.7 million pixels onto a fingernail sized sensor and the result is a bit of digital noise at higher ISO's. I am told this is down to the ratio between the pixels sizes and and the gaps between pixels. As more pixels are crammed into each cm squared, the pixels get smaller

Sadly the gaps between them dont and it is these gaps where light gets lost and unused. So the ratio of pixel element to gap is moving away from the pixels and towards the gaps as more pixels are added.

In low light the G10 can be bad but all is not lost thanks to technique and software. . Everywhere else its a STUNNING piece of equipemnt and in comparison to other cameras in this class it is the clear winner, including the Leica D-Lux 4 (which is a cool version of the Lumix LX-3)

So Canon released the G11. A better camera with a twisting tilting screen and 4.7million less pixels (and theregfore less gaps between them) and notably better low light performance. This reduced pixel density from 34 m per cm squared to 23 does make a great dal of difference. 2 stops they reckon. However, if you have RAW, know how and 14.7 million pixels a pro will still opt for the G10.

So besides the new Canon G11 we also have the option of the new Canon Powershot S90. Small andcool the Canon Powershot S90 is not quite the same as a G11 but its smaller and has got this neat ring around the the lens which can be assigned to control aperture, focus or shutter speed. Neat!