LuvMyTSX

Ok guys, I need some help here to figure out what I did so I don't make the same mistake next time. Below are 2 pics from my cousin's wedding this past weekend. Most of the pics came out fine, with the exception of the ones inside the church. I don't know if it was the lighting, the mode I was in, or some other setting that messed things up. Whatever I did wrong, made these pics come out rather blurry.

Camera: Rebel XT
ISO: 400 or 600
Mode: P

I'm so new to photography, don't really know much about what settings to use and when, so I really need some help here. Unfortunately, I can't get a "do-over" for the wedding, so most of the pics from inside the church will be trashed. I just really want to know what I did so I can work on it for next time.

Couple of examples:





WTF did I do?!

wndrlst

Hey Luv. It looks like your shutter speed was too slow, in order to compensate for the low light conditions. I see you tried to use a slightly higher ISO, but without a flash, and/or wider aperture, the ISO would need to be even higher to allow a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the motion.

I saw your post about making the book for your grandmother. Is she feeling better?

Dan Martin

From the exif data stored in each pic, here are the settings you used:
Photo 1:
Speed: 1/15 second
Aperture: f/4
Focal length: 53mm
ISO: 400

Photo 2:
Speed: 1/8 second
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal length: 105mm
ISO: 400


The rule of thumb is to take your focal length and make your shutter speed 1 divided by that number. So if you're shooting at 50mm, you need to keep your shutter speed above 1/50. At 105mm, you'd need to be at 1/105. Since your camera isn't a full-frame body, you would have to round these up at least 50%. So 50mm would shoot at 1/80th and 105mm would be at 1/160.

To get the necessary speeds, you can do three things:
1) use a bigger aperture (lower f number) if your lens lets you.
2) increase ISO
3) use a flash

In your case, I think you were already using the max aperture for your lenses, so Option 1 is out. Option 2 will help, but not enough to remove blur altogether. You can only go as high as ISO 1600 with your camera, and it will be pretty grainy. Even at ISO 1600, you'd only be able to get to 1/50 for the first shot and 1/30 for the second.

Option 3 is probably your best bet, but it may not have been appropriate at the time.

Sometimes you're just kinda screwed.

The real solution would be to use a fast prime lens combined with higher ISO's.

LuvMyTSX

Alright, well thanks guys. Better luck next time I guess. I just really wish these church pics had come out better . I'll probably still stick a few in the memory book for my grandmother, even though they aren't the greatest....she won't care about that. What's important is that she gets to see how everything looked and felt.

And thanks wndrlst, she's so-so. She had to have an ultrasound today because the doctor thinks she might have a blocked carotid artery. It's kind of been one thing after another going on for her, and I feel badly that she missed the first wedding of her grandkids, which is why I wanted to do this for her. There are plenty other pictures that I can use, so it's ok. Wish I wasn't such a photo noob.

LuvMyTSX

Dan (or anyone really), I have a few noob questions for you:

1. How do you adjust the aperture?
2. How do you know which ISO setting to use? Is it guesswork (experience), or what? How dark does it have to be to use 1600? I wasn't sure how high to go in the church, since it seemed fairly light to me. I also mistakenly assumed the flash would come on automatically if need be, but I thought wrong. I knew that the shots get more grainy the higher ISO you use, so I was trying not to go too high. I suppose it's inexperience playing against me.

wackjum

Normally stick with the lowest ISO for the conditions. The higher you go on ISO, the noisier your images will be (as you said).

Sometimes though you have pretty good light but you want to use a fast shutter speed, so even though things are bright, you'd still use a high ISO (sports photography).

On program mode, the camera will come up with the aperture and shutter settings. You can probably turn the command dial and get a different combination of settings. A better idea is to use aperture priority (AV on Canon cameras) and turn the command dial to what you want. The camera will fool with the shutter speeds to get you the correct exposure.

If you must absolutely get the picture and you have no options, you can use a high ISO and then turn the images into gray scale. The noise turns into grain and looks fine. Its better than using a low ISO and getting blurry pics.

But a high ISO can't work miracles for low light and a slow lens.

Mizouse

yea i know how this is, i went to an indian culture show this past weekend cause a friend was performing in it, well where i was seated my 50 1.8 didn't have enough reach, and my 70-300 was too slow to stop the motion

LuvMyTSX

Is the 28-105 lens slow? If so, do you know of any other options? I'm looking to get another lens this summer, but I'm not sure what I want yet.

badboy

I have the 28-105 as well. Yes, it would be qualified as a slow lens.

Unfortunately, if you want a fast zoom lens, it will cost a lot.

If you don't already, look into getting the 50mm f1.8, which is less than a hundred bucks, and is a great little lens.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

Hes right a 50mm f 1.8 is great for indoors, you won't really need the zoom if you can get up close.

jupitersolo

Hell if you can hang, get the 50mm 1.4 for around $300-$350.

LuvMyTSX

Hmm, ok, I'll take a look at the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4. I'm just concerned about not being able to get up close enough and get stuck again.

Dan Martin

There are a bunch of affordable low-light lenses in Canon's lineup:
35mm f/2.0 = $230
50mm f/1.8 = $80
85mm f/1.8 = $340

All of them are very sharp.

The 50 1.8 is a no-brainer at $80, but you should also consider looking into an external flash like a 430EX for $235. Bounced flash looks great and would solve a lot of your problems.

LuvMyTSX

^^ Thanks, Dan.

jupitersolo

There is also a Canon EF 135mm f/2L but it's about $900 or a 135mm 2.8 for about $300, As for a flash, I have a 420EX, I'd let go for $75 shipped.

LuvMyTSX

Thanks, I will definitely think about that and let you know. I want to compare the flashes first since I know nothing about them. $75 sounds like a good deal for me, though.

LuvMyTSX

Well, I ordered the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM from Amazon. It came down between that and the 50mm f/1.4 (which incidentally has a $25 rebate).

Still have to look at flashes, though.

sixsixfour

the 50mm 1.8 is only around 90 bucks street, give or take. its very fast and lets you get away with a lot. here are a couple I took inside a garage band practice with a 420EX flash, XT body. they were all shot at manual mode, 1/125 and F1.8 with flash:

LuvMyTSX

^^ Those came out nicely.

jupitersolo

My 420EX, is calling for you.

sixsixfour

buy jupitersolo's 420EX. thats been my flash since an Elan 7E. Ive used it thoroughly on that body and now on the XT. you wont be disappointed. for $75 you cant go wrong with it.

those shots were shot with the 420EX pointed straight up on the ceiling, and a 1/3 stop increase in Flash Exposure - all shot through a 50mm F1.8 lens