Why does an LED wall as a backdrop to dancers look worse in my shot than in my friend's?

Question

I'm a stage photographer.

Last year I had an issue when doing work for a dance company. Their last production used a big LED screen for their background.

I used a Sony A7 III with 70-200 GM and my friend used a Canon EOS 6D Mark II

I used 1/200s shutter speed (to avoid motion blur with the dancers) and my colleague used 1/125 speed.

Mine looks sharper on the dancers, but terrible with the background, and his photos aren't sharp enough, but the background looks nicer.

Is it because of the camera model? Mirrorless vs dSLR? or mainly because of the shutter speed?

My photo:

His photo:

Another option: My photo

His Photo

Answer 1

I think shutter speed is the important factor here. The dancers are moving (of course) so a faster shutter speed is called for to minimize motion blur.

The video wall creates an upper limit for shutter speeds because the LED's aren't continuously illuminated- think of it as similar to a large television screen where each frame of the image is progressively 'built' from lines or segments. A fast shutter speed won't necessarily record the completed image on the wall in a uniform way.

Another limiting factor is the frame rate of the source material. If each frame of the image is changing every (for instance) 60 or 120 times a second there will be times when a faster shutter speed may capture one of these transitions.

So, to answer your question, the problems you're seeing are most certainly a product of what you're shooting and not your equipment.

Answer 2

To me, the difference is that your colleague's picture is better - or at least differently - composed. You've shot from an angle where the dancers take up half to two thirds the height of the screen, while your colleague has shot from an angle where they're taking up about a third. This leaves a lot more of the screen visible.

There's also what's on the screen at the time - your colleague has a shot where there is interesting detail (the skyscrapers) in the upper half of the screen, while your shot essentially just has sky. That just naturally makes your shot look less interesting.

All this is far more important than camera or shutter speed.

Answer 3

It is showing the characteristic horizontal banding of LED pulsing combined with electronic shutter.

First I would suggest using the mechanical shutter as I would expect the LED's are pulsing faster than the SS, but not faster than the rolling shutter sensor readout. Using the mechanical shutter should at least reduce the effect.

If that does not reduce the effect enough, or you were already using the mechanical shutter, then I would try using the Anti-flicker function as well. This function tries to time the exposure to record only one pulse of the lighting, but isn't usually very effective with the high pulse rate of LED's.

There's a lot of information about "rolling shutter banding" available with a web search... the only caveat is that a lot will refer to the electrical pulse cycle (Hz), which is typically slower than LED pulse cycle. I.e. a slightly different cause, but the same effect.