28

Yes, this can work. I know because I've taken photos of children lit only by their birthday-cake candles and they've come out nicely. First, some general tips, without regard to your specific camera. These are probably most appropriate for a DSLR or other advanced camera which gives a lot of photographer control: Use manual exposure. The camera's automatic ...


25

The blur is caused by the people moving while you were taking the photograph with a slow shutter. Honestly, I think it improves this particular photo a lot: it shows that the people are dancing, rather than just standing in weird positions. If you want to, the only way to avoid it is to use a faster shutter speed. This necessarily involves compromises. If ...


22

I personally have the 1.8 and my friend the 1.4. Obviously the 1.4 is much better build quality and fairly better optically, but the 1.8 is a bargain and still a good lens as long as you don't plan on throwing it around. Also more easily replaced if it breaks. Both give pleasing pictures and both will be better in low light than your current lens... but.. .....


22

A few aspects mentioned in your question will be our starting point. Please note, we are not saying each of these issues will be determining factors for every photographer. We're not saying one system is better than the other because of... a or b. Rather they are a response to the question, "...what all should a person consider?" Once considered, each of ...


21

How many of Henri Cartier-Bresson's photos were taken using autofocus? How many of Ansel Adams' masterpieces were taken with a camera that had an internal light meter? How many of Walter Iooss, Jr. and Neil Leifer's iconic photos for Sports Illustrated in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s had the benefit of Image Stabilization? None, None, and None. The key ...


20

Overexposed areas have a sharp cut-off when the maximum pixel value is reached. You have a completely white area if this happens in all colour channels. There is nothing you can do in post to recover information in those areas. In contrast, underexposed areas retain information, but when you brighten them, you amplify the noise, too, and with less bits to ...


19

The idea is I will be down below, looking up at them to take the photo, so a flash would be useless. Only if you limit yourself to a camera mounted flash. The key to such a shot is to get the lights off the camera and onto the subjects from angles other than the optical axis of the lens. You'll probably need at least a couple of off-camera flashes with ...


16

Some of the following suggestions will depend on your camera (I have a Nikon so I'm not sure about Canons). Rather than press the shutter button directly, try using a remote shutter release or alternatively there may be a timer function which delays the shutter - this will allow (at least some) vibrations to settle down. Look in your camera manual to see ...


16

Camera settings are never going to make this easy. Photographs need light to work, and while modern sensors are actually quite sensitive, they can't live up to our perceptions, because our brains take the dark, noisy image from our eyes and subconsciously make a mental model where the imperfections aren't noticed. You don't mention what lens you are using, ...


15

I think that you can be pleased with the overall result given the equipment that you are using. You are fighting against effects which are unbeatable without cheating and compromise. If you want substantially better you need better equipment or you need to "cheat" or both. There are several apparent affects at work here. As Matt says, there are ...


15

It really depends on what you want to do with the camera. After all, there are many great photos that have been taken with older cameras, both when they were the hot new model and when they were no longer on the cutting edge. As with all equipment recommendations it comes down to the question of what do the technical demands of the photos you want to take ...


15

Neither. Underexposure means that you did not deliver enough light and you are losing information in shadows. Overexposure means that you delivered too much light and losing information in highlights. Both are wrong. Expose correctly. Check your histogram or allow the blinking under/over exposure alarm in the preview to see how are you doing. Correct if ...


15

No you're not a bad photographer for questioning your equipment But Yes you can outgrow your equipment. Granted Michael Clark's answer is correct about some of the greats not having some of the modern day capabilities we take for granted but you can genuingly get to a point where your kit is holding you back photographically. And this can be both what you ...


14

Those are almost certainly reflections from the UV filter. I recommend taking it off. This is a topic of much debate, but the fact is filters do cause artifacts visible in your photos — you've got the evidence right there. You can get better results from a more expensive filter, but then it'll cost almost as much as your lens. Lenses aren't as fragile as ...


14

Essentially, your argument is correct as long as you understand that negligible and high-price are relative terms. You are correct that you get one or at most two stops advantage between a full-frame and an APS-C sensor of the same generation. More importantly so, the advantage is lower at low ISO sensitivities with modern cameras which are essentially ...


14

Your strategy with aperture priority mode is a good way to go. If the light in the room is quite even and doesn't change, manual mode will give you more consistent results once you have found your settings. Choosing the right settings for the exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) is always a trade-off in low-light situations. Keep in mind that ...


14

Honestly, the biggest problem I see in your picture is not the blur, but the badly clipped highlights. Next time, try shooting at, say, -1 EV (which will also reduce the exposure time, and thus the blur, a bit) and adjusting the exposure afterwards to get softer highlights. This does increase noise in the shadows a bit, as if you were using a higher ISO ...


13

Low light and zooming affect quality in two different ways. First low light. Point and shoot cameras struggle in low light because they have small lenses and small sensors. To compensate for this they automatically increase the ISO, which in simple terms is the sensitivity of the sensor to light. The problem is, the higher the ISO, the more grainy (it's ...


13

If the result you are looking for is a photograph, the short answer is no. The same equipment won't give better results with video than it can with stills. I think the apparent difference is due to exactly one thing: resolution. Try taking one of your still frames, resampling down so it's 1080 pixels tall, and then comparing. There isn't any inherent low-...


13

No question: adding an external flash. See previous question Prime lens or flash: which upgrade will most improve baby photos?, which covers some of this. A flash can freeze motion, and makes it easy to get enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus. And when you can move the flash off camera, you can create nice light where it doesn't exist ...


13

You misunderstand how exposure compensation works. Exposure compensation is not an actual physical thing the camera uses to control light - there are only 3 real things that control the amount of light: Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO. Exposure compensation is a way to tell the camera in one of the auto/semi-auto modes you want to override the light meter ...


13

The general fuzziness and lack of detail in these photos is mostly due to being lit primarily by one strong color. Your camera's sensor has what is called a Bayer color filter array on it which allows it to record only one primary color per sensor element. In your camera or raw processing software, the single-color-per-pixel sensor data is combined to ...


13

Your exposure is a function of - The amount of light reaching the subject (with the quality and direction of the light allowing you to control the effect) The shutter speed (too long leads to blurring as you've seen) The aperture (wide lets in lots of light with shallow depth of field, narrow the reverse) The ISO (like an amplifier dial on a hifi - ...


13

A great deal of what makes a professional photographer; professional - is that they are able to capture great images in a wide range of different scenarios (especially true of event photographers). Another factor is simply being prepared, which can come in the form of research being done on the venue, bringing the appropriate equipment, or setting ...


12

In a situation like this there is no substitute for a faster lens. Kids are a challenge to photograph at the best of times but with low light you only have two options flash which kids tend to hate or a faster larger aperture lens. Something like an f/1.8 or f/1.4 prime lens aren't too expensive and let in a lot more light than your kit lens which is f/3.5 ...


12

Note: The dark adjusted human eye can detect a single photon! Short: About 5 picolumen per pixel with the best commercial DSLRs such as a Nikon D3s. Long :-) : Minimum detectable light source will depend on camera and how much of the image area the source occupies. For best detectability, a source will be "brightest" if all it's energy arrives in a ...


12

If you're using direct flash, then any flash should 'freeze' the action pretty sufficiently, but it may look like crap. I'd advise not using the auto sports mode - try to set the settings yourself so that you know what the camera should be doing. Switch to A mode, open aperture full up, ISO 800, but then set auto-ISO to go up to 3200 with a shutter speed of ...


12

The problem with the prime 35mm is that in order to frame your shot properly, you'll need good mobility. Which you may not always have in a busy and crowded car show. So I would give one point to the 18-200 for that: It'll let you frame your shots even if you can't get yourself at the exact right position you'd need with the 35. Then, the thing is: it's a ...


12

A streetlight in the park is sufficient for a photograph with modern cameras. However, the photographer doesn't need to be under the streetlight — the subject does. The photographer can (and, given the situation, sounds like should) stay completely in the dark. Although it's slightly technical, take a look at this chart of exposure values at Wikipeda. In ...


12

It seems to me that the image is quite adequately sharp given the lighting conditions. Some things affecting the sharpness of a photo in low light: Almost any lens is going to be somewhat soft at its maximum aperture. As far as I know, the Canon 50mm/1.4 at f/1.4 is a bit on the soft side relative to other fast primes (even compared to the cheapo 50mm/1.8!) ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible