Shooting school stage performance?

[shadowlands]

Hello. I’m not a beginner. I’ve had success selling portraits and landscapes, etc…
But, I’m stumped on something. So I’m seeking advice/criticism.
Last night, I shot some images of my son, singing on a stage at his school.
Just simple “record the event” stuff. Not trying to get anything great.
D800 with 70-200, mostly at 2.8 or 4.0. ISO 1600-3200 depending.
VR on, hand held.
Many faces are too bright, borderline blown out. Not bad, but…
Sharpness wasn’t there either.
I typically shoot portraits, outdoors, nice lighting at 2.8 and get brilliant results.

What am I doing wrong here? I was set up for single focus point, auto focus. Focal point on my son.
Matrix metering.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hey there.
Which one of the two cool guys is your son? They are both in all the images.
If it is the right on the third image, focus is definitely off. If not, I assume it is the ISO that makes the images less detailled than you are used to. But it would be easier to say from a 100% crop.
In regard to the lighting: blown out faces can happen especially on smaller stages where the lights are pretty close to the people and the people closer to the light source are much brighter. On bigger stages that doesn´t happen as much.

 

[shadowlands]

Hey there.
Which one of the two cool guys is your son? They are both in all the images.
If it is the right on the third image, focus is definitely off. If not, I assume it is the ISO that makes the images less detailled than you are used to. But it would be easier to say from a 100% crop.
In regard to the lighting: blown out faces can happen especially on smaller stages where the lights are pretty close to the people and the people closer to the light source are much brighter. On bigger stages that doesn´t happen as much.

He's the taller boy, on our left, in the middle of the white star.
I appreciate you taking the time. I was beating myself up because I know 70-200 even wide open, is sharper than these results.
I was wondering about the odd lighting, etc... like the portrait of the two boys is way better than the stage performance, from a far.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Looks like with the lens that open, all three rows of kids weren't in focus. And supposedly autofocus may not be as accurate in low light and we can actually manually focus better. That lighting obviously isn't ideal since it falls off farther away from center stage. Maybe next time try to go early and get some test shots of the stage. Or take more than one photo and adjust aperture/ISO each time to make sure to get a decent shot.

The one of the two boys turned out better and that looks like a fun photo to have of them (made me smile!). They must have been in better light and you were in close instead of trying to get the entire stage in a range of light from bright to dark.

 

[shadowlands]

Looks like with the lens that open, all three rows of kids weren't in focus. And supposedly autofocus may not be as accurate in low light and we can actually manually focus better. That lighting obviously isn't ideal since it falls off farther away from center stage. Maybe next time try to go early and get some test shots of the stage. Or take more than one photo and adjust aperture/ISO each time to make sure to get a decent shot.

The one of the two boys turned out better and that looks like a fun photo to have of them (made me smile!). They must have been in better light and you were in close instead of trying to get the entire stage in a range of light from bright to dark.

For sure. I wanted an improved shot of him after the show, so I made him stand under better lighting, on stage, with his friend.
I didn't even think to manually focus. I did with video though. Ha!

 

[Derrel]

No EXIF info, but I see what looks like both ever-so-slight motion blurring on one shot, and also not quite enough depth of field for the large group shot, or perhaps ever-so-slight focus misplacement. Highlights do appear blown in some places, due to high ISO cutting the dynamic range down a bit, and of course, a tendency for spot-lighted faces to go "hot" while less-lighted areas pull the meter readings "down", resulting in over-exposure. But as was mentioned above...some faces will tend to be more brightly-lighted than others at times. Stage lighting is not alwyas 100% even across the entire width and breath of a stage.

What was your typical shutter speed?

 

[shadowlands]

No EXIF info, but I see what looks like both ever-so-slight motion blurring on one shot, and also not quite enough depth of field for the large group shot, or perhaps ever-so-slight focus misplacement. Highlights do appear blown in some places, due to high ISO cutting the dynamic range down a bit, and of course, a tendency for spot-lighted faces to go "hot" while less-lighted areas pull the meter readings "down", resulting in over-exposure. But as was mentioned above...some faces will tend to be more brightly-lighted than others at times. Stage lighting is not alwyas 100% even across the entire width and breath of a stage.

What was your typical shutter speed?

Wow! I got a response from Derrel!!! Yes!!! Glad I posted this now!!! I appreciate it, Sir!
I was shooting with one single point focus point and placing it on my sons head. I swear I felt like the girl in front of him was always more sharp.
I've never notice any issue with front focusing, etc... not when I'm in the field doing my usual portraits, etc...
The included images below were shot with the same lens, but in my typical way, and I love them.

 

[Gary A.]

It's not the lighting. Low lighting, bright lighting, medium lighting will not make an image soft. If could be the lens needs to realigned or the VR isn't working correctly.

Test, test test. Tripod on a test sheet or a wall at various F/stops ... Handheld at different speeds w/ VR on and off.

 

[shadowlands]

It's not the lighting. Low lighting, bright lighting, medium lighting will not make an image soft. If could be the lens needs to realigned or the VR isn't working correctly.

Test, test test. Tripod on a test sheet or a wall at various F/stops ... Handheld at different speeds w/ VR on and off.

The focus is spot on, when I'm shooting portraits, in the field. And I hear the VR humming away. It's never been an issue.
Hell, I've shot these type of deals with my former 80-200 2.8 without VR, and didn't have issues with needing VR.

 

[Derrel]

The AF square at 30,40,50 feet will cover an area larger than a child's head is rendered on-sensor. The actual AF point can be a bit low, and maybe even off to the side of an AF square. Try the clothesline pole outdoors test...or use a playground structure or something like a fence post,etc. TEST it out, and see if the actual AF point isn't a bit low, and off to the side of a particular AF square.

At 30.40.50 feet, my guess is you'll find that the actual in-use AF point is larger than a child's head, and you're lkikely correct that the girl in front of him made a better AF target. Sometimes the AF system lock on to the highest-contrast thing it can 'see'.

The AF bracket seen through the viewfinder is only an approximation of the system's actual AF target; this is why focus errors happen, quite often.

 

[Gary A.]

It's not the lighting. Low lighting, bright lighting, medium lighting will not make an image soft. If could be the lens needs to realigned or the VR isn't working correctly.

Test, test test. Tripod on a test sheet or a wall at various F/stops ... Handheld at different speeds w/ VR on and off.

The focus is spot on, when I'm shooting portraits, in the field. And I hear the VR humming away. It's never been an issue.
Hell, I've shot these type of deals with my former 80-200 2.8 without VR, and didn't have issues with needing VR.

Even vibrations from traveling in a car is capable of misaligning lenses. I had a Zeiss lens in the trunk for a month or so and the front element loosened to the point that it shifted/moved when aimed at different angles. I have a friend with a Nikon that focused to the left of the focus reticle. Test - Test - Test or have a camera repair test the lens and camera.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP....focused to the left of the focus reticle. Test - Test - Test or have a camera repair test the lens and camera.

THIS! ^^^^^^^

 

[shadowlands]

The AF square at 30,40,50 feet will cover an area larger than a child's head is rendered on-sensor. The actual AF point can be a bit low, and maybe even off to the side of an AF square. Try the clothesline pole outdoors test...or use a playground structure or something like a fence post,etc. TEST it out, and see if the actual AF point isn't a bit low, and off to the side of a particular AF square.

At 30.40.50 feet, my guess is you'll find that the actual in-use AF point is larger than a child's head, and you're lkikely correct that the girl in front of him made a better AF target. Sometimes the AF system lock on to the highest-contrast thing it can 'see'.

The AF bracket seen through the viewfinder is only an approximation of the system's actual AF target; this is why focus errors happen, quite often.

Bingo! I think you're spot on! When I'm shooting portraits, way up closer, I don't have this issue.

 

[shadowlands]

It's not the lighting. Low lighting, bright lighting, medium lighting will not make an image soft. If could be the lens needs to realigned or the VR isn't working correctly.

Test, test test. Tripod on a test sheet or a wall at various F/stops ... Handheld at different speeds w/ VR on and off.

The focus is spot on, when I'm shooting portraits, in the field. And I hear the VR humming away. It's never been an issue.
Hell, I've shot these type of deals with my former 80-200 2.8 without VR, and didn't have issues with needing VR.

Even vibrations from traveling in a car is capable of misaligning lenses. I had a Zeiss lens in the trunk for a month or so and the front element loosened to the point that it shifted/moved when aimed at different angles. I have a friend with a Nikon that focused to the left of the focus reticle. Test - Test - Test or have a camera repair test the lens and camera.

I'll test it for sure. I'm 99% certain it's spot on, but.. got time, will test. Thanks.

 

[shadowlands]

It's not the lighting. Low lighting, bright lighting, medium lighting will not make an image soft. If could be the lens needs to realigned or the VR isn't working correctly.

Test, test test. Tripod on a test sheet or a wall at various F/stops ... Handheld at different speeds w/ VR on and off.

The focus is spot on, when I'm shooting portraits, in the field. And I hear the VR humming away. It's never been an issue.
Hell, I've shot these type of deals with my former 80-200 2.8 without VR, and didn't have issues with needing VR.

Even vibrations from traveling in a car is capable of misaligning lenses. I had a Zeiss lens in the trunk for a month or so and the front element loosened to the point that it shifted/moved when aimed at different angles. I have a friend with a Nikon that focused to the left of the focus reticle. Test - Test - Test or have a camera repair test the lens and camera.

OK, happy to report that my 70-200 is behaving fine. I shot a street sign across the street many ways. It's sharp wide open. It's more sharp at f4. And it's always more sharp with VR on, for the most part.