[r00t_b33r]

hi all,
i love my *ist dl, in adequate lighting it's fantastic... i love its image quality as well as it ease of use (and i just got a new sigma 18-200 and i really like it). however, my cousin plays lots of gigs with his band in bars, clubs, etc. and the lighting is very low. using a low iso is not an option because the pictures will be blurry even with a fast apterture so i need to crank the iso up to about 1600. when i do this, the pictures become very noisy.
in one of my older posts someone suggested to take pictures at a -1 or -2 EV and then brighten them. i tried it and the pictures were sharp, however when i brightened them that's when i see the noise. when i apply one-step noise removal the pictures become very soft. i use paintshop photo pro.
i was really thinking it's my complete idiocy or maybe it may really be the noise from my camera. i was also contemplating a KX due to its low-light performance and its affordability (i'm a broke college kid). if you guys can help me i'd be really grateful. here's some sample pictures (the first is just brightened, the second is retouched with noise removal and some sharpening):

Attached Images

   

[Fries]

Try to get you hands on a fast prime. A manual or 'A' 50mm should help. Last year I bought a SMC A 50mm 1.7 and it did help in low light shooting.

[r00t_b33r]

fries- i actually do have a 50mm f2, it does help but the places where he plays are DARK!!!

[TaoMaas]

I think you're expecting state-of-the-art results from an old technology camera. Even if you had the best low-light camera with a super-fast lens, you're still kinda pushing the ragged edge of performance.

[r00t_b33r]

taomaas- i was thinking that i was expecting too much as well. even though photography is a hobby, i'm a perfectionist with it, and almost everything i do (especially school). do you think the KX will yield more acceptable results?

[Ira]

Uhhhh:

How about a flash?

[r00t_b33r]

flash wasn't allowed at this venue, it is on the way though... i got one for christmas but they shipped one for a canon DSLR instead of a pentax

[kytra]

the *ist DS has limitations that cannot be overcomed by any post processing, it is just old technology. So the only options for you are either to upgrade the lens/body or to use additional lighting.

Kx could solve your problem. Be advised it sometimes struggles focusing in low light and sometimes mis-focuses in tungsten light. A manual f1.4 lens could also help a lot in maintaining a low noise/high shutter.

[dadipentak]

From what I've seen, there's little doubt that the K-x would do better.

The advice to shoot at -EV was bad imho. As I understand it, you'll net less noise by exposing to the right.

There's very good NR software out there but it can be expensive and you'll need time to develop skill: at my learning speed your cousin will be have given up music and taken up accounting before you get good at it.

[TaoMaas]

taomaas- i was thinking that i was expecting too much as well. even though photography is a hobby, i'm a perfectionist with it, and almost everything i do (especially school). do you think the KX will yield more acceptable results?

Sorry....I don't know. I think it's a safe bet that the KX would do better, but whether or not it will offer enough improvement to make you happy is anyone's guess. I don't mean that in a bad way, btw. I'm getting the impression that you're your own worst critic (that's a very good thing, IMHO) so you're the only one who can say whether one camera or another is "good enough", ya know? Does your cousin's band bring their own lighting? If so, maybe they could use higher wattage lamps.

[Ben_Edict]

hi all,
i love my *ist dl, in adequate lighting it's fantastic... i love its image quality as well as it ease of use (and i just got a new sigma 18-200 and i really like it). however, my cousin plays lots of gigs with his band in bars, clubs, etc. and the lighting is very low. using a low iso is not an option because the pictures will be blurry even with a fast apterture so i need to crank the iso up to about 1600. when i do this, the pictures become very noisy.
in one of my older posts someone suggested to take pictures at a -1 or -2 EV and then brighten them. i tried it and the pictures were sharp, however when i brightened them that's when i see the noise. when i apply one-step noise removal the pictures become very soft. i use paintshop photo pro.
i was really thinking it's my complete idiocy or maybe it may really be the noise from my camera. i was also contemplating a KX due to its low-light performance and its affordability (i'm a broke college kid). if you guys can help me i'd be really grateful. here's some sample pictures (the first is just brightened, the second is retouched with noise removal and some sharpening):

You are expecting way too much from an old camera (in the digital age the istDL IS old). The sensor is outdated and outperformed by any more current modell and the Kx will be much(!) better.

Also, your zoom lens is about the least useable lens for these venues. Look for a used manual prime lens, be it a 50/1.4 or a 80/2.0 or something similar. The choice of lens will depend on the way you photograph. If you are allowed onto the stage or directly to the front, a shorter lens may also be an interesting proposition. If you are standing further back, which may offer a better, less crwoded view onto the stage, the 80mm or even a longer lens, might be better suited.

Flashes are usually no option at all during musical events. Most often their use is prohibited. And even if it would be allowed, using a flash would destroy the atmosphere of the shot. If you use a flash expertedly you may get some fill light, without overpowering the ambient lighting. But that not only needs practice - it will also not freeze the motion.

Ben

[r00t_b33r]

to everyone who responded, i really appreciate all of your opinions and no offense has been taken taomaas. my cousin's band doesn't use their own lighting and they use what is there for them. i do have to photograph a gig this afternoon (in nj) and if i can't get my hands on a KX by then from a local retailer, i'll use my 50mm f.2 lens. thanks so much for the opinions again, the community in this forum is A+

[atupdate]

I have a DS with the same sensor. You do not want to under expose in low light conditions. Push to the right of the histogram without blowing the highlights.

Which noise reduction are you using in PSP? I prefer the Digital Noise Removal over the One Step Noise Removal. I usually just use the DNR default settings.

Also, did you sharpen you image after you finished all of your other post processing? For the web size versions, I like Unsharp Mask with one of these two settings

a) Radius @ 1.0, Strength @ 100, Clipping @ 0
b) Radius @ 0.75, Strength @ 75, Clipping @ 0

Here is your second image using setting (a)



For full size images, I like to use some high pass sharpen (Radius somewhere between 1 and 3).

Tim

[ll_coffee_lP]

Without using flash, or without using an ultra fast prime lens you are going to need to use a camera that gives you very high ISO without too much noise - as that is your only other option. Unfortunately you are using a camera that is very good overall, but not great at high ISO's, and your use of a utility zoom just isn't going to cut it.

A Kx will make a world of difference here.

c[_]

[Ira]

The School of Rock doesn't allow flash?