Yarg, I need to relearn basic camera stuff!

[PHeller]

So I took some pics over the weekend at the birthday party for the man I was named after, my great great uncle. Its his 99th.

Anyway, I was taking what I thought were some great shots. Ya, I had to dip down into the 1/30 Exposure but I thought, eh, they look clear in the preview so they should probablly be alright. There was alot of light, but the 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 was really struggling to suck it up.

So I'm looking at the pictures tonight, they look horrible. Quite a few are very blurry, although well exposed, and some, the ones I really wanted, are practically unusable due to the blur.

I really need to start paying attention to the light meter and start raising the ISO when I take shots indoors.

How low can most people go in exposure before pictures start getting blurry?

[K1W1]

At a party after a couple of drinks 1/30 is really pushing the limit.
The old rule of thumb is 1/the focal length of the lens so if you use a 55mm lens then somewhere about 1/50 is it, a 300mm lens will be 1/300.
Rules are meant to be broken and everybody is different but that's a good place to start.
The other thing to remember is what you are photographing. If you are taking candids at a party very few of your subjects will be still so something like 1/125 sec would be the minimum before subject blur occurs.
Realistically the only option in a party setting is a flash. If you get a faster lens the depth of field will be too shallow and with a slower lens the shutter speed will be too slow.

[rawpaw18]

I really need to start paying attention to the light meter and start raising the ISO when I take shots indoors.

How low can most people go in exposure before pictures start getting blurry?

Can not recommend Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure enough.

Do not hesitate to increase your ISO, noise might not be as bad as you think. A shot with a little noise can be corrected where as a blurry shot is headed for the delete button.
Every increase will double your shutter speed
3.5 @ 200 25ss
3.5 @ 400 50ss
3.5 @ 800 100ss
3.5 @ 1600 200ss

Also a little flash will definitely help to freeze movement, as K1W1 stated.

[toriaj]

I was in a similar situation, trying to photo a basketball game in low light. I turned the ISO up to 1600, but things were still blurry. I increased the shutter speed, hoping to brighten the images in PP. Now I wish I had increased the shutter speed a lot more. I can bring up a lot of detail in PP, but I can't do anything about motion blur or camera shake :(

Of course, the other option is flash ... but it's not always a good situation for it. Be sure that you have your white balance correct, too. Because if the white balance is off, the PP can be a lot harder (in my experience.)

[tcadwall]

if the white balance is off, the PP can be a lot harder

If you are shooting in low-light you might want to switch to RAW mode. It is super easy to adjust white balance in PP if you are working with raw files. It is also much easier to fix exposure in raw since there is so much more data available with the higher bit depth.

[toriaj]

If you are shooting in low-light you might want to switch to RAW mode....

Yeah, I'm thinking that it may be time to take the plunge into the intimidating world of RAW ... :rolleyes:

[LR Max]

I do a lot of low light shooting so I'll throw in a few ideas.

As suggested, ISO. For (I think) all new nikons (40s, 50s, 70/s, 80, 200, and up) you can run 800 without any noticable noise. Above that I can tell, but most people can't. Something to consider. 1600 still produces a very usable image. This would be the first thing to do. The 1/30th shutter speed is the bare minimum shutter speed. Even so, you'll probably get some blurry images. You might want to go for just a wee bit higher. Read your camera manual on the auto ISO setup. You can set that boy up to automatically adjust so you don't have to worry about it. I have mine set on auto, just so I have a full auto selection in case someone else has to use the camera (i.e. turn the DSLR into a simple point n' shoot).

Lenses. I run a cheap 50mm f/1.8 lense for low light with no flash. There is no zoom, but its good to go. I shot a basketball game on Wednesday night with that lense. I ran about 800~1000 ISO (depending on what needed to happen), f/1.8 and 1/500th shutter. Worked like a charm, even though I was limited to closeup-ish shots (there was another photographer there with a 200mm f/2.8 lense for the long shots). Great low light lense. Of course other fast lenses will also produce excellent results but the 50mm is a great cheap entry level fast lense.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/383928097_6355e871d5.jpg

Flash. I absolutely love bouncing flashes with a hotshoe mounted flash. You can retain whatever lense you want. Run f/8, and a good shutter speed. You point the flash up to the ceiling and it lights up the entire area. Makes for an excellent photo as well with hardly any shadows. This is, assuming, you are inside. If outside, you can get a dome diffuser to go over the flash. I haven't played with one yet (but I am working on getting one), but everything I've heard is excellent. The built in flash also works well for capturing a particular moment as mentioned before. (BTW, this image was not photoshopped or anything, straight out of the camera. Not perfect but with minimal work it could be)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/358811027_19f879eb5a.jpg

VR/IS/OIS. It is THE SHIT. I can go down to a 1/8th shutter speed and still have confidence that the shot will turn out clear. Only problem: this comes at a price. They are pricey. On the other hand, that is probably the last general purpose lense I'll ever buy. I might buy another fast lense or a macro lense but thats it. The 18-200VR replaces almost everything. Only downside to VR is that it is HEAVY. I mounted my 18-55 the other day (can't remember why) and I was amazed at how lightweight my camera was. But the weight issue is one of those things you get used to. Below is a picture I took one handed, backwards, arm full extended, with a 1/3 shutter speed.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/353994160_6af96757cd.jpg

Tripod. They are so cheap everyone should have one. I got the 15 dollar special from wal-mart, it works and thats all that matters. Shutter speed, apeture, ISO, etc are no longer a concern because the camera is still. Works great. I assume you have a tripod and for non-moving subjects in low light, the tripod cannot be beat. Run f/8, 200 ISO, and sit back with a beer.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/371301283_9fb1059727.jpg

I hope this helps some.

[jcon]

LR, I love that basketball shot, very crisp and clear! Too bad you got stuck having to stomach two horrible teams:p .

Up here in Badger land we dont have that problem;) Although my other favorite team, UCONN isnt doing too hot this year.

[PHeller]

Nice suggestions LR Max, however, here's a few things I'm taking into consideration.

As nice as flash is when people don't mind having their picture taken, I, especially where I hope to make money, don't want it. I will be taking pictures of ballroom dancing, and I'm afraid the Flash will anoy my potential customer. This does not mean I won't get one, I just think I'm going to get a lense first.

I do not see any need for VR because everything I take in low light is moving.

I've been eyeing the Sigma 30mm F/1.4, though I'm afraid it might be a little too close...but if I can get pictures that are really sharp, I can always crop them down if needed. I can't do that if I'm really needing a faster lense.

However, whether or not the 30mm is worth 200 over the 50mm F/1.8, I'm not quite sure yet. I may rent a 50mm f/1.4 and see how that does, or if I need something closer.

Most of my shots taken at the last Ballroom Dancing competition I was able to get fairly close, so I'm not sure I would need the 50.

[LR Max]

Jason...you best to watch your mouth. Number 40 is on my team :p

PH, ok, I was not aware of your application. Yeah, flash is no good for that. In terms of the 50mm, I picked mine up used for like, 80 bucks. Look around the local camera shops and see whats available. For that cheap, it would probably be easier just to go ahead and get it.

Sigma also makes a 17-50 (or is it 18-50?) f/2.8 lense. If the 18-55 worked well for you, then this might be a faster alternative to look into.