Photos in low indoor light? Help!
 

I have a decent camera (Sony DSC-7). Lots of features i don't know how to use. I bought it because it got good reviews, was supposedly great for action shots, even in low light.
Here's my problem. 99% of the photos I take are of my son, who is 11 months old and does not sit still. So 'action shots' is all I get. We are almost always indoors, in 'low light' (40 watt bulds in lamps kind of light). The camera either 1) takes to long to focus, so by the time it takes the picture he has now moved (generally towards the camera to grab it - so I have a billion pictures of the top of his head as he's crawling to the camera) or if not moved, that award winning smile is gone (I have a million photos of him with his mouth open and eyes half shut, looking quite un-cute) or 2) it doesn't focus, so the picture is blurry.
What can I do to get a good photo? Only 1 in 10 or 20 actually turn out with something I want to keep.

Shooting in low light can be difficult. I am not familiar with your camera, but some things you can potentially do are:

Increase the ISO on your camera - higher numbers of ISO make the camera more sensitive to light. But a higher ISO can introduce noise in your photos so they might not look as crisp.

Use a flash - is the flash on your camera turned on? This can help.

Use a slower shutter speed - I don't know how much control you can get on your camera. Having a slower shutter speed (going into seconds instead of fractions of seconds) lets more light in. You would need a tripod or some sort of stable surface, though, as movement will make the picture blurry. This could be difficult since your son is going for the camera.

Aperture - using aperture numbers with low numbers (such as f2) open the lens to allow more light in. If you can set it, set it for a low number.

I almost always use the flash, so that's not the problem. The camera has all the settings you mention - I know how to adjust them, I just don't know what to adjust them to.

Please excuse my ignorance, but let's see if I got this...

So aperture = low #. This lets in more light so the picture will...?
Slower (lower) shutter speed... This lets in more light so the picture will...?
Will letting more light in make the camera take the photo quicker?

Higher ISO = quicker photo?

Don't do the slow shutter speed. You need a higher shutter speed to keep your kid from being a blur. Slow shutter speeds are great for taking pictures of the inside of dark churches, but horrible for shooting moving kids.

Set the ISO to one of the highest settings. I'd try 400 and see how it looks. If it's too noisy, try 200.

Set the aperture to the lowest setting, and use the aperture priority function on the camera so that it always uses that low aperture when you are indoors. It will set the shutter speed automatically.

Make sure the flash is on. Don't use the red eye reduction feature, because that adds a second or two to the time it takes the camera to finally get around to taking a picture after you push the button. You can always remove red eye later on the computer.

Your real problem is how long the camera is taking to focus, and possibly the shutter lag. You push the button and the camera waits a second before the picture is taken. Many cameras can pre-focus by pushing the button halfway down. See if yours does. You push the button halfway down when your son is a certain distance away, then when he does something you like in that same spot, finish pushing the button all the way down. The camera will take the picture instantly then, instead of thinking for a few seconds.

Finally, take lots and lots of pictures and delete the crap. Kids in low light are nearly impossible to shoot.

Also, get down on the ground. Pictures of the tops of kids' heads are not as good as pictures on their level.

I'll try that. High ISO, low aperture. It is the kind where you press 1/2 way to get it to focus, but I can't really pre-focus and wait for a good shot because we're both constantly moving. lol.

I think the red eye reduction is on, so I'll turn that off too.

I take a lot of pictures and delete a lot of them... I just want to have more that turn out good. Sometimes after I look at them I'll have taken 20 or 30 photos in 2-3 days and not one will be worth keeping, but I keep a few anyway just to have something. Its sad to realize that not one over a few week period turned out nice. Out of a hundred or so around the holidays... only 4 that turned out good.

Kids are really hard to shoot, even in ideal light.

To make a picture you need the light to hit the sensor (or film). The more light the more picture, so to speak. There are at least four ways to increase the amount of light on the sensor. Make the camera look longer (exposure / shutter speed). Make the camera look through a bigger hole (aperture / f-stop). Make the camera more sensitive to light (ISO / "film" speed). Make the scene brighter (flash).

As you can imagine in any system with this many moving parts, not to mention the moving subject, there are different ways to reach the same goal. The different aspects of manipulating the light and the camera have various trade offs.

The trade off for slow shutter speed is blur. The light from the subject smears across the sensor. This is called motion blur.

The trade off for high sensitivity to light is loss of detail. In digital cameras this is called noise and in film cameras this is called grain.

The trade off for low aperture is a narrower range of distance that the camera considers in focus. This is called a shallow depth of field.

The trade off for flash is harsh lighting. Call this what you like, but we don't see the world with our eyes (being more sensitive to a wider range of brightness) like a camera does.

glatt's right, a slow shutter speed can make part or all of an image a blur. This may or may not be a problem. Panning the camera with the subject in the center of the frame will reduce the blur on the subject and maximize the blur on the background. Nice effects can be had this way. I'll post one for you. A slow shutter speed and a subject that is moving toward or away from the camera is easy to keep "focused".

Very much a personal preference issue, and highly camera specific. I have found I have a much higher tolerance for noise than I have for blur. So I crank the ISO to permit the camera to get the information / light and process it faster before I have to move something, my hand and camera or the subject. I'd consider changing this first.

Here I disagree with glatt, who I consider a very smart fellow and an accomplished photographer. I would set the aperture to a medium to high setting to give yourself a wider range of focus. Within the other parameters of course. If you have an aperture that is so tiny (laaaarge number) that every thing is in focus, but you have to keep the shutter open so long the baby crawls into the other room... you may have a problem. See how this tendency of mine dovetails with the first point? I'm happy to have to move the camera a little bit (honestly, it's more like, I trust myself to do so, having taken .... bazillionz of those same in motion out of focus pictures. **They're** moving, I finally stopped fighting a losing battle by insisting they stop for me. Now I move along with them). Life is in motion. You're admitting that in your post. Move with it.

Agreed. Perhaps you can tune the flash performance on the camera to fire quicker. Also, fresh batteries (can you say Lithium?) make a big difference in the recycle time.

Again I agree. I'm certain you camera has this prefocus ability with the half-press of the shutter release. NOTE BENE. You have to hold it right there to maintain that prefocused setting. As soon as you let go of the button, it thinks, Oh, false alarm. No need to remember how far that subject was. If he is in the frame when the prefocus is correct, press on (literally) and take the shot. If not you have to wait or try again or get another blurry picture.

Both true, the second one more than the first one. They're not impossible to shoot, but you have to move with them, know your camera and still take a zillion pix.

Some thoughts not mentioned yet...

Does your camera have a motor drive mode? A mode that takes a series of pictures, 3, 4, 5, or for as long as you hold the shutter? Remember electrons are cheap and you can take a series of pics and perhaps you'll get a keeper from that set of 4. On my camera it's in the same place as drive mode or timer mode.

I picked my camera (Canon A710IS) partly because the reviews showed that it focused quickly and then took the picture quickly. It is also very quick (about a second) from power off to picture taken. Actually, this was my top deciding factor. I keep the camera in a quick draw holster practically, and when the picture appears in front of me, I can capture it (most of the time). There is wide variability in this aspect of digital cameras. The detailed review sites can usually give you this kind of apples to apples data for comparison.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps this is not the right camera for the job. Low light, high speed action shots. I dunno. You might have to make some accommodations in your photography techniques.

Also, if the boy is usually the same distance from you (and the camera) within a certain range, you might consider setting the camera to fixed focus mode. On my camera this is available to me in Manual mode. I dial in how far away is "focused" and then make sure that distance is between me and the subject. I move myself, my hands, my camera, the subject, etc... to match the focus length. Big bonus here: Zero autofocus lag. Zero.

You should also check to see what plan your camera is using for metering. I mean what part of the scene does the camera use to determine whether or not the subject is in focus. These are also sometimes called modes. Portrait mode, or scenery mode. It might be the brightest spot in the frame, and that may or may not be the thing you want the camera to consider as "focus here". Experimentation (and reading of your manual) is in order here.

Thanks for the kind words. I agree it's not ideal. It's a trade off. With a large aperture, you are reducing the likelihood of motion blur but increasing the likelihood of being out of focus. Blurry either way.

Try it both ways and see if you prefer the look of motion blur to the look of being out of focus. Motion blur sometimes looks more natural and can convey motion, so BigV has a good point.

Make sure you have the right license. And don't exceed your bag limit.

Use the tranquilizer gun first and then the camera.

My camera has a feature where it will actually take three pictures each time you press the button, about 1/3 of a second apart. This is very useful for a child who won't sit still--don't wait for the right moment, just keep pressing. You'll end up with three times as many crap pictures to delete, but also three times as many worth keeping.

Most cameras that have that three shot feature will also bracket those shots with different f/values, BTW...so that you get a range of exposures from those three shots.

Can you say, HDR?

actually though if youre shooting 'bursts' you would wanna make sure to turn that off, cause all of the ones shot with a -EV wouldnt really turn out in your case, and the +EV would turn out too blurry. most cameras have a continuous shoot mode.


oh, and one suggestion that nobody else seems to have come up with...
buy a better camera!

oh, and if your camera supports external flash, my suggestion is to buy a big 'ol external flash with a joint/pivot/hinge, then instead of flashing front, bounce the flash off a wall or build a paper attachment for the flash to bounce the light off of, to greatly reduce the ugly ugly unreal harsh bright white fluorescent flash and greatly increase the light on the scene.

I've been trying to find one of those old flat metal bar flash mounts so I can do this with my POS camera. Can't rummage one up anywhere.