Larry, Have you thought about infrared flash? Long ago, a photographer friend snapped yearbook pictures at Junior Prom weekend. I think it must have been an IR jell over the flash. The flash was muted into a minor red wink you could see only if you were watching it. The resulting pictures were very candid. Film days of course...late 60's Might be an adaptation for your use today? Regards, Bob S.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > >> >> Larry, >> >> As Paul mentioned, - I think this light is a problem no matter what. >> AS you know, I've been shooting in similar settings (some tagueros >> are even more sensitive to flash). > > Yup. I pretty much don't use flash unless it's bright enough that I could > get a decent shot without it. > >> >> I am still experimenting myself, - but for most part, I find that >> it's just impossible to get reasonable (and consistent) photos with this >> low light. The K-x vs K-7 difference wouldn't (doesn't) help either. > > I was hoping it would help, I didn't even pretend that it would solve the > problem. On the ragged edge it seems that every small improvement helps, > going from 1/6 to 1/10 to 1/15 each makes a big difference in the keeper > ratio. > > I haven't been keeping track, do you also shoot with a K-x? > >> >> With dances, - there are two fundamental limitations: the aperture >> cannot be too large (as the DOF is too shallow), otherwise most >> of the shots are not sharp, unless you hit the "static" moment; >> and the exposure cannot be too long, - for the same reason. > > For blues, I find that about 1/10 is the shutter speed that starts making a > lot of difference in my keeper ratio. I also found that a monopod can > really help, though my monopod wasn't really an option at the crowded party. > > DoF is one of the reasons that I used my 20/1.8, it gives me about the same > DoF as 2.8 with my 31. The physical aperture is the same anyways. > > >> >> If I will get my hands on a FF Nikon for the Austin Spring Tango >> Festival, I'll see how that one would do. >> Short of that, I've been thinking if I can use some sort of "continuous" >> light, like videographers use, that I can mount on my camera, - so >> it is not too bright and it is not a flash (hence, - no "spooky" effect). >> This would be along the same lines as Paul was suggesting, - to sharpen >> things up just a bit. >> If I find something, - I'll share it. Any thoughts and suggestions >> are welcome. > > I think that the best thing would be to discuss with the organizers the > possibility of a photo corner that is a bit better lit, doesn't have mirrors > and such. I'm not talking very brightly lit, but enough to shoot without a > flash. That way folks that want pictures know where to dance, and folks who > don't want pictures know where to avoid. > >> >> >> Igor >> >> Larry Colen wrote: >>> >>> I was asked to take photos at a party last night. I shot everything >>> with the K20D at 3200 using my Sigma 20/1.8 wide open at 1/20. The >>> party was dimly lit with a few red bulbs, Scott calls his parties >>> "Blues in Red". This was a birthday party for one of the local blues >>> dancers who recently moved up to Seattle. >>> >>> In the blues and swing dance communities, when someone has a birthday, >>> they get a birthday jam, where the dancer(s) being jammed will be in >>> the middle of the circle and the other dancers will take turns >>> stealing them, and dancing until someone else steals them. >>> >>> Most of the focusing was done by manually focusing on something at >>> about the right distance and relying on depth of field and luck, >>> mostly luck. >>> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623436322776/ >>> >>> While I'm getting better at understanding that a good photograph >>> doesn't always have to be sharp, it's usually best if the subject is >>> recognizable. It would sure be nice to have a bit more shutter speed, >>> a bit more depth of field, or a bit less noise. >>> >>> Even so, it was a fun night of dancing, and I think a couple of these >>> shots are keepers. No special processing was done on most of them >>> apart from cropping and some slight exposure tweaking. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
