On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Larry,
Have you thought about infrared flash?
I've done more than thought about it.
IR flash with my K100:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157603983302091/
IR flash with my IR modified Lumix FZ20:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157606110993706/
I scored on a couple of arrays of IREDs to use to aim and focus my
FZ20, which it turned out gave enough light to do video with:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157607728280926/
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.
Yes, you barely notice it. The gels are about $15 at B&H.
The resulting pictures were very candid.
Film days of course...late 60's
Might be an adaptation for your use today?
I had hoped to convert my K100 to IR for this very purpose, but I just
don't have the money for it.
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.
--
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.
