A Few Pictures I Took Today

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Homer

I have some suggestions that may be helpful. Concert shots are very difficult to capture well due to the low ambient light in contrast to the bright stage lights.

Wow, Homer, I am overwhelmed; thanks for taking the time to provide such detailed, constructive information, and at a level even I can understand (!). Thanks to everyone else, of course, everyone's suggestions are really helpful.

These are all things that I can put into practical use. I've begun using the four banks provided by the D800, which means i can set up four different camera configs, which will allow me to implement what you're suggesting, homer, with relative ease.

Seriously, thanks for this....not sure when the next shoot it (December or Jan, we're figuring that out as we speak), but I'll be able to play with this in advance and put it to real practical use then. Let's see if I can't get things improved. I also hope to spend a little more time getting to know Lightroom - I only started using when I bought the d800 and, while it's been very helpful, it's another case of a lot to learn and way too little time to do so, meaning I am learning on the fly rather than in a more methodical way.

But I'll be copying everyone's suggestions into a doc on my ipad so I have it with me.

Tx again!
John

[jkelman]

Sorry, had to dash off to dinner before writing thanks to Ian for also taking so much time to offer his constructive suggestions.

Guys, thanks to you, and to everyone who has been so supportive and provided suggestions large and small. Thanks to folks like you, I do get better, a step at a time, and I really appreciate it.

Best!
John

[jkelman]

Couple quick comments:

[QUOTE=Ianant;607999]Ditto. You were getting nice results long before you even had the new cam. ....because I don't like seeing digital noise in photographs and if there's too much of it, it looks no where as artful as noise or grain from a film shot.[/qupte]

Thanks...and I agree entirely.

Originally Posted by Ianant

There are a number of problems and challenges. I know of no zoom lense that works on a Nikon with a 1.8 aperture, so getting those close up intimate takes is a no no. And even if there was one, I would not be able to afford it. Can't even afford to spend money a decent 2.8 zoom, not even third party. And then of course I don't want to shoot at 1/50 either if I can avoid it.

I am lucky as I've got a Sigma 2.8 70-200 zoom and a Nikon 1.8 50mm that, while fixed, if I can "compose by foot," has served me well in those really, really dark spots. Those I had before I went full frame, and was happy to learn, when i was considering the upgrade to the D800, that they were, indeed, full frame. My wide angle wasn't, and I couldn't afford the 1800+ for the Nikon 2.8 28-70 (i think that's the spec) zoom (there aren't any third parties yet, that I am aware of; if anyone knows of one....). I bought a Nikon 28-300 that isn't fixed aperture (3.5-5.6). It means that it sucks in available light (especially on the high end; for wide angle it can work in reasonably lit stage conditions) as a stopgap - if for no other reason than when I travel, if I am shooting outdoor scenery shots of the places I travel, I can stick one lens on the camera for the day and it works for almost all shots.

Next year, if I can scrap together the cash next year, the 2.8 28-70 is next. I'm seeing it as cheap as $1550 these days.

Originally Posted by Ianant

One of my ways to get around the challenges was to use a much dreaded option called flash. It is a headache, in many ways. One is you have to know how to do it without blasting away and destroying the ambient light in the place. It's a headache, you have to constantly weigh and measure how far you are from your subject then adjust your flash power, so that just enough falls on your subject as a fill without destroying the ambient light.

Unfortunately, no live performances I've ever done allow for flash. It's one of the two constants that apply - the other being not to get in the way of the crowd (or, at least, as much as possible if there's no choice, and you're given a discrete and short amount of time to shoot, as was the case with Herbie in Germany - and which is why the shot with the Keytar was made from the audience, surreptitiously - i rarely do that - right at the end of the show).

Originally Posted by Ianant

I said I didn't want to talk about any of this crap in the least but I did anyway. Anyway, this time I'm out!

Well, I'm glad you did. Thanks to everyone, once again. Gotta get my shots of Sidsel Endresen's 60th Birthday bash done and up today, so back to work!
John

[Pope Pertwee IX]

John, Talking of lenses, the nearest thing I did, to what you are doing, was photographing dress rehearsals. For The Birmingham Royal Ballet. I had to hire an f 2.8, 80- 200 Nikkor Zoom, because of the low light.
Of course this was done on Ilford B&W film, using a tripod. I used a shutter speed of 1/250 sec to capture the action. I asked the lab to upgrade the film (which introduced more grain), but there you go.
I don’t know how far you are away from your subjects? Do you need to be further away, because of access, size of band etc. etc. I say this, because at times I would have liked longer, faster lenses. (Say 300mm at least). Then, the perspective with which a longer lens gives? (Cash maybe a problem here).
If you decide along such lines? Getting used to working with a monopod would serve as an advantage. It maybe cumbersome to start with, but with practice and experience, it would become more second nature.
With the ballet shots that I have taken, I would require permission from The Ballet Company to post them. As a former Friend of The Birmingham Royal Ballet, through their kindness, they gave me permission to take photographs. I couldn’t waive my promise to them.
Just something to think about?

[Ianant]

Originally Posted by jkelman

Couple quick comments:

I am lucky as I've got a Sigma 2.8 70-200 zoom and a Nikon 1.8 50mm

Unfortunately, no live performances I've ever done allow for flash. It's one of the two constants that apply - the other being not to get in the way of the crowd (or, at least, as much as possible if there's no choice, and you're given a discrete and short amount of time to shoot, as was the case with Herbie in Germany - and which is why the shot with the Keytar was made from the audience, surreptitiously - i rarely do that - right at the end of the show).

The Sigma is a very good lense. I wish I had one, I mean I really do and I am sorry it is discontinued. I have the Nikon 1.8 you mentioned.

Yes, flash is out of the question in many live situations. That is one of the challenges one faces, especially at jazz shows. But the flash look is kinda sucky anyway; despite ones best efforts, it is no where as nice as if you can avoid it.

[Homer]

Ian, I agree with the flash comment IF you're talking about on camera flash. I see a ton of very creative work using just speedlights. There is an excellent site, http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ that is really focused on this topic.

John, for a zoom the 24-70 is about as you can get. I would encourage you to buy only high quality prime lenses as your camera has more resolution than most lenses can handle. That's why there are a bunch of new models coming on the market. Prime and crop is the way to go.

[Ianant]

You had turned me on to the strobist before. Thanks again. Yes, that is a very cool site. Very cool. These guys are masters at doing flash photography. And yes, I was talking about the dreaded on camera flash. It does have some positive use after all.

Getting back to that Sigma you mentioned, John. Now I see why you are getting the results you are getting. That thing was a steal at $800.00 at B&H Photo. A fixed focus 2.8 at that range doing what it does? I'm sure a lot of night shooters must have bought that lens. I may still see if I could get a used. Funds permitting.

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Ianant

The Sigma is a very good lense. I wish I had one, I mean I really do and I am sorry it is discontinued. I have the Nikon 1.8 you mentioned.

They discontinued the Sigma? Damn, that surprises me...wonder why?

Originally Posted by Ianant

Yes, flash is out of the question in many live situations. That is one of the challenges one faces, especially at jazz shows. But the flash look is kinda sucky anyway; despite ones best efforts, it is no where as nice as if you can avoid it.

Like you, I'm not a fan of flash... The occasional time I've tried using in a soundcheck, where there aren't such restrictions, I've never been happy with result.

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Homer

Ian, I agree with the flash comment IF you're talking about on camera flash. I see a ton of very creative work using just speedlights. There is an excellent site, http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ that is really focused on this topic.

John, for a zoom the 24-70 is about as you can get. I would encourage you to buy only high quality prime lenses as your camera has more resolution than most lenses can handle. That's why there are a bunch of new models coming on the market. Prime and crop is the way to go.

Thanks again, Homer...when I bought the lenses I have, I was using the d70s. Now, with the d800 I know that, just as I upped my game with the body, i now have to do the same with lenses...heck, this camera has already cost me in tangential purchases....software, computer hardware (going to quad core and doubling memory to 8Gb) ....

I guessed you're working with big league gear, you need big league all around....

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Ianant

You had turned me on to the strobist before. Thanks again. Yes, that is a very cool site. Very cool. These guys are masters at doing flash photography. And yes, I was talking about the dreaded on camera flash. It does have some positive use after all.

Me Ro...I do have an external flash, but opportunities to use don't come up for me often, still good to have if/when they do though..

Originally Posted by Ianant

Getting back to that Sigma you mentioned, John. Now I see why you are getting the results you are getting. That thing was a steal at $800.00 at B&H Photo. A fixed focus 2.8 at that range doing what it does? I'm sure a lot of night shooters must have bought that lens. I may still see if I could get a used. Funds permitting.

Paid a little more than that in Canada when I bought it a few years back (2009)... More like $1,300, but still considerably cheaper than the Nikon equivalent. If you can afford and find a used one in good shape, I'd go for it. It's my primary lens; the 50mm comes next for really adverse situations, light-wise; and, for now, the slower 28-300 is there if I need wide angle and I can make it work, either with better lighting or upping ISO...but that's pretty rare, and I use it more as I described in my previous post. For that, for a general purpose lens, especially for outdoor daytimes shooting, it works just great. Even if I buy a fast wide angle zoom,I'll still keep it for that purpose, as it' great, when wandering around foreign places during the daytime, to not have to switch lenses and have the flexibility of wide angle to 300.

[Ianant]

Actually I was wrong, John, or not entirely right. It is the older version, a macro, that is no longer available. That one went for around $800. This one is probably the one you have; yes, it costs about what you said still to this day:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/apo-7...g-os-hsm-sigma

Below is the one I had mentioned earlier which I can no longer get at B&H. I'm almost sure it is in fact discontinued. Sigma doesn't even list it on their official website anymore:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_II_EX.html

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Pope Pertwee IX

I don’t know how far you are away from your subjects? Do you need to be further away, because of access, size of band etc. etc. I say this, because at times I would have liked longer, faster lenses. (Say 300mm at least).

It really depends on venue, artist and management. Sometimes I can be right in front of the stage; sometimes to the side from a distance; other times (as with herbie) on a balcony above....it really isn't consistent.

Originally Posted by Pope Pertwee IX

Then, the perspective with which a longer lens gives? (Cash maybe a problem here).
If you decide along such lines? Getting used to working with a monopod would serve as an advantage. It maybe cumbersome to start with, but with practice and experience, it would become more second nature.

Not so much cumbersome to work with, more cumbersome to carry with, especially when traveling...but am thinking more seriously about sucking it up...

Originally Posted by Pope Pertwee IX

With the ballet shots that I have taken, I would require permission from The Ballet Company to post them. As a former Friend of The Birmingham Royal Ballet, through their kindness, they gave me permission to take photographs. I couldn’t waive my promise to them.
Just something to think about?

I don't need to worry about permission; I am always accredited for any performances I shoot, and abide by whatever the venue, artist and festival/event specify. So that's never an issue.

[Pope Pertwee IX]

Originally Posted by jkelman

I don't need to worry about permission; I am always accredited for any performances I shoot, and abide by whatever the venue, artist and festival/event specify. So that's never an issue.

As a photographer, I may think, “Oh yes, that’s a decent shot.” But to a ballet aficionado/expert, the pose or attitude of the dancer in the shot may not be up to the highest standard. (Unbeknown to us photographers). If such pictures be released, in the name of the Company. Then the Company’s name and reputation comes into disrepute, - a very sensitive area!! Therefore careful scrutiny is required.

[tpt1]

Please, some behind the scene photos, John, if you can. Those can be magical.

[page]

Originally Posted by Pope Pertwee IX

As a photographer, I may think, “Oh yes, that’s a decent shot.” But to a ballet aficionado/expert, the pose or attitude of the dancer in the shot may not be up to the highest standard. (Unbeknown to us photographers). If such pictures be released, in the name of the Company. Then the Company’s name and reputation comes into disrepute, - a very sensitive area!! Therefore careful scrutiny is required.

You know photographers often solely think about whether a picture is technically perfect with perfect light and so on, while the person being photographed can have a totally different opinion about that.
We have this rule of 'portrait-right' and when a photographer publishes a picture of you and you are unhappy with it, you can object. However, people can already have published, on the net that is very easy of course while you'll have to go to a lot of trouble to let the pictures taken away.

Being a singer I have been photographed from very close and although the pics might have been technically perfect I hated seeing all my dental work f.e. in some photos which I can't imagine anyone would like to look at. Now people may say it is vanity and of course that has something to do with it but it would be nice to be able to discuss which pictures would have preference for publishing before others.

Now I hope you photographers won't get angry with me, since I know the photographer is the one who owns the copyright, but you wouldn't believe how often this happens. Also since it is easy for every one to publish nowadays and not every one doing so is a real photographer.