In my real job life I am a librarian in a community public library. All summer long we have special programs and performances availlable free of charge to the public (they have to get tickets as space is limited but it's free). Today we had a Ugandan singer/storyteller named Daniel Ssusuna. This guy was an incredibly charismatic performer with an amazing voice.

Since I always have my camera with me, a new part of my job is to shoot these events for a summer highlights display we'll do at the end of summer. Such a bummer to have to watch a fabulous entertainer and shoot my camera while on the job .

Since this was kind of a big deal, the library system's graphics head came out with her Canon set up (she was shooting with lens that did 70-200 at a contant f/2.8, no flash) and her assistant who was shooting a Nikon with a pop-up flash. The Canon took the best view point, and the Nikon took one side. I took the other side. I alternated between my cheap Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 and my Quanatray 70-300 f/4-5.6. The reason being, even though I was close in, I could shoot the Tamron at 70-80mm and get f/5.6, or shoot the Quantaray at the same focal length and get f/4. I really have no idea what I'm doing.

I have a small flash, a Pentax AF220T and I have to constantly fiddle with my exposure as it does nothing automatic for me. I bounced it, and used a white index card taped to the back to help facilitate the bounce. All shots were taken at 800 ISO, in an old building with nasty yellowy painted cinder block walls, from a limited perspective (I was closed into my spot by the hoards that came to the program).

(all this buildup, lets get to the shots already!) I've never been much of a people shooter but it's something I would like to get better at doing. So, I'd like some feedback on whether these "work" or not. I know getting some "real" equipment would help instead of the mickeymouse setup I've got, but hey, it's what I've got! I know the background stinks on the further back shots but there was nothing I could do about that. It was what it was.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to shoot in conditions where I actually had a small amount of control. That would be strange I think.

[aleonx3]

Between the two sets of pictures, I think you know how to frame a picture better. Yours are more "focused" showing the character and intensity of the subject which I find lacking in the other ones. I am not sure getting a prime spot means you can get better pictures. If one only uses a zoom lens to get every shot without moving around at all, then they are missing something. Pictures taken from certain angle sometimes can be more interesting than pictures taken from the front.

For example, these pictures (had to scale it down for uploading) I took recently in a cultural event in our city. The first one is taken from the front and the second one from the side. There were a few people who just sat in the front-row and took all their pictures from there. Of course, they didn't have the shots I took from the side. I like using prime lens in this case, since it forces me to move around quite a bit.

---

Last edited by aleonx3; 08-03-2008 at 06:24 AM.

[mel]

I have not looked at the other images, I see no point as I like your images.

What is a shame here is you had to take second place to the canon shooter.

I do shoot many indoor performances and like fast lenses both zooms and primes. fast lenses are much better for natural lighting, and my approach is that everything should be shot with natural lighting because it captures the lighting of the event which is important.

My zoom lenses are similar to what the canon shooter would have used, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Both give fantastic sharp contrasty images.

my primes are 50mm F1.4 and 135mm F2.5 both origonal K mounts. For softer shots I might throw in my 105mm F2.8 (also K mount)

Thank you and I agree that natural light is usually better. There was really no lighting for this other than the ceiling flourescent lights and they look bad even in real life . It's kind of a depressing room really. There are no windows and it feels like a cave even when it's empty.

I would have loved to have had the glass she had. I was green with envy (and with the bad flourescent lights!). LBA notwithstanding, I think if I had several grand to drop on lenses, an $80 Tamron would definitely NOT have been my lens of choice for that. But alas, I am but a lowly public librarian and my profession is not known for it's generous pay!

I didn't mind taking second spot (well 3rd really) to the Canon shooter. It just makes me work that much harder.

With the conditions you had to work with, you did great Mel.
I checked your colleagues shots and she had all the advantage and didn't make use of it.
They look to me like she was using her camera as a P & S, probably why the focusing is soft on a lot of them.
Compositionally your shots are far superior, the colours are far better and focus is much better because you were obviously focussing on the subject and not just the centre of the shot which your colleagues AF seemed to be doing.
Your shot's can be improved in PP, clone out the pipes etc. Her shots are as they are and not much can be done with them.
Well done Mel, I hope your employers appreciate your talent as much as we do.
Gary

[aleonx3]

With the conditions you had to work with, you did great Mel.
I checked your colleagues shots and she had all the advantage and didn't make use of it.
They look to me like she was using her camera as a P & S, probably why the focusing is soft on a lot of them.
Compositionally your shots are far superior, the colours are far better and focus is much better because you were obviously focussing on the subject and not just the centre of the shot which your colleagues AF seemed to be doing.
Your shot's can be improved in PP, clone out the pipes etc. Her shots are as they are and not much can be done with them.
Well done Mel, I hope your employers appreciate your talent as much as we do.
Gary

I couldn't have said it better than Gary and I agree with everything he said. Mel, you did a great job. You shouldn't feel that you are second or third to the other person holding a different camera - because you know how to use it, the other don't.

[Rener]

I am not obligated to say your shots are better because I am a Pentax shooter but I tell you Mel, your shots are way better IMO, nice color balance and sharper to my eyes. It reminds me of a forum member who was shooting w/ his Pentax as a guest of a symphony orchestra member and a C* pro, shooting on the same event and after the show and all the pictures were up to see, they pick the Pentax shots over the C* shooting pro.

Cheers,

Rene

[Mallee Boy]

At the risk of repeating myself....you have done well Mel, very well.
After looking at the other shots you should feel very proud of your efforts, not only from a technical aspect but also from the 'capture' viewpoint (ie: emotion & feelings).

Now that you have fed your artistic self, and developed a bit of self belief in your ability (quite rightly too)....beware LBA....it lurks around every corner.

Just make sure you put your name on any shots that you give across.

Look forward to seeing more from you.
cheers.

[mel]

Between the two sets of pictures, I think you know how to frame a picture better. Yours are more "focused" showing the character and intensity of the subject which I find lacking in the other ones. I am not sure getting a prime spot means you can get better pictures. If one only uses a zoom lens to get every shot without moving around at all, then they are missing something. Pictures taken from certain angle sometimes can be more interesting than pictures taken from the front.

For example, these pictures (had to scale it down for uploading) I took recently in a cultural event in our city. The first one is taken from the front and the second one from the side. There were a few people who just sat in the front-row and took all their pictures from there. Of course, they didn't have the shots I took from the side. I like using prime lens in this case, since it forces me to move around quite a bit.

Your images are really nice and I do like the side view one especially. That particular scene, from the front, would not have been nearly as interesting. I would have prefered to be able to move around but that place was packed. The max we could have had into the program was 150 and by golly, all 150 spots were taken.

With the conditions you had to work with, you did great Mel.
I checked your colleagues shots and she had all the advantage and didn't make use of it.
They look to me like she was using her camera as a P & S, probably why the focusing is soft on a lot of them.
Compositionally your shots are far superior, the colours are far better and focus is much better because you were obviously focussing on the subject and not just the centre of the shot which your colleagues AF seemed to be doing.
Your shot's can be improved in PP, clone out the pipes etc. Her shots are as they are and not much can be done with them.
Well done Mel, I hope your employers appreciate your talent as much as we do.
Gary

Why thank you Gary. I'm blushing now. The branch manager very much appreciates it as she tried taking shots of some programs and was greatly relieved when I took it over for her. Her husband and daughter are both photographers but shoot Canon. But I still like her anyway.

I went and looked through some of the shots of the Canonier's of other programs and she seemed to have that same issue in those as well. She had something in focus, but just not what should have been in focus.

I couldn't have said it better than Gary and I agree with everything he said. Mel, you did a great job. You shouldn't feel that you are second or third to the other person holding a different camera - because you know how to use it, the other don't.

Thanks! I mostly felt intimidated because of all the smokin' lenses she had. I can't help but feel like the more they spend the more they must know. I know it's not always the case but it's just a primitive-type of reaction.

I am not obligated to say your shots are better because I am a Pentax shooter but I tell you Mel, your shots are way better IMO, nice color balance and sharper to my eyes. It reminds me of a forum member who was shooting w/ his Pentax as a guest of a symphony orchestra member and a C* pro, shooting on the same event and after the show and all the pictures were up to see, they pick the Pentax shots over the C* shooting pro.

Cheers,

Rene

Thank you!! It would be cool to have some kind of situation like that but the other shooter is the head of the graphics dept and chooses what gets printed where. Marketing and Development accepted one of my shots (submitted by my boss) from a different program for possible release to the local paper (doubt it will actually happen) and suddenly the head of graphics said she was going to come out to shoot some of our events. I found that rather humorous.

At the risk of repeating myself....you have done well Mel, very well.
After looking at the other shots you should feel very proud of your efforts, not only from a technical aspect but also from the 'capture' viewpoint (ie: emotion & feelings).

Now that you have fed your artistic self, and developed a bit of self belief in your ability (quite rightly too)....beware LBA....it lurks around every corner.

Just make sure you put your name on any shots that you give across.

Look forward to seeing more from you.
cheers.

Oh believe me, LBA is raging hard and furious. Unfortunately with gas and food prices and all the mouths to feed and the librarian wages, it's just going to have rage silently and unsated for the time being.

Thank you everyone for the kind words and the encouragement. After looking at my shots and hers I liked mine better but I thought it was me being full of myself and being humble is usually much more becoming than bragging about how awesome your images are. So much of it really is subjective. Thanks again!

[NaClH2O]

Mel, I think that for the shot's I've seen of yours you actually had the better position. A lot of times, photographing musicians/performers straight on you get this great big old ugly microphone right in the performer's face. With many of your colleague's shots I find the mic to be a big distraction. Some of her shots are better than the few of yours, but on a whole her focusing 'ain't so hot'. Yours is much better. This is easily seen in the great shot of the young girl, her's is soft on the youngster's face, yours is not.

NaCl(that's my story and I'm sticking to it)H2O

[mel]

Mel, I think that for the shot's I've seen of yours you actually had the better position. A lot of times, photographing musicians/performers straight on you get this great big old ugly microphone right in the performer's face. With many of your colleague's shots I find the mic to be a big distraction. Some of her shots are better than the few of yours, but on a whole her focusing 'ain't so hot'. Yours is much better. This is easily seen in the great shot of the young girl, her's is soft on the youngster's face, yours is not.

NaCl(that's my story and I'm sticking to it)H2O

You have a point there about the microphone. I went back and looked and the Canon shots and yeah, it is distracting in some.

I've really liked having another person's shots of the same event to compare to. There are some of mine I prefer and some of hers I prefer, certain aspects of mine I prefer and certain aspects of hers I prefer. For example, in some I like the all white background she had and for others I liked the stuff in the background that blurred to give perspective. For some I like her lighting, for others I like mine.

I've got to select my 20 to 30 to put on a disc to send in to her to add to the pool. I doubt anything will come of them but I'll share anyway.

Thanks everyone for all the construtive comments!