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.

[Jimbo]

Some of the best shots are taken way out of control.... Nice shooting.. JIMBO

[Mallee Boy]

Well done Mel, not much wrong with those. It will be very interesting to see how your compatriots got on.
Cheers.

[mel]

Thanks both. Here's the link to the shots from the Canon. She had these up within an hour so I'm sure there's no editing. She wasn't using flash so her oranges aren't so saturated. I had to desaturate a bit and adjust the color temperature on mine as I had mixed lighting and neither flash setting nor flourescent was correct (nasty old flourescent lighting in room)

Picasa Web Albums - PWPLS - ssuuna

We have a lot of very similar shots (I'm still going through mine) but she was shooting from a more central and much better angle while I was stuck off almost directly to his side. She also wasn't stuck with floor fans, fire extinguishers, and dark doors behind the subject (little professional competition going on - but it was friendly and she DID have priority). We compared later a bit and we both took over 100 shots. But she also said she was only getting about a 1/60th shutter speed so some of hers seem a tad soft (but so are mine). The guy was moving around a lot.

I haven't seen anything from the Nikon.

Thanks again and comparative critique is welcome. Please don't feel obligated to say mine are better simply because they were shot with Pentax. I do truly want some real and constructive critiique.

---

Last edited by mel; 07-18-2008 at 03:59 AM.

[roentarre]

Love the series. It would be nice if there is more eye contact

[séamuis]

obviously due to your unfortunate shooting angle allot of the canons photos have more presence. I actually like your sample photos better than most of the canons though. the colors are more vivid and allot of the focus is rather poor with the canon.. something its AF should have been able to handle easily so I hear. a larger aperture for more subject isolation and of course faster shutter speed and lower ISO would have been very useful here but I think you did a great job, and when comparing to the canons I think you edge ahead in IQ. I really like 3 &5. also great job with that old 220T.

[mel]

Love the series. It would be nice if there is more eye contact

Thanks and yeah, the eye contact thing's a bummer but there was nothing I could do about that. Like a good performer he was engaging his audience, not the crazy librarian off the the side.

obviously due to your unfortunate shooting angle allot of the canons photos have more presence. I actually like your sample photos better than most of the canons though. the colors are more vivid and allot of the focus is rather poor with the canon.. something its AF should have been able to handle easily so I hear. a larger aperture for more subject isolation and of course faster shutter speed and lower ISO would have been very useful here but I think you did a great job, and when comparing to the canons I think you edge ahead in IQ. I really like 3 &5. also great job with that old 220T.

I think part of the focus problem was that she was shooting with such a shallow dof at f/2.8 and was just missing the right spot. On some you'll see the focus is on, say the instrument, rather than the person. For example:



This one is mine but we both have pretty much the same shot, but from a different angle. And we both have the focus on the instrument rather than that adorable giggling little girl. For me, he had her blocked for most of this little part of the show so this was the few seconds where I could see her and I had to crop out some heads of audience members. But the canon was almost straight on and would have plenty of time to make sure the focus was on the girl. I'm very disappointed in myself for missing this one as she was looking almost right into my lens and there were no do-overs.

Thank you for your comments. I actually find it very helpful to see someone else's shots of the same event but with a different method, gear, and angle. I've learned a bit from it.

---

Last edited by mel; 07-18-2008 at 06:16 AM. Reason: grammar and spelling

[WJW]

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.

Mel, you didn't post my favorite from your Flckr. I really like the one where he is whispering to the child. My wife is a librarian and I used to get drafted for these type things occasionally. The city has added a (supposedly) competent photographer to their staff so I no longer get drafted. :-)

Jeff

[WJW]

Of course, you posted it while I was posting.............. :-)

Even though the focus isn't perfect, I still like that one best.

[mel]

Of course, you posted it while I was posting.............. :-)

Even though the focus isn't perfect, I still like that one best.

LOL! I just uploaded it this morning to post it for comparison to the canon's shot of the same moment.

As an aside, our branch has started a little flickr page for our events, then we learned that the canon shooter started a Picasa page for the system's events. It's interesting to see this little territorial thing develop. We're keeping ours hushed for now and apparently they are too as no one, not even my branch manager, knew of the picasa site's existence. Ah, public library politics. It's so silly.

[aleonx3]

Mel, I like yours better than your compatriot's not because of the camera you use or she uses. First, the ones taken by your friend appear to be bit softer overall compare to yours (could be due to focusing error or DOF choice) and second, overall, the viewing angle and composition of your pictures are more pleasing and eye-catching than the ones taken by your partner (just my personal opinion - )

[rormeister]

I'm a fan of "If you thing you're close enough, get closer". I really like the feel your images give of intimacy and character. Shooting from a distance is fine, but it only provides a generalization, while your's captured a better feeling. Plus, your images have much greater color and contract. My vote, Pentax, duh.
Thanks for sharing!

[rmtagg]

I like your images better but am wondering what they would have looked like if you had the prime spot!

[mel]

Mel, I like yours better than your compatriot's not because of the camera you use or she uses. First, the ones taken by your friend appear to be bit softer overall compare to yours (could be due to focusing error or DOF choice) and second, overall, the viewing angle and composition of your pictures are more pleasing and eye-catching than the ones taken by your partner (just my personal opinion - )

Thank you. I looked up her lens in the BH print catalog, and depending on which one it is, it costs either $1200 or $1700. The lens I used for most of these costs $80. The other lens was probably less than $200 8 years ago. I would think that that fact alone would mean her shots would be better in terms of image quality. But it is nice to see that a cheap little thing on a Pentax can hold it's own against an expensive thing on a Canon!

I'm a fan of "If you thing you're close enough, get closer". I really like the feel your images give of intimacy and character. Shooting from a distance is fine, but it only provides a generalization, while your's captured a better feeling. Plus, your images have much greater color and contract. My vote, Pentax, duh.
Thanks for sharing!

Thanks. I think the flash helped bring out the color and sharpness a little. The lighting in that room is really dull and photographs terribly.

I like your images better but am wondering what they would have looked like if you had the prime spot!

Thank you! I don't think mine would have come out very good from her position. My tiny little flash would have been totally ineffective at that distance and I just don't have the fast glass she does. Getting physically closer up the middle was impossible as the floor was crowded with little people. The kids sat on the floor on a carpet in the middle then the outside was packed with chairs so there were really no aisles.

I did go and tweak them a little because with the mixed lighting the white balance was off. I adjusted the color temperature on each. I doubt she did anything to hers. That might account for some of the difference. However, my lighting was mixed due to using the flash, but not full on, under flourescent lights. She asked if I could send on to her 20-30 of my best images (they were taken while on the clock so technically they belong to the library and I'm totally cool with it). But since I was not shooting for her department I'm not giving her raw. If I was then I would, but since I was shooting for our branch, I will claim artistic license and tweak first, then I'll give her tifs on a dvd.

Thanks everyone for the comments.

[Lowell Goudge]

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)