[Mike Cash]

As some of you may know, each year I serve as the staff photographer for the annual recital put on by a local Japanese dance troupe. I look forward to it all year long, and I hope I'm not being immodest in saying the dancers really look forward to the photos.

I've had a lot of success in giving the photos a little "pop" by using a single strobe set up out in the audience on a tripod, fired by a radio trigger. I always attend rehearsal the night before the show and make sure I have everything set to give the results I want. I always come home and check the rehearsal shots on my computer to double-check. Everything was set up just as it should be and the rehearsal shots were lighted just like I wanted them.

Yesterday was the big event and somewhere between a third and HALF my shots are totally f*cking ruined, something I didn't know until I got home last night. I sat here going through all the shots and was in total shock and disbelief, wondering what the hell had gone wrong. At first I thought I must have had one of those extremely rare events where somebody else took a flash shot at precisely the 1/180 second my shutter was open...but they were coming up so frequently I had to rule that out. I thought that maybe my flash, a humble AF200T which has always been so reliable, had decided to go haywire on a lot of the shots. I set the flash for 1/4 power and I was amazed at how the whole stage was lit up like daylight for many of the shots and I know that even if it had been jumping to full power it is such a low-powered flash it never could have done that much light. I thought the aperture blades on my recently acquired used FA43/1.9 might be sticking and not closing down. Nope....they work fine.

I was in total bumfuddled amazement staring at all the ruined photos and trying to figure out what had happened and why the girls aren't going to get many pictures this year and how I'm going to explain it to them. Then I noticed that an object placed way over on the left edge of the stage was throwing a shadow straight to the rear and knew that it was physically impossible for it to have come from my flash, sitting on a tripod in the fourth row, center stage. That's when I remembered seeing a guy with a big "pro" setup and a monstrous huge "pro" flash atop his camera skulking in the shadows over on the left side of the audience. The son of a bitch had the optical slave enabled on his flash and every time his camera was pointed at the stage and I took a shot, I got his flash too.

Yes, we had a sign outside saying photography was prohibited except by staff. Family wishing to take photos were asked to say so at the reception desk. In all honesty, family with P&S cameras aren't the slightest bit of trouble and affect my shots not in the least. I wouldn't care if everybody in the audience were using a P&S and even firing the flashes. There has never been a problem. But one guy who wants to sneak in and get some nice pictures for himself and wants to drag in his flash gear gets to f*ck it up for not just me but for the girls who work hard all damned year long and look forward to some nice quality photos to remember it by. Because he's not as "pro" as he apparently thinks his gear makes him and has no more sense than to be using optical slave in a venue like that.

A**holes like that are at least one of the reasons some venues ban amateurs with "pro" gear. Let's face it, some of us aren't a whole better than the grandmothers we sneer at for using the flash on their P&S from the 50th row and for not knowing how to turn the flash off. I almost wish it had been my settings that were wrong or my gear that screwed things up, then I could be pissed at myself and beat myself up over it. All I have is some random faceless stranger who came wandering in without enough sense to turn his damned optical slave off. And the whole time he was probably pissed that somebody sitting in the fourth row was firing his flash. The problem isn't pros with pro gear...they don't show up unless they're getting paid. The problem is amateurs with pro gear who aren't a hell of a lot more bright than Granny with the P&S.

Six hours preparation at rehearsal shot to hell.
Four hours preparation immediately before the show shot to hell.
Three hours shooting at the event shot to hell.
A full year of hard work from the girls.....shot to hell.
Thanks, you sorry son of a b*tch.

---

Last edited by Mike Cash; 12-03-2011 at 04:20 PM.

[Tom S.]

I know saying "that sucks" is hardly adequate but I don't know what else to say.

[SlickYamaha]

Sorry about the bad luck, just out of curiosity, dont you check you photos periodically during shoots? I find it nearly impossible not to check the lcd every 5 or 10 shots, just to make sure things are working out correctly
At any rate, what a bummer, atleast you didn't lose all of them

[Clavius]

OMG... That really SUCKS, man! How the *** does one go around preventing that!?

[Bruce]

Um, hate to point this out to you Mike, but not all of us on the forums earn our living from taking photographs. Some of us also like to learn how to use our 'Pro Gear' by making mistakes, asking questions, making more mistakes (hopefully not the same one twice), asking more questions and the cycle continues, that is how adults learn. We are not all born with the innate 'knowing' of all things camera. I know you are disappointed that this amateur has spoiled some of your party and perhaps he is even a member of this forum. He may have read your post and feels like a bit of a dill right now, and may have learnt something from it (I know I have). However,

A**holes like that are at least one of the reasons some venues ban amateurs with "pro" gear.

I get a little bit annoyed when I get banned from using my camera because someone else is using theirs. It would have been great if the 'Pro' had noticed the amateur

firing his flash

and just checked, and perhaps offered some advice? He may have even learnt something.

Best regards, on behalf of the 'amateurs' can I offer apologies you and to the ladies of

local Japanese dance troupe

, I hope their performance went well,

Good luck for next year and please keep your eye out for us

A**holes

, never know one day it may be me and it sounds like you have something to offer in relation to lighting for live performances that I would like to learn about.

Regards

Bruce

[TOUGEFC]

Sorry to hear bout that, but you probably should have chimped a few shots into the session and then you would have seen the problem then approached the guy and could have told him to turn it off.

[Mike Cash]

The whole point of showing up and spending hours at rehearsal is knowing that I have everything set up and working correctly. Exposure is all worked out and dialed in via M mode and there is no need to chimp the shots to check for exposure. The shots without the a-holes optically triggered flash in them are all just the way they're supposed to be. This is fast-paced shooting for the full three hours and there isn't time to be chimping or second-guessing settings. Twenty five dances, most of them not more than about four minutes from start to finish, then a minute to change the sets, for me to change locations so the whole show doesn't get shot from one place, and here we go again, Lather, rinse, repeat for three solid hours. During the ten minute intermission I swap out batteries all around, grab a drink of water, and its off to the races once more.

I don't have the time to police the audience myself, nor even to spare them much more than a glance. Next year I'm going to have somebody watching out for that stuff for me. What I should have done is spoken to him myself and told him to put the flash away when I spotted him. He really was "skulking" in the shadows; I didn't use that as a figure of speech. He looked like he thought he was going to get kicked out or told to put his gear away and he was in the shadows next to some bleacher seats, trying very hard not to be noticed. If it had crossed my mind at the time about the optical slave thing, I would have kicked him out myself. But I don't take a possessive attitude toward shooting and want the girls to have as many nice pictures as they can, no matter who shoots them. My second shooter no doubt got some good shots. He invited a couple of friends who are new to photography and who have never shot anything like that before. We laid down some very lax ground rules ("stay out of Mike's way" and "share a DVD of any good shots you get" was what it boiled down to) and let them help out.

[TOUGEFC]

Even though you did rehearshal and got everything set up right, it doesnt hurt to chimp one shot for 2 seconds to make sure theres no problem, your problem could have been spotted and dealt with within 2 minutes.

I would rather lose 2 minutes shooting time than have 50% failed shots from the session.

No matter how well you think your settings are right, it doesnt hurt to chimp every now and again, better to be safe than sorry

[Mike Cash]

Um, hate to point this out to you Mike, but not all of us on the forums earn our living from taking photographs. Some of us also like to learn how to use our 'Pro Gear' by making mistakes, asking questions, making more mistakes (hopefully not the same one twice), asking more questions and the cycle continues, that is how adults learn. We are not all born with the innate 'knowing' of all things camera. I know you are disappointed that this amateur has spoiled some of your party and perhaps he is even a member of this forum. He may have read your post and feels like a bit of a dill right now, and may have learnt something from it (I know I have). However, I get a little bit annoyed when I get banned from using my camera because someone else is using theirs. It would have been great if the 'Pro' had noticed the amateur and just checked, and perhaps offered some advice? He may have even learnt something.

I hate to point this out to you as well, Bruce, but I don't make a living taking photographs either. I am a truck driver. I learned how to use my "Pro" gear by making mistakes, asking questions, etc. I also don't like it when places ban taking pictures just because somebody else is doing it. The difference is now I understand one of the reasons why. It isn't jealousy over somebody else getting pictures. It is because as happened to me yesterday it is possible to inadvertently ruin the output of the other guy. I was busy as a cat covering up sh*t for the full three hours of the event and didn't have the time to go around checking whether somebody else knew how to use his camera or not. I wasn't there to get a few pictures of my friend or relative. I was there as the staff cameraman making sure that there were good shots of all the girls in all the dances for the whole duration of the fast-paced show. There wasn't time for idle camera chitchat.

Good luck for next year and please keep your eye out for us , never know one day it may be me and it sounds like you have something to offer in relation to lighting for live performances that I would like to learn about.

I am happy to share what little I know with anyone. But the time for that is not during a one-shot performance. It is similar to a wedding in that respect (except we do it every year). It's one go-round and I either get it or I don't. There are no re-shoots possible. You wouldn't expect a wedding photographer to come chat with you about what he's doing during a wedding ceremony. It is just as unreasonable to think that the lead camera guy at an event has time to ignore the event and hobnob with fellow camera buffs. There is a different expectation when you are the one placed in charge of getting all the shots of everybody and when you are just there to catch a few shots of your niece or something, even if knowledge and skill levels are identical in both cases.

The point I wanted to make was, I learned there can be valid technical reasons why venues ban certain gear or photographic activity. I learned it the hard way. As a matter of general principle, I take a live-and-let-live attitude toward it and believe that anybody who shows up should be allowed to shoot....so long as they're not interfering with anybody else. This guy wasn't an annoyance....not at the time, anyway....but despite being totally unobtrusive and not getting in anybody's way whatsoever he still managed to make his presence known (after the fact) by ruining half my output. It isn't the P&S crowd which can do that; it is the pro gear crowd. Venues can't be expected to individually vet everybody who comes in with it and ask if they know how to use their gear without assing things up for others, so we end up with bans. I know I will never kick about bans again. Not after this experience.

Even though you did rehearshal and got everything set up right, it doesnt hurt to chimp one shot for 2 seconds to make sure theres no problem, your problem could have been spotted and dealt with within 2 minutes.

I doubt it, as it took me a good hour at home to figure out what the problem was.

I would rather lose 2 minutes shooting time than have 50% failed shots from the session.

So would I. That's why I invested ten hours time prior to the event. Everything I shot from rehearsal came out perfect. Everything where the guy's optical slave flash didn't go off was perfect during the event. Fifth year I've shot this event, and the first time this has happened.

No matter how well you think your settings are right, it doesnt hurt to chimp every now and again, better to be safe than sorry

I didn't "think" my settings were right. I knew with absolute certainty my settings were right. There was nothing wrong with my settings. The problem was the settings of the doofus who thought he was special and could ignore the "Photography Prohibited" sign at the entrance.

I'll add that the "Photography Prohibited" ban was not my idea. That came about as a result of the teacher being ticked off that amateurs were coming in to shoot and never bothering to share any of the photos they took afterwards. I am the only person who ever did share, which is sort of how I got the gig.

[tuco]

The whole time you never chimpped one of those shots?

[amoringello]

Flash photography should be banned.
Either the P&S flash is so limited it doesn't matter, or it is bright enough to disturb the performers, blind attendees, and as you point out, F up the main photographer.
Why didn't anyone have the balls to throw the guy out? Or re-aim a spot directly into his face.

Other than that, I'm torn on the banning of large "pro looking" cameras without flash.
In general I think its short-sighted, naive and ignorant to do so. But thats my opinion. :-)

[Mike Cash]

The whole time you never chimpped one of those shots?

A couple here and there, and I did spot an oddball. As I said, though, it took me an hour or so of going through the photos after I got home before I ran across a telltale shot throwing a straight shadow on the left edge of the stage, while my flash was center stage, fourth row. That's when I first knew it wasn't my flash going berserk at random times. If the light had been from my flash the shadow would have been diagonal across the stage at about a 45 degree angle. The If-I-Lurk-I-Can-Ignore-The-Ban guy was over on that side of the stage and from where he was his light would throw a shadow straight from the front to the rear of the stage, which was what I found. That's when I could first put two and two together and come up with "Optical Slave".

If I could have spotted the problem at the time, believe me I would have dragged the guy out by his collar and unceremoniously deposited him outside.

Other than that, I'm torn on the banning of large "pro looking" cameras without flash.
In general I think its short-sighted, naive and ignorant to do so. But thats my opinion. :-)

I agree. But these days we can't assume that the guy with the large "pro looking" camera is any less likely to sit there firing his pop-up flash on every shot than is Granny with the P&S. The guy I had may not have even been aware that his optical slave was enabled, or how to turn it off. For that matter, practically nobody in Japan (as far as I can tell) is aware of shooting with remote triggers and he probably had no idea that as I was running around back and forth with just a camera and a little prime lens stuck on it that I was the one using the flash in the seats. I was easily spottable as the staff shooter, and he may have assumed that the flash from the seats was from the audience and that "if that guy can use flash, so can I".

It won't happen to me again: I learned a valuable lesson in a very painful way this year.

The rehearsal shots are lighted just like I wanted them:

Pentax K-5
FA43/1.9

The ones with the unwanted humongous flash from the interloper light up the whole stage like an atomic bomb went off in the place.

[song_hm]

I remembered seeing a guy with a big "pro" setup and a monstrous huge "pro" flash atop his camera skulking in the shadows over on the left side of the audience. The son of a bitch had the optical slave enabled on his flash and every time his camera was pointed at the stage and I took a shot, I got his flash too.

Perhaps your consolation is, whenever he took a shot, he got your flash too?

[sjwaldron]

The whole point of showing up and spending hours at rehearsal is knowing that I have everything set up and working correctly. Exposure is all worked out and dialed in via M mode and there is no need to chimp the shots to check for exposure. The shots without the a-holes optically triggered flash in them are all just the way they're supposed to be.

I use to be against checking, but now I check every few shots at conventions or rather after every person I take photos of. It's fast and easy and not any reason besides pride getting way. If you had seen problems, turning off wireless flash in-camera and forgetting the extra contrast or key light probably would have been best. Improving bland photos in post is a lot easier than trying to recover from over exposure. it's all after the fact now, but lesson learned.

...edited out...

[Mike Cash]

I use to be against checking, but now I check every few shots at conventions or rather after every person I take photos of. It's fast and easy and not any reason besides pride getting way. If you had seen problems, turning off wireless flash in-camera and forgetting the extra contrast or key light probably would have been best. Improving bland photos in post is a lot easier than trying to recover from over exposure. it's all after the fact now, but lesson learned.

Pride has nothing to do with it. The shots without the unwanted bonus flash are all exposed just as they should be, thanks. If I'm under changing lighting situations then I do check important shots (ones I'm doing for others) to make sure. Lighting was checked, exposure settings confirmed, lots of test shooting under the same conditions as the day-of was done....all the "making sure" was done. The variable was the idiot with his optical slave enabled....he didn't come to rehearsal.

...optical slave? That's not something I would rely on ever. So many problems with that system such as line of sight and pretty much no distance with using the built-in flash as the trigger.

I wouldn't rely on one either. I used radio triggers which worked flawlessly.

Pentax should get a clue and at least offer us a decent RF wireless option that passes TTL data so we can get FP sync and power control. In the mean time, I think you should consider some Cactus V5 and ND filters for any large aperture lenses you want to use outside. Not just two triggers, but two plus a backup. Things go wrong and doing all that you can to be a pro is the goal.

I use Flash Waves radio triggers. It wasn't me that was using an optical slave flash at the venue and effing up my photos. It was the guy who thought "Photography Prohibited" didn't apply to him and his humongous flash and didn't know how or couldn't be bothered to turn OFF his optical slave who effed up my photos. Have I been unclear on that point somehow in this thread?

Perhaps your consolation is, whenever he took a shot, he got your flash too?

How would he get my flash too? I'm not idiot enough to use optical triggers in a venue like that.