|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
12-13-2014, 04:52 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-10-2014, 01:17 PM
|
| |
I've done a fair amount of concert photography. I go with a fast prime (50mm f/1.7). Using my K20D, ISO 1600 has more noise than I like. With my K50, ISO 3200 is better than the K20D at 1600. My lens is manual focus, which I think works to my benefit, as the low-light auto focus isn't very good on either camera. I have a Katz-Eye split focus screen on both cameras, which helps. A few things to keep in mind: you'll probably burn through an inordinate number of out-of-focus photos (or you will miss a lot of opportunities if trying manual focus). Embrace the noise--the environment requires high ISO, so noise is integral to the environment--that's OK. And if you want consistent exposure across a frame, you will go crazy. Relax and embrace the lighting variances across the stage and use them to your creative advantage. Good luck, and please post some results!
EDIT: I NEVER use flash at concerts. For my taste, ambient light more captures the drama of the moment.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
07-05-2010, 01:04 AM
|
| |
Well, I just figured out a way to get just about close to perfect on preserving the color cast (aside from correct exposure), and it was quite by accident. I took some photos of my kids lighting off fireworks, and there was some beautiful golden hour sunlight. My son was wearing a shirt with white on it, and part of it happened to be in full shadow. He was facing the sun, and in PS I selected the gray point on the back of his shirt. Pretty close to perfect color cast. slinco, I'm going to incorporate a modified version of the suggestion you made--I'm going to make a WB card with a 90 degree angle so I can take a quick shot of it with part of it in full shadow. Thanks for bringing up the idea in the first place, I wouldn't have thought of this solution otherwise.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-30-2010, 11:43 PM
|
| |
Um....you shot those with a manual focus lens? I say you totally kicked ass. Very nice work. I absolutely love my M50 1.7. I use it more than all my other lenses combined. I've done some indoor action events with much less success than what you've shown here. Nice job, and welcome to the club :)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-29-2010, 11:13 PM
|
| |
Spend some time at the new City Center on the strip during the golden/blue hours. There is a lot of potential for good architecture shots.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-29-2010, 08:41 PM
|
| |
Thanks for all the input everyone. It looks as if Marc was right on the money--I'm pretty sure the issue was one of overexposure and/or wrong WB setting. I took some last night using daylight WB and underexposed more than I usually would. After my standard post-processing workflow, everything turned out just fine. It seems that the ones that caused the issue in the first place were ones where I got the sun directly, before it went below the horizon, which leads me to believe the issue is most likely one of overexposure.
Thanks again, all input was helpful and provided some good insight.
Oh, and Steve, those last two shots you posted are very nice.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-29-2010, 05:45 PM
|
| |
I use "As Shot" by default. But, as Steve notes below...
Makes sense Steve. "Neutral"--that's a very good description of the results I'm getting. I made a couple shots last night in RAW+JPEG to give a good idea of what I'm talking about, but I haven't had the chance to look at them yet. I may have to go this route, and I'll try the in-camera conversion as well. It's a bit disheartening to be unable to use RAW for these types of shots, but that may be my only viable option. Thanks for the input.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-29-2010, 05:41 PM
|
| |
No worries, I appreciate the effort to help.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-28-2010, 04:26 PM
|
| |
Wouldn't this remove all color cast rather than preserving it? For instance, if someone is in the scene, and they're wearing a white shirt the same color as your WB card, their shirt would be some flavor of orange/yellow/whatever. That's the way it should be--their shirt shouldn't show up as white, because there is in fact a color cast. If I use the WB picker to tell LR that the shirt is white, the desirable color cast will be removed. Same scenario for using the WB card itself. Maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-28-2010, 04:26 PM
|
| |
I worded my initial post very poorly. By "back to what the original was", I mean what I actually saw with my eyes (and, consequently, what generally gets captured if shooting JPEG using the correct WB setting). I'm using Lightroom, and when I import, it shows what I imagine to be a processed JPEG thumbnail in the catalog (along the bottom of the screen). When I click on a thumbnail to load the image, it changes to the RAW view (best way I know to explain it), which is much different than what I am expecting (and much different than the original thumbnail before I clicked on it). Viewing the RAW file in Lightoom looks nothing like the scene looked in real life. This is irrespective of the WB setting I use on the camera, which makes sense, given that the camera's WB settings aren't saved in the RAW data. This doesn't make sense to me, because I expect RAW to capture the scene as-is, and it seems that some processing is happening to make it otherwise. I guess the different "best guess" WB that the various RAW converters use is the issue. It would be nice if it didn't make any guesses--just give me exactly what I captured. Therein lies my question--what's the best way to subvert the "best guess" and get to what the scene actually was? Trial and error seems to be the only method, and my results have been pretty dismal.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-28-2010, 04:25 PM
|
| |
This very well could be the issue. I've tried changing exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. in LR, but the result is never close to what the actual scene was. I'll try some different exposures next time I get a sunset.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-27-2010, 08:18 PM
|
| |
I shoot in RAW, and the only thing I don't like about it is when I'm taking photos of something like a sunset, where there is a desirable color cast I'd like to preserve. The color cast never makes it through. I've tried changing the color and temp with Lightroom, but have never been able to get back to what the original was (usually not even close). Any tips or tricks on getting back to the original color cast?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-21-2010, 08:04 PM
|
| |
Thanks for your input Pentaxie. The verdict seems to be about 50/50 as to whether people prefer the cropped or uncropped version (here and elsewhere). I haven't gotten around to the B&W version, but am still going to give it a go.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-21-2010, 08:02 PM
|
| |
Thanks Pentaxie, I appreciate your comments.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-19-2010, 08:57 PM
|
| |
Very nice collection Sebastian.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-17-2010, 02:58 PM
|
| |
Thanks slowpez and timstone. All of mine (two different submissions) were in the queue about 3 1/2 weeks.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-16-2010, 05:40 PM
|
| |
Thanks Stephen, congrats on your submission, very nice. Patience pays off :) Logging on and seeing "Approved in Gallery" is a good feeling.
Really like your #60 too casil.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-16-2010, 04:20 PM
|
| |
I just got #3 and #4 accepted. Thanks to all in the photo critique section for making crop/processing recommendations.
The Scene Behind
City Center Angles
 |
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-16-2010, 04:15 PM
|
| |
Thank you everyone for the feedback. The second version has been accepted in the PPG, no doubt in part because of the suggestions. For a print, I will play around with some of the different crop and B&W conversion suggestions. Thanks again.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-16-2010, 04:12 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the feedback everyone. The cropped version has been accepted in the PPG. I'm quite sure the input helped with that.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-07-2010, 10:19 PM
|
| |
The dynamic range makes it tough to get a good exposure on everything. I would have tried to isolate things a bit more so you don't have blown highlights in order to capture the shadows. Actually, I did try this a few weeks ago: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/94151-architecture-blue-hour-angles.html
Not that my version is the be-all-end-all, but it was much easier to get a better exposure. I'm shooting from the bottom of the stairs across the street.
I do like the blue hour capture. You might consider cropping just above the street. I think the street scene detracts from the architecture.
BTW, I tried capturing just the Aria (the two buildings toward the left with the blown-out tops), and I couldn't get them to look right. I tried blending multiple exposures to get both the highlights and the shadows, but I haven't been able to make it look natural. That's a tough one.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-26-2010, 12:14 PM
|
| |
It's a cool pic, I like the concept. For me, it doesn't quite work as well as it could. The out-of-focus, desaturated projection gives it a really nice retro feel. But I think the full staturation of the girl clashes with, rather than adds to the scene. And there's really nothing in focus. If the entire picture had the retro feel, I think you might be able to get away with the focus as it is--in fact, that may very well make it exceptional.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-22-2010, 10:13 PM
|
| |
Looks to me like the focus is perfect on the parasol, but the focus of the woman is soft--most noticeable on the front of her hand, since it's closest. At f/2, if you had nailed the focus on the face, the parasol would be slightly out of focus instead (as would the front of the hand). I think that scenario would have been better, or better yet go for a smaller aperture to get the whole subject in focus. And it does look like her face has a blue cast, which I think is largely unavoidable due to the makeup. The cast is a bit distracting to me.
EDIT: In looking at it some more, I think the issue with the face is one of overexposure compared to the rest of the photo. If I squint a little to bring down the perceived exposure, the face looks quite nice.
Having said all that, from a composition standpoint, I really like the picture.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-22-2010, 06:25 PM
|
| |
I think I also like the cropped version better (hard to tell without being able to see the entire picture without scrolling). The trees are a bit of a distraction.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-19-2010, 07:53 AM
|
| |
Yeah, I almost didn't even take this one, because I was afraid it would be too cliche. This followed half a memory card full of total crap, so I latched onto it as a keeper :) I could have included more of the platform from this angle and even moved underneath a bit more (it's Vegas' mini version, to which you can get quite close).
Thanks for the advice and candor.
jeff
|
