Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Do I need to put the camera away?

  1. #31
    Resident Antagonist Benny Smyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
    Benny, I can only criticise one thing. They're virtually all portraits, and close up too. I'd like to see wider angle group and dancefloor shots.
    You are absolutely right about that. The reason for all the portraits is simply down to the equipment that I have. I have an 18-35mm kit lens which is awful in quality and the 50mm lens that I've been using for all of these gigs (which on the crop sensor of my camera actually makes it closer to 85mm). The need to have more variety in focal length is desperate but I'm deciding which direction I want to go with what equipment to buy next (there is a potential that I could migrate to Nikon).

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdj View Post
    Again just my opinion, but these are much better. Although to me anyway they still look dark, your not capturing/emitting enough light.

    I am surprised your going as low as 1/60th. I would normally not venture below 1/80th if not 1/100th, especially on f5. Keeping ISO low can't be a bad thing, but you can easily get away with 1000 or more whithout any noise and the shots will look brighter.

    I would have thought 2.8-3.5 would be the best F-stop then you can increase the shutter speed and get a much deeper, detailed shot without sacrificing the depth of field. If you have a little white tab on your flash that can be very handy. You can spin it in the other direction, or the bag I mentioned. Most venues have lowish white ceilings so its not usually a problem. Try 2.8, ISO 1000 and flash on a reasonably low setting and start at 1/100th and work your way up. you may find that you have a sweet spot at 1/200th or even above that and the quality really works.

    This was on our Photo Booth at the weekend. ISO 500, 1/320th, F11 (we have a d-lite flash and also need the DOF).
    Not what you want, but my point is with a bit more flash, you can really up the settings and get a much clearer, well lit photo, without it looking crap (i.e. flashed out and fake).

    Sorry for being mr know-all on this thread. I still have a long way to go with photography, but have managed to get to grips with low light photos, which are the hardest thing to do. Its like learning a language, unless you persevere you wont progress, which was what I did for years. I really need to do a day course with one of the local guys.

    Attachment 18019

    https://yourdj.smugmug.com/Careys-Manor-Katherine-Mike/
    Thanks for the feedback, Toby.

    The problem with the ISO going up to 1000 is that I don't get that option. The next one up for me from 800 is 1600, and the noise pixels from this camera are the size of legos on ISO 1600. The photos have been processed, so I've already tweaked the noise levels in Lightrooms as 800 looked quite dirty in itself (didn't go crazy though, as I didn't want to sacrifice the detail whilst getting rid of the noise).

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Midlands
    Age
    74
    Posts
    1,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdj View Post
    I would have thought 2.8-3.5 would be the best F-stop then you can increase the shutter speed and get a much deeper, detailed shot without sacrificing the depth of field.
    I don't understand your thinking on that one Toby, if you open your lens up ie go down to f3.5 - f2.8 you will reduce the depth of field not increase it. The lower the f stop number, the wider, the aperture the less depth of field. Shutter speed does not affect the depth of field, a slow shutter speed can however reduce the crispness of the photo due to camera shake or result in motion blur, but I can see no indication of either in the photos. I think the direction to go is to increase the ISO and decrease the aperture to say f4 - f5.6. Having said that, you really should change on setting at a time and check the results to be sure you're getting the anticipated result, if not put it back and try something else. First thing I'd do is increase the ISO and decrease the f stop with a view to increasing the depth of field, I can't see a case for speeding up the shutter if fact of what Benny has just posted regarding his next ISO option is 1600 it could be worth trying a few test shots at an even slower speed although at a 30th blur is very likely to be present. If that fails 'off camera' diffused flash is the next avenue to explore.
    Last edited by Pe7e; 28-08-2016 at 01:11 PM.
    Inside every old person, is a young person wondering 'What The Hell Happened'. Tempus Fugit

    Disco 4 Hire

  3. #33
    yourdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The New Forest
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Smyth View Post
    You are absolutely right about that. The reason for all the portraits is simply down to the equipment that I have. I have an 18-35mm kit lens which is awful in quality and the 50mm lens that I've been using for all of these gigs (which on the crop sensor of my camera actually makes it closer to 85mm). The need to have more variety in focal length is desperate but I'm deciding which direction I want to go with what equipment to buy next (there is a potential that I could migrate to Nikon).



    Thanks for the feedback, Toby.

    The problem with the ISO going up to 1000 is that I don't get that option. The next one up for me from 800 is 1600, and the noise pixels from this camera are the size of legos on ISO 1600. The photos have been processed, so I've already tweaked the noise levels in Lightrooms as 800 looked quite dirty in itself (didn't go crazy though, as I didn't want to sacrifice the detail whilst getting rid of the noise).
    Quote Originally Posted by Pe7e View Post
    I don't understand your thinking on that one Toby, if you open your lens up ie go down to f3.5 - f2.8 you will reduce the depth of field not increase it. The lower the f stop number, the wider, the aperture the less depth of field. Shutter speed does not affect the depth of field, a slow shutter speed can however reduce the crispness of the photo due to camera shake or result in motion blur, but I can see no indication of either in the photos. I think the direction to go is to increase the ISO and decrease the aperture to say f4 - f5.6. Having said that, you really should change on setting at a time and check the results to be sure you're getting the anticipated result, if not put it back and try something else. First thing I'd do is increase the ISO and decrease the f stop with a view to increasing the depth of field, I can't see a case for speeding up the shutter if fact of what Benny has just posted regarding his next ISO option is 1600 it could be worth trying a few test shots at an even slower speed although at a 30th blur is very likely to be present. If that fails 'off camera' diffused flash is the next avenue to explore.
    As I say I am no expert and really need to do a course or something.

    I have found that shooting events at over 1/80th and especially 1/100th with a reasonable ISO has got better results than at 1/60th unless its held very still or on a tripod as a room shot etc. I often use 3200 so 1600 should not be a problem. 2.8 is more than enough depth of field IMO and will allow a lot more light. I struggle with anything below that if I am doing candid shots when Djing, but its not a problem when doing it properly.

    When i shoot to 1/200th etc. I personally find the quality much better, despite the shutter being faster. No idea why but it is better. I will have a go today and log what settings I am using and see. I am at Rhinefield which is a reasonably dark room. My guess is 1,600, 1/200th and f2.8. I have one of the best photographers in the UK (any one of my best friends) Az Rehman from Lemontree so will ask his opinion as i am not doing much until the evening anyway. I use the camera for the Photo Booth so wont get any during the dancing. i am on my own on the decks anyway and being paid to DJ not be a photographer.
    Your DJ - Mobile DJ The New Forest, Southampton & Hampshire. Toby
    https://yourdj.co.uk/

  4. #34
    yourdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The New Forest
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdj View Post
    I have one of the best photographers in the UK (any one of my best friends) Az Rehman from Lemontree so will ask his opinion as i am not doing much until the evening anyway.
    Just talked to him and he has said he would use 1/200th, ISO up to 6400 & 2.8, with flash. He did say with my camera to use 1600 ISO as it would probably be too noisy. His lens/camera is well nice (Nikon so don't know the specs) so can get away with it.

    He shot our wedding in Poland: https://www.facebook.com/newforestwe...45734235471869
    Great bloke: http://www.lemontree-photography.co.uk
    Last edited by yourdj; 28-08-2016 at 03:46 PM.
    Your DJ - Mobile DJ The New Forest, Southampton & Hampshire. Toby
    https://yourdj.co.uk/

  5. #35
    Daryll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Harting, West sussex
    Age
    67
    Posts
    2,846

    Default

    I think the word that's missing from this thread is RAW , take your photos in raw mode and use software to do the rest.
    Most modernist cameras can use RAW mode , you get exactly what the sensor "sees" , no in camera adjustments , examples of RAW files for different cameras are arw, cf2, cr2, crw, dng, erf, mef, mrw, nef, orf, pef, raf, raw, sr2, x3f
    0
    and you dont need photoshop either , I use paint.net with a free plugin, other software programs are GIMP (Free) , smart photo editor ( free trial) , paint shop pro ( free trial), I could write a whole page on the dark art of photography , but this is a disco forum

    Daryll
    darylldj.co.uk , serving hampshire , Surrey and sussex

  6. #36
    Jim - Scotland's Party DJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    From last night: I'd kind of gone off the still shooting in favour of video recently but I decided to give it another go and was rather happy with the results.



    BTW I don't like posed shoots and usually try to shoot over the shoulder but any time I caught most of the females (and a good few of the males) doing anything interesting they'd turn to face the camera and pose

  7. #37
    Resident Antagonist Benny Smyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdj View Post
    Just talked to him and he has said he would use 1/200th, ISO up to 6400 & 2.8, with flash. He did say with my camera to use 1600 ISO as it would probably be too noisy. His lens/camera is well nice (Nikon so don't know the specs) so can get away with it.
    Thanks Toby, but we're really entering apples and oranges territory here by talking about shooting snaps at a different venue using settings on a camera that I don't own.

    Recommending settings is a nice starting point but it's a case of tweaking it when needed. I tried one way, and I'm trying to evolve as I go along but can only make an accurate assessment of the nights pictures when I get home and fire up the computer and then looking for feedback on here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daryll View Post
    I could write a whole page on the dark art of photography , but this is a disco forum
    Yeah...I only shoot RAW.

  8. #38
    yourdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The New Forest
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Smyth View Post
    Thanks Toby, but we're really entering apples and oranges territory here by talking about shooting snaps at a different venue using settings on a camera that I don't own.
    I use a similar Canon to you and would use the same settings that he said, even if I had my 24mm pancake and 1000d. Worth a shot. Raw is a massive increase in quality, but such a faff to sort out afterwards and the files sizes are huge, but I would certainly be using it if I was a photographer. I am a Jpg man generally, but appreciate the difference.
    Last edited by yourdj; 29-08-2016 at 01:35 AM.
    Your DJ - Mobile DJ The New Forest, Southampton & Hampshire. Toby
    https://yourdj.co.uk/

  9. #39
    yourdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The New Forest
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Smyth View Post
    I have an 18-35mm kit lens which is awful in quality
    I just bought this today Beny as it has amazing reviews. No one can seem to find any serious faults! Its been labelled as a rival to most similar L lenses (16-35mm 2.8). You have f1.8 throughout the whole of 18-35mm so a great light catcher for dark rooms, but also good for portraits and landscapes alike. Its sharp as!! and does not cost much either. £485-520 on eBay deals. Would make a great kit lens replacement.

    I will miss my f2.8 11mm-20mm Tokina wide angle as will probably sell it as its a similar price??

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._8_dc_hsm.html

    Name:  D3S_0363-1200.jpg
Views: 165
Size:  64.0 KB
    Your DJ - Mobile DJ The New Forest, Southampton & Hampshire. Toby
    https://yourdj.co.uk/

  10. #40
    Resident Antagonist Benny Smyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    Sorry Toby - I've only just seen this.

    Great that you've got a new lens. I purchased at Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 before Christmas and I have to say that it is a very good lens!



    Just gotta keep practicing now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •