Do I need to put the camera away?

[Benny Smyth]

Recently, I've been taking my camera to gigs that I have not performed at before so I can blog about them and create a search term on my website.

My intention for these pictures is solely to stick on the website. I'm not selling these pics as an extra service, nor am I going to blow them up for promotional material. In an ideal world, I would have photographers send me pictures for every gig I do in return for a mention and a link back to their site, but sometimes they don't want to do that (and that's fine, of course - it is their decision).

I know these pictures are not 'pro quality', but are they good enough for me to continue with this path (whilst also improving my own photography skills in the process - win/win, and all that), or are they not good enough and actually make my site look amateurish?

Blog One (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/professional-mobile-disco-dj-at-nuthurst-grange-solihull-warwickshire)
Blog Two (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/professional-mobile-disco-dj-at-barnt-green-inn-birmingham)
Blog Three (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/professional-wedding-mobile-disco-dj-at-curradine-barns-worcestershire)
Blog Four (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/professional-wedding-mobile-disco-dj-at-the-limes-country-lodge-hotel-earlswood-solihull)

For those that go hunting, you will see that some of my earlier blogs have (in hindsight) really bad pics and I am in the process of rectifying those, but my question is that is my current level of photography good enough to sell my service, or do I need to stop for now and try again after I improve further?

[Excalibur]

Haven't looked at your pics yet Benny, can't multitask that much. These records don't play themselves, you know.:) I can only use point and shoot cameras, so complete numpty really. At what point your snaps become saleable, I don't know, but on the odd occasion I've been snapping away, clients have been pleased to receive a cdr of pics later. Doesn't cost an arm and a leg( cheaper still with internet sharing programmes ) , but may be perceived as going the extra mile, can't hurt surely?

[rth_discos]

I know these pictures are not 'pro quality', but are they good enough for me to continue with this path (whilst also improving my own photography skills in the process - win/win, and all that), or are they not good enough and actually make my site look amateurish?


Benny, I fear you are a very similar person to myself.

I have high standards and want to achieve those high standards in every area. And if my pics aren't the same quality as the photographers, I feel they're not good enough - even though realistically, I'm not going to achieve the same quality as a pro photographer, otherwise I'd be doing that!

But in my head, I know how I want the photos to look, and get frustrated when I can't achieve that, but often get very close.

And that's what you've done - you've got very close to the quality of a pro photographer, so I think you can be very proud of your photos. In fact, there's likely some "pro" photographers going out for silly low prices producing the same quality shot as yours.

I think they look great - maybe try and get some more action shots of a packed dancefloor, and less so of the equipment set up at the beginning - people want to see the results :)

[Excalibur]

maybe try and get some more action shots of a packed dancefloor,

So many witty answers, but :zip: is the least insulting. :D

[musicology]

it seems to me you have a really good eye for this. There's some lovely natural looking shots that capture a moment really well. And, in my view, nicer than the usual shots of a busy dancefloor. I do agree that there are probably too many kit shots though.
As an aside.I like the way those SubSafes look with another speaker above. They just improve the aesthetic of the stack somehow.

[Nakatomi]

I think your shots look pretty good Benny, certainly better than some 'pro' photographer shots I've seen lately. As others have said, I don't think customers want to see pictures of kit. Heck some mobile DJs have more kit photos than hire companies

[Benny Smyth]

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

The reason I pop rig pics in there is because I do get asked sometimes how the night would look, so I've become accustomed to adding in a 'token' image at the end of the blog (after all the dancers and smiling faces are put front and centre), but I'm a bit fed up of taking pics of the setup, to be honest.

Would I be right in guessing that the reason for this feedback of having too many rig pics would be down to the blog about the Barnt Green Inn?

[DJ Jules]

Definitely passable photos that do a great job of selling your service :)

Just one comment - watch out for guests in unflattering poses. Ladies don't usually appreciate it when you catch them hiking up their bra (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/sites/bsentertainments.co.uk/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Liz%20%26%20Dominik%20%2812%20of%2012%29.jpg?itok= YC6tG6eM) :D

Out of interest - what the camera, lens and flash are you using?

Julian

[surround sounds]

I have been doing this for years, I take my camera everywhere with me and use on websites etc

[Benny Smyth]

Out of interest - what the camera, lens and flash are you using?

Julian

Canon 700d body with a 50mm 1.8 lens and a Sigma EF-610 flash.

On a regular basis, I look at the Canon 5d MKIII and have to talk myself out of buying it. :lol:

[yourdj]

are they not good enough and actually make my site look amateurish?

I think the photos are well composed, its fun taking pictures, especially when you start using different settings on Manual and see the difference. Your photos of your actual events are far better than stock photos, but without any amazing ones a combination of the two would be the better option. Photos are very subjective, so as long as you are pleased with them thats all that matters.

My main opinion is your use of light is not great as they are too dark (are you using a flash). 1.8 should get some decent photos with minimal lighting, but I think a flash also s a good bet to minimise noise. Having a narrow depth of field is also a challenge as some shots are not focused correctly. I found going from an f1.4 sense and using 2.8 with good use of bounce flash was much better. I also tend to use a shutter speed of at least 1/100, but typically 1/200th (up to 1/1500 for the photo below - outside). ISO as low as possible, but typically about 3-400 outside & 1000 inside to allow for less flash.

My opinion is if you get involved in taking photos you may run the risk of neglecting what you are there for (Djing), or get in the way of other suppliers / look unprofessional. I tend to occasionally do a bit of photography with my assistant Djing, but not very often. I usually take a couple of pics on FD and during the party, but thats about it.

Here are some photos from 2013 i took, I have improved quite a bit recently just by using the camera more. Have a look at the Tokina 11-21 2.8 lens its great for wide angle. Another one of my favs is the 24mm / or / 40mm pancake. Very cheap (£100) but also very sharp. Never used photoshop or RAW, just what came out of the camera. http://yourdj.co.uk/gallery/

They are not great, but i think being a bit crap is a good thing as its more real.
I was using an L 24-105mm during a lot of those photos and the pro level lenses really make a difference.

I have been practicing in Spain recently and took some really nice photos of my baby, 70d / 24mm pancake.
Would have benefitted from a bit of flash own the face, but happy with the sharpness & background blur (can't spell bokre).

18000

[yourdj]

Some from the parties if you are interested.
My clients find the theming pics useful as they can see what other people are doing. :)

I have thousands to sort through from weddings after I created these galleries. I will get round to it one day!!

http://yourdj.co.uk/everybody-dance/
http://yourdj.co.uk/theming-ideas-2/
http://yourdj.co.uk/all-day-pics/

[ppentertainments]

I think there is nothing wrong with the quality of those photos. I go against the grain a little but also think some photos can be ‘too good’ and unless you acknowledge the photographer who taken them are often discounted by brides – let’s face it everyone knows you can easily buy some good photos.

If using for online promotion though video is the way to go. Again nothing too flash – in true Toby style, here is a video from last Wednesday my son done. No editing or nothing, but does the job. He done an edited version which I am hoping to use at fayres etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB9634GkNwk

Of course if you can get the photographer to send a few snaps it is a bonus (and quite a rarity). The difficult thing too is to get some good shots without upsetting the tog or getting in the way.
18001

[yourdj]

Again nothing too flash – in true Toby style,

Nice video great work and lighting. Looks just like mine really, they have been designed to be non flashy and "this is what you get" which has always been my thing as its so hard to imagine the entertainment, so giving someone a video in their own venues is a bit helping hand to them not to mention - "hey lets book him". Having some short transitions would work well as it does not blend well. :)

Doing more of the couple game for a few questions (or what ever people call it) would have added more advantage, but its a wonderful video, showing what you do with no pre production. That would worry me a bit as a prospective bride, having the bride in shot at all times (even though she may have been outside at some points) is key IMO. good work I say. doing the game really shows that you are in control and that you are different, i just feel its a bit short as its a main focus on the party (I have had someone request it recently, but I don't like doing them m,much personally). ;)

Like the photo although, I am not a fan of fisheye photos personally, but can see the allure.

I want to replace my Tokina 11-20 with a 10mm sigma but not sure if it will be fish eye. I was attracted by the 2.8f throughout, but don't really use the zoom much, so would rather use my other prime 24mm. Sigma is also better than Tokina, but it is a very sought after lens and non are available second hand, so will get a good price. I was thinking of the L series 14mm, but its stupid expensive and not as wide as the 11mm Tokina, which is not far off on the specs.

I have to say the "togs" used to treat me differently with my other L lens, its a bit like a photographer pulling out a pioneer set of decks from his car i guess, but I don't even talk photography with them now, unless they bring it up first as its annoying as there are so many uncle bobs with their 5d's now thinking they are running the show and getting in the way (plus probably a lot of DJ's!!) so usually wait until i have invited couple on and make my move in that 10 seconds, when they are still on the floor.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-14mm-2-8L-USM-Lens/dp/B000V9F3BG

This guiser is brilliant, although he sounds like a simpleton:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIaXiNwuNko



18004

[Benny Smyth]

I think they look great - maybe try and get some more action shots of a packed dancefloor, and less so of the equipment set up at the beginning - people want to see the results :)


I do agree that there are probably too many kit shots though.


As others have said, I don't think customers want to see pictures of kit. Heck some mobile DJs have more kit photos than hire companies


Just one comment - watch out for guests in unflattering poses. Ladies don't usually appreciate it when you catch them hiking up their bra (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/sites/bsentertainments.co.uk/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Liz%20%26%20Dominik%20%2812%20of%2012%29.jpg?itok= YC6tG6eM) :D


My main opinion is your use of light is not great as they are too dark (are you using a flash)

Ok, so I've taken what you all have said on board (and thank you for the feedback - it is really appreciated). I was at a venue last night that I didn't have a search term for on my website, so I grabbed the ol' picture-taking machine so I could make a blog about it and have tried to do what have you all suggested.

So, with that in mind, do you think that this blog's photos (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/professional-wedding-mobile-disco-dj-at-somerford-hall-in-brewood-staffordshire) are more suitable?

[musicology]

I really do think you have a talent for this. Really good moment captures!

[Nakatomi]

I really do think you have a talent for this. Really good moment captures!


:agree:

[Excalibur]

I'm just insanely jealous. Well done that man.

The first piccies shown were good, you've only had to tweak things a bit, not rip it up and start again.

[yourdj]

Ok, so I've taken what you all have said on board (and thank you for the feedback - it is really appreciated). I was at a venue last night that I didn't have a search term for on my website, so I grabbed the ol' picture-taking machine so I could make a blog about it and have tried to do what have you all suggested.

So, with that in mind, do you think that this blog's photos (http://www.bsentertainments.co.uk/professional-wedding-mobile-disco-dj-at-somerford-hall-in-brewood-staffordshire) are more suitable?

I unfortunately have the same opinion. Too dark, too much noise (prom a high ISO).
But the timing and composure is still great. Better photos in that respect. :)

With some tweaking they would make good arty shots.

Thats just my opinion, what a potential client thinks is key. :)

Is this on Auto, program or full manual?

[Benny Smyth]

I really do think you have a talent for this. Really good moment captures!


:agree:


I'm just insanely jealous. Well done that man.

The first piccies shown were good, you've only had to tweak things a bit, not rip it up and start again.

Thanks, gents.


I unfortunately have the same opinion. Too dark, too much noise (prom a high ISO).
But the timing and composure is still great. Better photos in that respect. :)

With some tweaking they would make good arty shots.

Thats just my opinion, what a potential client thinks is key. :)

Is this on Auto, program or full manual?

It's full manual mode. I think (DISCLAIMER: Workman blaming his tools) it is a case of the fact that the camera and lens doesn't deal with low light fantastically well (I maxed at 400 ISO, with most being 200 for this particular gig), hence why I keep eyeing up the 5D. What would you suggest?

[yourdj]

Thanks, gents.



It's full manual mode. I think (DISCLAIMER: Workman blaming his tools) it is a case of the fact that the camera and lens doesn't deal with low light fantastically well (I maxed at 400 ISO, with most being 200 for this particular gig), hence why I keep eyeing up the 5D. What would you suggest?

It may be the camera/lens. What settings are you using and kit do you have? I would stick with a more entry level first and get to grips with that. Its a bit like the bedroom DJ getting an all singing and dancing set of decks before he can even mix. A 5d is also very expensive and you probably wont use any of the features. :p

I can get half decent photos with my 1,100d (not a great DSLRT) and f3.5 kit lens without a flash. Have to be on at least 2,500 ISO and a shutter speed of 1/80th. The withe 70d and any one of my 2.8 lenses are fine without flash, but it takes a much better photo with a fill light. Every single one of the photographers I recommend use flash and most also off camera flash too for FD/evening. Increasing the light and decreasing settings drastically improves the photo. I was shooting at 800 ISO & 1/250 shutter last night. I had a horrible Yongnuo flash so it could have done with a diffuser to soften the light (bit harsh). Its not a great photo, but this is good enough for Facebook etc. Shows everyone having fun. :)

18009

[Benny Smyth]

What settings are you using and kit do you have?

Pay attention in class, Toby. :p


Canon 700d body with a 50mm 1.8 lens and a Sigma EF-610 flash.

I bounce the flash off the ceilings/walls, and changed from 1.8 to 2.8 (after your suggestion, actually so I am listening to you!) for this particular gig, with a shutter speed of 1/200. Where I fall down is photography in low light situations because I like to think that my 'daytime' photography is pretty spot on for a hobbyist who's teaching himself via the school of YouTube:

http://i63.tinypic.com/2yya53k.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/30syjcw.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/20p9g2a.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/ogyljk.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/2isi2l4.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/14nvx4.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/2n18k6w.jpg

Going full frame with a 5D would certainly let in more light, thus making the low light pictures better exposed and hopefully making them sharper. Obviously the glass has more impact than the body, but short of the low light photography I feel that I have maxed out what I can do with the 700D (and I really don't want to spend lots of money on expensive lenses to stick on a crop framed camera aimed at the amateur market - it would be like plugging as USB 3.0 cable into a USB port).

Photography is an expensive hobby, but I do find it fascinating. :approve:

[Pe7e]

One constant I've noticed in most of your pics is they are all dark, frequently out of focus, have a very narrow depth of focus, but no motion blur. This suggests to me the camera is not set up for low light level photography, I'd recommend you reduce your lens aperture to increase the depth of field, decrease your shutter speed to compensate for the reduced aperture (it's surprising how low you can go until motion blur is present) and finally increase the ISO considerably to brighten the pictures. I don't think a new camera is the answer, your present Canon 700d is capable of far better 'low light' photos than it is currently producing. I'm not familiar with the settings available to you on your camera, but if you can, try setting it to automatic with a 'shutter priority' and set the shutter speed to around a 50th second, I think that should give you better results. The other old pros trick is to take loads of pics and discard the poor ones.

I've just had a second look at your pics and none of them are in sharp focus which is quite odd, you haven't got a 'soft focus' filter fitted to front of your lens have you? That would answer a lot of the issues.

[Benny Smyth]

One constant I've noticed in most of your pics is they are all dark, frequently out of focus, have a very narrow depth of focus, but no motion blur. This suggests to me the camera is not set up for low light level photography, I'd recommend you reduce your lens aperture to increase the depth of field, decrease your shutter speed to compensate for the reduced aperture (it's surprising how low you can go until motion blur is present) and finally increase the ISO considerably to brighten the pictures.

I'm taking my camera to a gig this Friday, so I'll be sure to try this out. Maybe my failure is identifying the correct exposure on low light.


The other old pros trick is to take loads of pics and discard the poor ones.

I want to try and avoid the 'spray and pray' technique as that won't help me improve my skills. I'd rather get it right first time.


I've just had a second look at your pics and none of them are in sharp focus which is quite odd, you haven't got a 'soft focus' filter fitted to front of your lens have you? That would answer a lot of the issues.

No filters, I'm afraid. Could it be the websites? I notice that the pic quality does dip a bit on my website when I upload them and the 'street photography' examples I've put up are downloaded from Facebook as I'm away from my home computer right now.

Definitely food for thought. Thanks for the feedback and suggestions.

[yourdj]

Pay attention in class, Toby. :p



I bounce the flash off the ceilings/walls, and changed from 1.8 to 2.8 (after your suggestion, actually so I am listening to you!) for this particular gig, with a shutter speed of 1/200. Where I fall down is photography in low light situations because I like to think that my 'daytime' photography is pretty spot on for a hobbyist who's teaching himself via the school of YouTube:

Going full frame with a 5D would certainly let in more light

Sorry forgot.

I love these photos, especially the tap, as you say very nice pictures.


I'm not familiar with the settings available to you on your camera, but if you can, try setting it to automatic with a 'shutter priority' and set the shutter speed to around a 50th second, I think that should give you better results.


Maybe my failure is identifying the correct exposure on low light.



Defo not need a new camera, although it would be nice i guess. Using shutter priority is a good bet (a lot of pro photographers I have met still use Aperture priority mode), but having a camera only one mark up from yours (70d), 1/100th, ISO 2000-4000 and a bit of fill flash should do the trick. Optimise the settings for low light also, can't remember how to do this, but you can. If you have a little whit tab on the flash that can also really add a little bit of light without making it look flashed out (I am sure you know all this). These are pretty good for softening a flash: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Small-Universal-Flash-Diffuser-Softbox-Bag-for-Sony-Nikon-Canon-/252337929164?hash=item3ac0833bcc:g:Q4QAAOSwYHxWPW~ 4 :)

Knowing you it will be pro level this time next year.

[Benny Smyth]

Well I've had a bit of a ponder last night whilst doing a lot of research by watching videos and reading articles. I think I have a rough idea on what settings to try next, so will give that a go on Friday.

As for the new camera, it's not something I plan on buying this week or anytime soon. Going full frame is the direction I want to go, but that is later on down the line.

[Benny Smyth]

Third time lucky? :p

I've not had a chance to blog about the wedding that I took some snaps at last night, but I have processed the images today. What I have done is uploaded some onto Dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p7wzvc5cdlju9nk/AADn8lvmgW8EJdy9z_ZbhV2ia?dl=0) for anyone who has time to look at and critique. I think my website decreases the quality slightly, so we'll see if I'm right about that.

I think that the exposure is better. For the geeks, I was at 800 ISO all night at F/5 and a shutter speed of 1/60. When I was processing, I had to increase the exposure by a full F-Stop so I'm thinking at my next gig I'll go down to F/4 to see if that's better. I worked out last night that the ceiling was too high to get an effective bounce flash, so I had to point the flash directly at my audience, which felt really weird.

[Pe7e]

They are a great improvement from the previous photos, just a bit of fine tuning needed now to get pro quality pics for your website, you have certainly gone in the right direction.

[Excalibur]

Why is the lad in pic 16 holding a fishing rod? :confused:



If you haven't looked yet, shame on you. It's a selfie stick. :)
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.
Still damn good* though. :approve:



* Please bear in mind that I know more about nuclear physics than photography. ;)

[yourdj]

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. ;)

18019

https://yourdj.smugmug.com/Careys-Manor-Katherine-Mike/

[Benny Smyth]

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).


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. ;)

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).

[Pe7e]

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.

[yourdj]

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).


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. :p

[yourdj]

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/newforestwedding/photos/?tab=album&album_id=845734235471869
Great bloke: http://www.lemontree-photography.co.uk

[Daryll]

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 :p

Daryll

[Jim - Scotland's Party DJ]

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.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9ac05f_14a1a3e1b8b34dcfad59a067991ed872~mv2_d_4272 _2848_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_639,h_426,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/9ac05f_14a1a3e1b8b34dcfad59a067991ed872~mv2_d_4272 _2848_s_4_2.jpg

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 :)

[Benny Smyth]

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.


I could write a whole page on the dark art of photography , but this is a disco forum :p

Yeah...I only shoot RAW.

[yourdj]

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.

[yourdj]

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/product/967344-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html

18246

[Benny Smyth]

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!

http://i66.tinypic.com/2wd8u9c.jpg

Just gotta keep practicing now.

[Benny Smyth]

So...twelve months on!

I went through a period of not using the camera at gigs, but found myself itching to do it again. In July, I bought myself a full frame camera in the form of a Canon 6D MKII, and the SigmaArt 85mm 1.4 (which is a very sexy lens). That lens, coupled with the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 has done me well at gigs recently (although I am seriously eyeing up the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2). Even Mrs. B and the nephew has grabbed the camera to take some snaps! I have to sort the settings out for them but once that's done, they go out and take some shots and have managed to get some pretty decent ones, in my opinion.

I've also started sending the photos to the clients as a bit of a hidden bonus for them (as in, they are unaware of it until I drop them an email a couple of days later). Each time they have been well received, but I always throw in the caveat that I'm not a pro photographers just to ensure that their expectations aren't sky high, but I like to think that it would keep them going until their photographer has sorted out the proper pictures for them.

So that's where I am. Below is a selection of some of the snaps I've taken, and I think that I've come a long way in the last 12 months. :)

http://i65.tinypic.com/2ntcynb.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/fb9q3d.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/23moilf.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/dh64xi.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/160csk2.jpg http://i67.tinypic.com/2wrnou8.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/28ldpo0.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/2qtvbr7.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2132mh0.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/120mav7.jpg

[Excalibur]

Well done Benny. Nice results from a nice piece of kit. Just think, if a tog were to have problems, you could lend him some full pro kit to get him out of the mire. :whistle:

[DJ Jules]

In July, I bought myself a full frame camera in the form of a Canon 6D MKII, and the SigmaArt 85mm 1.4 (which is a very sexy lens). That lens, coupled with the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 has done me well at gigs recently (although I am seriously eyeing up the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2). Even Mrs. B and the nephew has grabbed the camera to take some snaps! I have to sort the settings out for them but once that's done, they go out and take some shots and have managed to get some pretty decent ones, in my opinion.

Very nice :D I've just picked up a 6D MKI (I heard too many bad things about the MKII) along with a Canon 24-70mm F2.8 so I'm now going through a similar journey. My dilemma about taking pics has been amplified by joining a bunch of photographer forums and I now purposely try and avoid using the camera when the paid Tog is in the room.

So... give us the details then? :D Aperture, Shutter, flash, etc?

Julian

[yourdj]

the SigmaArt 85mm 1.4 (which is a very sexy lens).

Well done thats so much better. :) I see you have ditched the flash in some cases I do this a lot now (its miles easier and you can get some super colourful photos suitable for our DJ promotion). I bet you can get away with the ISO on full frame and RAW. I still use 70d and jog as its easier for me (Facebook).

I almost bought the sigma 85mm the other day, but opted for the canon one at 1.8 as it had good reviews and is miles cheaper. I had my first paid event last weekend and needed something a bit more 'sniper like' and also fast and he had the Canon and said 'its been on my shelf for a year you can have it for £100' which was a complete bargain and saved me lots of time of Ebay. Funny as I was just talking to the photographer when I set up and he said a company sent him 2 x Sigma 85mm!! He said he should not have but he waited and waited and they never got in touch, so old it LOL. :)

I am liking Sigma stuff atm. I have the 18-35 1.8 art, which is great and had the 28mm 1.4 HSM years back and that was amazing, but I was not good enough to use it in low light at that stage. I wont be selling the 18-35 in a hurry as its terrific for the price.


Very nice :D I've just picked up a 6D MKI (I heard too many bad things about the MKII) along with a Canon 24-70mm F2.8

wow can't go wrong with that, industry standard kit pretty much. I think I will wait for mirrorless Sonys to hit Ebay before I 'upgrade'. My best shots were with the 24-105 f4. I think if I did it properly, I would stay with primes, but I made the mistake of having one camera on 85mm the other day (party drinks reception) and loads of people wanted formals (which was not what I was doing really), so can see the benefit of a second camera with a flashed up 24mm or even a zoom lens for those circumstances.

[Benny Smyth]

Well done Benny. Nice results from a nice piece of kit. Just think, if a tog were to have problems, you could lend him some full pro kit to get him out of the mire. :whistle:

Only if I am in receipt of a substantial fee. ;)


Very nice :D I've just picked up a 6D MKI (I heard too many bad things about the MKII)

Ah yes - the criticism of the lack of dynamic range made by people who don't own the camera because somebody else did a studio test. While studio tests are all very well and good, I tend to not take photos of dots and lines on a wall, and I have found out while taking actual pictures that the DR is fine for an amateur like me. I've gone from a 700d to a 6d MKII, and the £2k I spent on the body was a very worthwhile investment in what is essentially a very geeky hobby. :Laugh:


So... give us the details then? :D Aperture, Shutter, flash, etc?

I'll have to open Lightroom again to get most of the details, but I can tell you that all my shots at gigs are done either at 3.2 or 3.5. I know 2.8 and lower would let in more light, but I like to have a little bit of wiggle room with my focus.


Well done thats so much better. :) I see you have ditched the flash in some cases I do this a lot now (its miles easier and you can get some super colourful photos suitable for our DJ promotion). I bet you can get away with the ISO on full frame and RAW.

With the 700d, I couldn't get past ISO 800 without the noise pixels being the size of Legos. I can comfortably push the 6d MKII to ISO 12800 now, and probably more if I wasn't so anal about the noise. You are right though, Sigma is producing some excellent glass at the moment and Tamron is doing some great stuff too. I'm not a pro, so I cannot justify paying for a Canon L Lens but from the reviews I've been reading of the Tamron and Sigma stuff, they have lenses in their respective ranges that really stand up against what Canon & Nikon produce and while the big boys are better, you'd still be chuffed with the results you can at what is - at times - half the price.

[DJ Jules]

Ah yes - the criticism of the lack of dynamic range made by people who don't own the camera because somebody else did a studio test. While studio tests are all very well and good, I tend to not take photos of dots and lines on a wall, and I have found out while taking actual pictures that the DR is fine for an amateur like me. I've gone from a 700d to a 6d MKII, and the £2k I spent on the body was a very worthwhile investment in what is essentially a very geeky hobby. :Laugh:

I did think that as well - and wondered why Canon would release an new version that didn't improve upon the original in some way, shape or form. The other thing that drew me to the 6D MKI was the price... I picked up a nearly new (shutter count of < 500) 6D MKI and the Canon Lens for considerably less than you paid for the body :D


I'll have to open Lightroom again to get most of the details, but I can tell you that all my shots at gigs are done either at 3.2 or 3.5. I know 2.8 and lower would let in more light, but I like to have a little bit of wiggle room with my focus.

I'd be really interested to know the exact details (lens length, f stop, shutter, etc) - I would have put most of these at F4 or above based on the depth of field.


With the 700d

I went from the 7D which was no better than 700d or 100d and really stopped producing usable results in natural light around ISO800 as well. The 6D is waaaay better. I just wish someone had said "full frame" to me years ago...


I'm not a pro, so I cannot justify paying for a Canon L Lens but from the reviews I've been reading of the Tamron and Sigma stuff, they have lenses in their respective ranges that really stand up against what Canon & Nikon produce and while the big boys are better, you'd still be chuffed with the results you can at what is - at times - half the price.

I've gone from a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 which retails at about the £400 to the Canon and the difference is startling. Admittedly, it wasn't one of the higher end Sigma lens, but the Vignetting and image distortion is obvious when you compare them side by side. I'm not pro either - I think I'd describe myself as an over-enthusiastic amateur :P

Very nice work :)

Julian

[yourdj]

I've gone from a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 which retails at about the £400n

I think the quality is probably retrospective to the price. I have had one of the half decent zoom Sigmas - I think it was 18-55 2.8? - it was that OK I have completely forgotten. The Art stuff from what I hear from other photographers and my own lens is something else. Although the prime I had was really great (1.4 28mm), shame I sold it. I almost sold my Tokina 2.8 11-21mm and thought - hey stop, this is an amazing lens, you will need it at some point (it is amazing for video).

As it happens I am setting up a photography side business doing only what I love and not really caring about what or how many customers I get, which I think is a good way to go. I really need to spend a lot of time using the camera and watching a shed load of Youtube videos also. Creative arty business portraits and fun event photos is what I like.




I'll have to open Lightroom again

With the 700d, I couldn't get past ISO 800 without the noise pixels being the size of Legos.

Not ever edited a photo post production. I need to get on to that really, but I like to think I can take a decent pic using histograms even on my 100d and 24mm pancake (its actually amazing for what it is and SO tiny). I can certainly see the benefits of light room, especially when doing it for a job. I have creative suite on a file on my computer, just need to install it!

Some of those photos look over 800 ISO? I have been pushing 4000 recently with my DJ lighting as a light source and it actually looks quite cool on 1.8, but it would only work with that sort os aperture really. Doing the focusing is tough, but I have been doing it for 4 more more years now. 2.8 is not too bad really especially if you have the flash to help you select.

I need to go full frame though as I can understand how much better that must be especially in low light. 6D is a very good camera for the price. I might wait for the Sony digitals to go down in price though. :)

[rth_discos]

Not ever edited a photo post production. I need to get on to that really, but I like to think I can take a decent pic using histograms even on my 100d and 24mm pancake (its actually amazing for what it is and SO tiny). I can certainly see the benefits of light room, especially when doing it for a job. I have creative suite on a file on my computer, just need to install it!


You are massively missing out. Shooting in RAW and then editing that RAW file in Photoshop (or Lightroom) opens up a whole new world.

That's where I find you can take a good photo in to a great photo. I shoot on the basis I'll be editing the RAW file, so I bring the contrast right down (-3 on my Nikon) which gives me more range and underexpose (easier to bring up something that's underexposed than it is to recover something that's overexposed).

When you see what control you get over the RAW file, you'll never want to go back to shooting JPEG again.

[Benny Smyth]

When you see what control you get over the RAW file, you'll never want to go back to shooting JPEG again.

Pretty much this. I like to crank up the contrast I'm my photos, especially the black and whites. JPEGs look too flat in my opinion and I'd rather decide how my photo is processed than leaving it up to the camera.

[Benny Smyth]

I'd be really interested to know the exact details (lens length, f stop, shutter, etc) - I would have put most of these at F4 or above based on the depth of field.

Right then...can't be arsed uploading ten pics again with the relevant data, so I'm afraid that you'll have to bounce back and forth in the thread.

http://i66.tinypic.com/fcvaqe.png