wndrlst

I thought the vent was what determined your crop!

srika

haha, i know, its terrible, lol... id like to think i SAW it once, then never saw it again..

fdl

Here's how I would crop it

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/827/cropti4.jpg

Billiam

While the good bits are certainly the most fun in real life, I don't think they're adding a whole lot to this particular image. My two suggestions:

1) set the bottom of the crop just below the girl's left hand. It will act sort of like a visual tease that the good bits are down there just below the frame.

2) Drop the background into darkness so that the girl and the light really stand out. This would be one of the few "acceptable" uses for a brightness/contrast adjustment layer. You'll need to do a layer mask of course to keep the girl and the light from being darkened as well.

Billiam

Quick hack n' slash version of what I was talking about. You can see that the selection around the girl would take some work, but I think the end result would be worth it.

srika

I see where you're going with it but I think the background lighting is a part of the mood of the pic. Also, I think its already not entirely easy to see waist-down, so I think that part is covered.

Mizouse

but id crop it a bit tighter than that

Mizouse

hey just curious, did you mention what kind of set up you use? i know you use a 5D but what about lenses, flash? any type of flash bracket, etc?

srika

Hey dont think I talked about it specifically anywhere - I use a 24-105 f/4L IS and a 580 mounted on top (no bracket). I have considered a bracket but I don't know if I want to make my camera any bigger than it already is - and more importantly, I don't feel the "side-lighting" avoided by using a bracket in vertical orientation is as big a factor in the club environment. I mean, there are enough shadows as it is so it's kind of pointless to try to fine-tune that in that environment, imo. Incidentally there is no flash on the above pic. I try to use no flash whenever possible and/or take a mixture of flash/no-flash pix of the same scene. I considered getting a 2.8 but I think I will have to do that later. I am gonna rent one soon to see how it does. If I could do it over again I would have bought the 24-70 f/2.8L first. That seems to be the lens of choice for Canon low-light photography.

wndrlst

I still like your original crop. I like the black below her, so we know she has room for those legs. I also like the context given by the hint of background. As for the goodies and below, much of her is still only a suggestion, as you said. I think it works very well.

srika

btw I went with a crop starting from the bottom-right, cutting out just that pesky vent/light.

wndrlst

Coolio.

iisylentii

Every body wang chung tonight.

srika

Localized @ Vision 03/03/07

http://www.delobbo.com/gallery2/v/03...alized_vision/

fdl

Nice.


I think you told me before, but how are you dealing with lighting in these shots?

srika

Standard setting I use on the 580 is ETTL, -1 1/3 (sometimes vary that, as needed), 1st curtain. Better to underexpose than over. No flash on the last shot - that's why its kinda soft.

danny25

I've always read it was better to overexpose than under. You can always dim down the bright spots, but can't always brighten up the dark spots if detail wasn't picked up. But I've never shot in a club, maybe the rule is reversed in that setting.

fdl

I dont think so danny.

You can recover detail in underexposed areas, but you cant recover detail in overexposed areas. Once its blown out, its gone.

Where slightly overexposing helps is with dealing with noise. At high ISO underexposed shots will look noisey, and bumping up in pp will only make it worse.

srika

heh as I was typing that I had a ? in my head because I wasn't 100% sure of it myself.. it may be more applicable to low-light situations such as a club, but just from what I've seen, it's easier to recover details from an underexposed shot. What do you think Dan? Does it vary by lighting situation or is there a general rule of thumb.

RMATIC09

those are really sweet pics sirka.

Lister00169

Excellent pics srika! I am waiting for the day when point and shoots can take pics that vibrant

danny25

That's true, if something is completely blown out, you'll get no detail. I think it was referring to non extremes though, like overexposed 1 f-stop > underexposed 1 f-stop.

Dan Martin

If you want to maximize the dynamic range of your sensor and minimize the amount of noise, the key is to "expose to the right". The histogram should be bunched to the right side (over exposure) as much as possible, without clipping your highlight detail.

The reason for this is your sensor is not linear in it's response; it's heavily weighted to the right side. There are more levels set aside for highlights than there are for shadows. If you underexpose by a half stop, you're only using about 40% of the sensor's dynamic range, resulting in increased noise and banding when you adjust the levels in post. Your best bet is to slightly overexpose the capture, then drop it down a little in post.

A lof of this is personal preference though. There's the theory, and then there's creativity. Underexposing tends to emphasize saturation, so your style would probably lend itself to a slight underexposure. All you can do is try both techniques to see what works best for you.

srika

Can't disagree with you there. I think this does have more to do with the situation. Because the lighting is so unpredictable in the club and you can't like, take 10 pics of the same people trying to get the "right" shot (exceptions exist ) - I set the lighting down, rather than up - if its underexposed, I can do some creative things to lift the light - but if its blown out, there is only so much I can do. In a studio or more consistent lighting area, I think its OK to over because you probably have more control over it. But, I don't know for sure.

srika

I'm gonna try this next time. I think another part of the issue is the LCD. It's just not accurate. And, you have to go by faith. I know this because sometimes I've taken a pic that LOOKS overexposed on the LCD.. I look at it at home and it looks fine. Maybe I'm in some kind of "comfort zone" with the underexposing, where pics can look good "enough" - but maybe they can look a lot better! There is SO MUCH to photography. I love it. :P

danny25

^ I've noticed the same thing on most camera LCDs I've had experience with. I usually turn their brightness level down quite a bit.

srika

I kinda feel like, that's not gonna happen for a LONG time... after taking so many pics with DSLR's (rolled past 20k on the 5D this past Saturday) I tried my SD550 at a dinner gathering the other day. God, I was dumbstruck at how little control I had with it, even in "manual" mode. They have a LONG way to go. Trust me, I'm waiting for the day that happens too. Just like I've been waiting for the day when video-game racing looks like real life. GT5 definitely getting close, Forza 2, not so much.

srika

btw I reckon I need to start using that histogram thingy.. would be a good way to combat the innaccuracy of the LCD.. and since it shows clipping, you know how over you can go...

einsatz

I ran into this guy's blog... check out this entry:
http://electrohippy.livejournal.com/...tml?mode=reply

I really like how that first wide shot is lit - looks like it's a still from a movie.
Check out his previous entries as well - there are some nice non-club photos.

srika

Yea thats some nice lighting. Also like the 2nd shot. While we are on the topic of other links, check this out:

http://www.clubplanet.com/Articles/1...kes-Vegas-Sexy

god I wish I could quit my dayjob and do this full-time.

BRAISKI

WOW!!!! Pics are AWESOME!!!

srika

thanks for having a look!

here's one I liked from Armin van Buuren this past Saturday.

Mizouse

danny25

very cool srika, it almost has a sepia tone look to it.

srika

yea I turned up the heat a bit..

srika

large version

ChodTheWacko

okay, stupid question, in that sort of lighting, how do you prevent getting totally owned by long shutter speeds?

Like I was at this dance thing, and I was shooting people.
I was using my 20mm at F1.8, ISO 400 and my shutter was bouncing between 1/8 to 1/10 and that was with internal flash on. Both pics were bleh due to motion blur.

Now, why is the shutter so freakin' long with flash on? Internal flash issue? How
do you get around this sort of thing? Crank up ISO? Shoot in manual? (I usually shoot in A).

I totally suck at night/flash shots. I need to study up on this.

srika

Well the trick is, light. I know, shocking. The shot above, it was a sequence of burst shots while the massive strobes at the back of the room were going on. While those are on, you are golden (assuming you have the shutter open for the correct amt of time). It's also lot of times a question of luck in regard to timing. I use burst a lot (and keep in mind this is on the slow 5D) and manage to get at least a few really good shots when the strobes and other lights are on. But sometimes lighting will be great and I will get crap shots. I've held the camera steady, I don't know how that happens.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of experience shooting at anything faster than f/4 - but that 1.8 *should* have been ridiculous in the club, just based on what I know about the numbers. Ohhh.. I think Manual is very necessary in these situations. Usually when I see the massive strobes come on I'll quickly set the shutter somewhere between 1/25 to 1/40 (I usually am at 1/3 to 1/6 or so) and burst. You can do it with the other modes but you'll have a better success rate if you use manual, imo.

srika

a few more from Armin.

srika

btw here's the EXIF from the wide strobe shot at the top (post #312)... since the EXIF seems to have been erased somehow...

Image Date: 2007:03:11 02:21:12
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 24.0mm
CCD Width: NaNmm
Exposure Time: 0.040 s (1/25)
Aperture: f/5.0
ISO equiv: 500
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual