Photography - Technique and Equipment considerations

[Skylarking]

Oooo.... sexy.

[CJ]

first night exposure resized.jpg

Here is my first long exposure at night- an over exposure at that. I've resized from the original. I shot it at, from memory... ISO 100, f/22 at around 20 minutes(20) The lens was a ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 (though I barely understand what that actually means).

I'm thinking upgrading my camera. Oh, I have an Olympus E-420. It came with two pancake lenses- one of those mentioned above.

The image is attached. I'm still a newbie, so any criticisms would help.


EDIT: and I also submitted another shot, using the same set up, only I used the 60 second shutter release built into the camera. I under exposed that one.

Great photo's! The only comment I would make is the non-horizontal horizon which is something that jars in landscapes. The Olympus kit you have is very good and always has been so unless you have a specific type of photo you want to take and your current kit won't do I'd stick with Olympus. The cost of moving system will not bring a commensurate with the delta increase in capability I.E. you'll spend £1,000 getting a 3% improvement. You are better to either improve your existing body, expand your lenses or better still take your existing kit on a holiday to a photogenic location and use it!

[FBM]

Oooo.... sexy.

first night exposure resized.jpg

Here is my first long exposure at night- an over exposure at that. I've resized from the original. I shot it at, from memory... ISO 100, f/22 at around 20 minutes(20) The lens was a ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 (though I barely understand what that actually means).

I'm thinking upgrading my camera. Oh, I have an Olympus E-420. It came with two pancake lenses- one of those mentioned above.

The image is attached. I'm still a newbie, so any criticisms would help.

EDIT: and I also submitted another shot, using the same set up, only I used the 60 second shutter release built into the camera. I under exposed that one.

Great photo's! The only comment I would make is the non-horizontal horizon which is something that jars in landscapes. The Olympus kit you have is very good and always has been so unless you have a specific type of photo you want to take and your current kit won't do I'd stick with Olympus. The cost of moving system will not bring a commensurate with the delta increase in capability I.E. you'll spend £1,000 getting a 3% improvement. You are better to either improve your existing body, expand your lenses or better still take your existing kit on a holiday to a photogenic location and use it!

What he said!

[Witticism]

Nom, Nom, ... just bookmarking

[FBM]

Suggestions would be very welcome here. I took this today:



You can see the lighting situation and the results. I was using a 28~80 lens, speed mode, and it shot at 1/45 @ 5.6.

I cropped and cleared it up some in PS:



but of course I'm not happy with the results. I plan to be doing a lot more shooting under similar lighting of similar scenes. I want to stop the guy in mid-air and end up with a crisp, detailed image.

Suggestions? Different lens? Different settings? Give up?

[CJ]

You can 'freeze' action in one of three ways.

1) High shutter speed

• To freeze human actions we are talking shutter speeds of 1/250th of a second or faster.
  This is governed by a combination of the three factors as detailed below.
  a) Lot of ambient light (natural or via lighting)
  b) Wide lens aperture.
  c) High 'Film' speed
  
  If you could move the action outside or borrow/buy some video lighting that would be the solution to a).
  You'll have to buy a wide aperture lens (f1.8 or better) to satisfy b).
  You can set your sensor sensitivity to a higher value (800 or 1600ASA) to satisfy c).
  The most reasonable combination would be to up your ASA to 400 and get the action outside if you can, this is the 'no cost' option.
  Buying a second hand wide aperture lens (50mm f1.4) would be my second option but you would have to accept that at full aperture, the whole point of buying the lens, the image could be considered 'soft' which would be counter to your requirement of sharp.
  Upping your 'film' speed will introduce 'noise' (dappled colours) into the dark areas of the image, you'll just have to experiment and see what is acceptable.

2) Flash lighting

• This option will produce the crispest image. However to fill the volume of space you are considering will take a lot of light, that's either a very expensive high power on camera flash (which will give very harsh effects and only illuminate the combatants effectively) or a pair of off camera flash heads which would cost you more than the on camera flash. If you are looking for a top class 'freeze' a pair of off camera flash heads is the best possible option, see if you can rent some.

3) Panning

• Not really practical as the action if circular, the man in the air is moving through and arc not a line.

I hope this helps.

[FBM]

WORK IN PROGRESS!

You can 'freeze' action in one of three ways.

1) High shutter speed

• To freeze human actions we are talking shutter speeds of 1/250th of a second or better. This is governed by three factors as detailed below.
  a) Lot of ambient light (natural or via lighting)
  You need the equivalent of a bright sunny day

• b) Wide lens aperture

• c) 'Film' speed

2) Flash
3) Panning

Yeah, I checked the ISO and it's on 160. It can go much higher, of course. I read that ISO of over 400 can create aberrations. Maybe not in low-ish light? There wasn't really a lack of light, just that the interior light was overpowered by the sunlight coming from behind. I can hardly ask them to have their belt tests at locations to my choosing. I'll try increasing the ISO next time and panning more. If that doesn't do it, I'll try to find a lens with larger aperture capabilities.

Thanks for the tips, as always!

[CJ]

Yeah, I checked the ISO and it's on 160. It can go much higher, of course. I read that ISO of over 400 can create aberrations. Maybe not in low-ish light? There wasn't really a lack of light, just that the interior light was overpowered by the sunlight coming from behind. I can hardly ask them to have their belt tests at locations to my choosing. I'll try increasing the ISO next time and panning more. If that doesn't do it, I'll try to find a lens with larger aperture capabilities.

Thanks for the tips, as always!

Up your ISO and set your meter to spot, not area, this will make the camera expose for the people and not the window in the background.

[FBM]

Yeah, I checked the ISO and it's on 160. It can go much higher, of course. I read that ISO of over 400 can create aberrations. Maybe not in low-ish light? There wasn't really a lack of light, just that the interior light was overpowered by the sunlight coming from behind. I can hardly ask them to have their belt tests at locations to my choosing. I'll try increasing the ISO next time and panning more. If that doesn't do it, I'll try to find a lens with larger aperture capabilities.

Thanks for the tips, as always!

Up your ISO and set your meter to spot, not area, this will make the camera expose for the people and not the window in the background.

Ah, yes, the meter was set to area, too. Good advice.

[Reverend Blair]

I'd tend to go with several flash units (likely a main high and close to the camera and two fills about a half stop down on each side...kind of a reverse butterfly...and use rear curtain sync if your camera has it. That would leave the feeling of motion, but create a crisp image at the end of the shot...you get the blur to invoke motion, and the crispness of flash. The light would be a little flat because the main would be close the camera, but the fills would tend to make the subjects pop from the background. It would also give you some detail in the dark clothing without blowing out the white.

A lot of sports people don't like being nailed by a few thousands watts of light though, and that kind of lighting is expensive.

[FBM]

...A lot of sports people don't like being nailed by a few thousands watts of light though...

Thanks for the info. I know hardly anything about using flash. That last part is my concern. During that sort of event, I can't get any closer than I was, anyway.

[Reverend Blair]

Thanks for the info. I know hardly anything about using flash.

It's just like other light, really...move it around and vary the intensity until it does what you want. The important thing is that you get it off the camera so that you can change the lighting without changing the camera angle. Now that cameras are digital, you can learn it more easily...no more blowing Polaroids or guessing and hoping.

If you really want to learn lighting, get some lights and accessories, a willing model (I suggest some inanimate at first, then something happy enough with you to be patient), paint your walls black (no unwanted reflections), and play. Oh, and remember the inverse square law. A lot of people are intimidated by lighting, but it's really just a little physics and a lot of practice...way easier than hoping the sun smiles on you.

[hadespussercats]

And just what the blithering blue blazes IS an f-stop.

I know this one. An f-stop is when you're busy lovin' your significant other and their damned kid starts pounding on the door, whining about how it's late in the morning and they're hungry.

Love it!

[hadespussercats]

I have a serious question-- I have some seriously shaky hands, which often leads to blurry photos. Any suggestions that wouldn't tie me down to a tripod?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have a serious question-- I have some seriously shaky hands, which often leads to blurry photos. Any suggestions that wouldn't tie me down to a tripod?

If you invest in a digital SLR camera, you can buy lenses with built in OIS (Optical Image Stabilisation.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_sha ... bilization

There are several methods used by different manufacturers but they are all expensive - add at least 25% to the cost of an equivalent lens, often much more. A few of the top-end compact cameras have basic OIS as well but you get what you pay for.