thehouseflogger Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share #41 Posted November 25, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you to everybody for your responses, which I found sometimes useful, sometimes interesting, sometimes presumptive but always entertaining. As has been said these are just a snapshot of the 600 pictures the client saw. Most of the day was shot with my pair of Eos 1D Mk II's and I got the leica out as my 85mm 1.2 was failing to focus in the bad light. I have posted below a picture taken with this in the same room, and one from the M8 with better exposure. I wanted to post the pictures as they show what the camera can do with my perhaps limited ( but growing) expertise with my M8. Just to get an idea of how dark the room was there was only three desk lights in a room some 40 ft square. The pictures are deliberately dark as I find that this way the grain is minimised, cranking up the exposure creates a snow storm. Thank you again for all your involvement, and for those who have grasped the point of the original post. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/69486-very-low-light-stuff/?do=findComment&comment=727159'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2008 Posted November 25, 2008 Hi thehouseflogger, Take a look here Very Low Light Stuff. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SJP Posted November 25, 2008 Share #42 Posted November 25, 2008 Add to the checklist: make sure the lights are switched on during photography Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted November 25, 2008 Share #43 Posted November 25, 2008 Mani, key word - inappropriately - I am quite capable of getting horrible results by doing that with any camera at all. In your image you can see how the RD1 turns the native noise of the CCD into aquarel-like drawing, an effect that can be quite nice, but is better done at will in PP imo, and not without user choice in the camera.. As it happens, I just posted a deliberate 1250 shot in the Photo-forum. I would not have liked to take it with a camera with in-camera noise reduction... Very good example a very good photograph jaap. Really good use of high ISO. Congratulations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 25, 2008 Share #44 Posted November 25, 2008 As for the (anticipated) personal jibes at what I said from others - I genuinely doubt that the family in question requested gargoyle portraits to remember their special day. I'm sorry if you think my indignation is feigned. Nothing personal about my comment. I guess I just thought it worth pointing out that the OP is clearly experienced enough in wedding photography that he probably doesn't need lectures on the sanctity of the process from well meaning weekend snappers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share #45 Posted November 25, 2008 SJP - how right you are ! Imagine how I felt when I found out earlier in the day what I was up against - I hate hate hate hate useing flash. No matter how much we ask/ recommend/ insist on making lighting reccomendations it is staggering how (ignorant) hopeless and plainly unhelpful clients/ hotels/ venues are when it comes to LIGHT. No light, no photo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyves Posted November 25, 2008 Share #46 Posted November 25, 2008 Much better in original colors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 25, 2008 Share #47 Posted November 25, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I hate hate hate hate useing flash. Yes but sometimes it's by far the least worst option. In my experience, it is not difficult to combine a subtle use of fill flash with wide open apertures to provide a nice natural look that is a world away from the kind of on-camera flash look that so many associate with the use of flash. Personally, I wouldn't have dreamt of shooting in the location above without using a flash. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted November 25, 2008 Share #48 Posted November 25, 2008 I like the images, far from perfect but breathing atmosphere, this is in my opinion what an image should be able to do. I read somewhere that perfection is boring I totally adhere to that, Jaap' image is awfully nice and technically very good, but I would look at that one and have seen it, nothing else to be discovered if you know what I mean. But then again it's all a matter of taste, I like Tri-x in rodinal stand development for instance other enjoy the brisky disney world Velvia.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 25, 2008 Share #49 Posted November 25, 2008 Nothing personal about my comment. I guess I just thought it worth pointing out that the OP is clearly experienced enough in wedding photography that he probably doesn't need lectures on the sanctity of the process from well meaning weekend snappers. Fair enough - I didn't check the poster's portfolio, and indeed it's very good. Glad to see that the M8 wasn't used exclusively - in which case I seriously thought the family in question would definitely have had a case in court. The arrogant and distasteful attitude to clients is one that I still think is reprehensible. I guess the 'weekend snapper' label is generous to me - I don't have time to take photographs that often. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 25, 2008 Share #50 Posted November 25, 2008 The arrogant and distasteful attitude to clients is one that I still think is reprehensible. Something I haven't disagreed with you about (see my much earlier comment in this thread). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted November 25, 2008 Share #51 Posted November 25, 2008 Here are a few from a recent wedding. Taken in a VERY dark room at Cliveden House the other day. I like the end result using 2500 mostly but I would like other views, please. How do we educate the punters out there that these are better than plasticky over worked files from Nikon and Canon? Thank you. Guy So "plasticy" means lack of noise or grain and is a characteristic of photographs shot by "punters." Take that, Ansel, you punter! I've been doing serious photography (whatever that is) since about 1943 and I can tell you that in the beginning people only used Tri-X when they needed speed. In the film world speed comes with big silver grains, so those who needed speed put up with big clumps of silver in their negatives, leading to "grain" in their prints. Grain (lack of plasticness?) wasn't considered an artistic addition to photographs. It was considered an unfortunate but necessary drawback. Over time that attitude segued into an appreciation of grain for its own sake. It's an acquired taste. But to do grain right with a digital camera you first need a good color file -- without grain (plasticy?) You then use something like Silver EFEX Pro to convert to black and white and add grain. If, instead, you push beyond the limits of your camera's capability to get a noisy (grainy) (non-plasticy?) file, you're faced with the kind of color noise you see converted to "grain" in these pictures. Luminance noise converts pretty well to "grain." Color noise doesn't. The other problem I see in these pictures is that shutter speed was way too slow for the situation. The poor woman in the middle left part of the second picture appears to have lost her right eye. Here's one of those "plasticky overworked files" from a D3. The lighting was pretty close to what you were working with, but the D3 can handle that where the M8 can't. Silver EFEX did the rest. It's not a great portrait, but it's an example of how one of those "placticy overworked" Nikons can do the job. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/69486-very-low-light-stuff/?do=findComment&comment=727373'>More sharing options...
RSL Posted November 25, 2008 Share #52 Posted November 25, 2008 Mani, key word - inappropriately - I am quite capable of getting horrible results by doing that with any camera at all. In your image you can see how the RD1 turns the native noise of the CCD into aquarel-like drawing, an effect that can be quite nice, but is better done at will in PP imo, and not without user choice in the camera.. As it happens, I just posted a deliberate 1250 shot in the Photo-forum. I would not have liked to take it with a camera with in-camera noise reduction... Jaap, Stunning shot! Wish I could see the print. I'm sure 100 ppi doesn't do it justice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2008 Share #53 Posted November 25, 2008 A good portrait and qiute impressive rendering -in the focal plane. Somehow the hand in front and the shirt collar do not quite appeal to me - but that may well be the way the lens handles slightly OOF parts.And thanks for the compliment, well appreciated:) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted November 25, 2008 Share #54 Posted November 25, 2008 A good portrait and qiute impressive rendering -in the focal plane. Somehow the hand in front and the shirt collar do not quite appeal to me - but that may well be the way the lens handles slightly OOF parts.And thanks for the compliment, well appreciated:) I agree. We were at a meeting and the subject was across the table from me. It was a snap shot to catch his expression and I was using a 24-120 zoom, not the sharpest tack in the box but convenient sometimes. The camera was set on f/8 which was the wrong aperture. In any case, the grain was the point of my posting. I keep reading about "plasticky" shots that seem to come from all cameras other than the M8 -- evidently including Ansel's 11 x 14 Deardorfs -- or whatever he used. Seems to me that post-processing is where things become plasticky or not plasticky, unless you've set up your camera to do noise suppression, which eliminates information you may want in post-processing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share #55 Posted November 25, 2008 I have to say sorry if I have angered members of the forum for being arogant towards punters. I was trying to express an opinion that I assume that the paying bride would prefer an expertly (or inexpertly) created digital file taken in low light with these amazing Japanese cameras to an interesting and in my case not so well adjusted leica file with a certain amount of grain. I am always learning the way forward and I have been chastened today. Here are some more taken in lovely light. Thank you and again sorry. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/69486-very-low-light-stuff/?do=findComment&comment=727454'>More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted November 25, 2008 Share #56 Posted November 25, 2008 How do we educate the punters out there that these are better than plasticky over worked files from Nikon and Canon? Guy, I think you've managed to produce 4 shots that show up the precise limitations of the M8. One of the things we all know it struggles with is retaining shadow detail when the shot is underexposed at high ISO: witness the messy blobby effect in the person's hair at frame right in shot 1, or the woman's facing camera at frame left in shot 2. I see nothing appealing about them. Since you asked for opinions, mine is that these are far inferior to a 'plasticky' file from Nikon and Canon. To my mind these actually look more plastic because they lack any kind of definition. Now I know you can take a decent photo because I've looked at your site and seen your normal work, but IMHO these are rather poor fodder compared to your other stuff. So am I missing the point? If so, what is it that you see in them? Edit === Sorry - posted this before I saw your most recent post above. Please disregard if you wish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted November 25, 2008 Share #57 Posted November 25, 2008 "So am I missing the point? If so, what is it that you see in them?" they are atmospheric, they don't provide an image but give you atmosphere disregarding the technical quality .... this is what an image should do .... have the onlookers look once again, and that is exactly what these image do..... So yes your missing the point here :-) You have draughtsman/technical sketchers whom can draw you an exact representation of anything you want... these aren't artists, they are good, but definitely not artists..... like some of the M8 crowd here, it's not hard to take a perfect picture given the rights gear..... See this Aussie bloke always in and out of threads, I forgot his name .... look at his gallery, it's brilliant.... it has me come back to look at it often.... this I consider good photography... no let me rephrase that, this I consider art.... taking shots of mountain ranges is so easy, and with mountain ranges I mean the whole range of 80% of current day photography,these so called street shots, people etc. all so very, very bland .... seen it, done it .... boring, boring, boring (not stepping on anyones toes now am I ... it's not my intention) and one last thing a remark as "I think you've managed to produce 4 shots that show up the precise limitations of the M8" is totally out of place, as if one shoot always shoot up to the technical standards of any camera .... Technocratic springs to mind here... as well as Boring, boring, boring see where I'm getting at? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted November 25, 2008 Share #58 Posted November 25, 2008 see where I'm getting at? To be honest, no. You've managed to make a number of unrelated remarks. That's all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted November 25, 2008 Share #59 Posted November 25, 2008 .... well no I expect you wouldn't then ... ever Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share #60 Posted November 25, 2008 Neil Thank you for your kind comments earlier this evening ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.