khanosu Posted January 7, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bill, the last two images in your first post are very good - especially the last one. I know, it is not easy to draw so many figures in overlapping planes in one frame well. Keep up the good work! Â Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Hi khanosu, Take a look here This is more fun than .... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erl Posted January 7, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted January 7, 2007 It is clear from the remarks of some of the detractors of Bill's images that they have never tried shooting serious stage work. It has pitfalls that have defeated a number of professionals I have been up against. I have been shooting stage work for more years than I care to count and am very conversant with the difficulties that Bill faced. Â Bill, I don't know if you shoot this work often so I will assume that you don't. Apolodies if I am assuming incorrectly. Â My observations are as follows. Â The performance appears to be professionally lit and I suspect there would have have been (just) enough light for shooting at a lower ISO and still maintain useable shutter speeds. Because of the extent of black areas (lightwise) in many stage shows, the incamera meter frequently tends to overxpose. It becomes necessary to read a stage hightlight and quickly lock exposure, re-compose and shoot. I venture to say that working at ISO 800/640 would have worked better for noise suppression. You may know otherwise re. the light levels. Â The chrome profiles of Jamies (great stuff) I think need a little desaturation judging by the screen portrayal. Yes, it is a colourful show, but my eye would prefer a slight softening of the colours. Â I am totally confident the M8 is a winning machine for this type of work and can't wait for mine to return from Solms. It will replace my RD1 and M6 & 7 as prime tool for all my stage work. The Leica glass can't be beaten for this stuff, and the rangefinder bodies rule in my experience. Â Your shots show a good eye for positioning and timing, most essential for dance work. Nice result which I am sure will be printable, assuming a skilled printer which is is also very important. Â Cheers, Erl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted January 7, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Erl, you said it all. I totally agree. Â Bill, nice work! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirage Posted January 7, 2007 Share #24 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Er, am I missing something? I could have done better with my mobile phone. Â Wow, are You really that skillful? I am impressed. Remember, the images were shot at 2500 ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2007 Share #25 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Er, am I missing something? I could have done better with my mobile phone. What brand of phone would that be? I want one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted January 7, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Bill, these are great shots. I would be proud of them. Â As to some of the comments above, you know what they say in the desert: dogs bark; the caravan moves on . . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 7, 2007 Share #27  Posted January 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bill, the last two images in your first post are very good - especially the last one. I know, it is not easy to draw so many figures in overlapping planes in one frame well. Keep up the good work! Furrukh  Exactly! Noise-schmoise, what's interesting about that last picture is that its both beautiful and well-made. And the fact that the M8's finder allowed Bill to see all of those figures clearly, across space, is important as well. I know from experience that it is very difficult to see all of that depth in the finder when shooting with an SLR and a fast lens - the viewing DOF itself is so shallow with, say, a 50/1.4 on a 5D.  The strongest figures in that picture, to my eye, are the foreground dancers on the left, the background dancers in the middle and the mid-ground dancers on the right.  Bill, it might be interesting to go look at Delacroix (again?)   Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Old Dog Posted January 7, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Gee we either got a tough crowd here or some extremely talented photograhic artist? Â I like your images, all of them. I've looked at a lot of snapshots on this forum with folks going on and on about how great they are but I think you shot a tough subject pretty damn well. Â I wonder what the hell would be exceptable at iso 2500 for some folks? How about ISO 7000 or myabe 15500. At what point is it okay for the chip to exhibit a little noise? Could you do it better with tri-x? Maybe it would be better for Leica if they just held it to about ISO 650 and "boasted" they were going for quality and not advertising edge. Â George, I agree and love your quote! How true it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Cron Posted January 7, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Bill: Â Great dance photographs under what appears to be difficult stage lighting conditions. My .72 M6 and its f/2 28mm ASPH are envious, as am I. My digital C brand, with its f/2.8, is cowering in the corner. Thanks for posting, so that we could share the captured fluid moments of dance. Â 'Cron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_big Posted January 7, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted January 7, 2007 I wonder how many people here have tried shooting film at ISO 2500. You'd get grain the size of golf balls and contrast up the wazoo (a techincal term). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindy Flood Posted January 7, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Bill, I enjoyed your photos. I am enjoying my M8 as much as you seem to be. It is too bad that one can not share their work without being subjected to comments such as: I could have done better with my mobile phone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils-advocate Posted January 7, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted January 7, 2007 These are really fine images. The quality is excellent for the conditions and subject matter. It brought back memories of shooting theatre with Ektapress 1600 --- these are much better than I could have done on film. Â Nice work. Sorry about the know-nothing trolls. Â Cheers, Â - N. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted January 7, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Bill, Â Great photos and thanks for sharing. I have tried this type of photography myself in Hawaii and found out how much more it requires that it appears for a first glance. Nicely done. Â Overlord, Â Bill contributes positively here. Your first & only post is that of a troll. Sorry to be so blunt, but either change your approach or go elsewhere. Â Best, Â Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted January 7, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Bill no 3 picks itself up in B&W quite well.......too much neat image on last three? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 7, 2007 Share #35 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Underexposed shots are always noiser than correctly exposed ones. To avoid excessive noise when shooting at high ISO's you want to make sure to expose to the right of the histogram (which of course partially eliminates the advantge of setting the high ISO at all). Â in my experience, thats absolutely true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 7, 2007 Share #36  Posted January 7, 2007 in my experience, thats absolutely true  Riley, part of the problem with this type of shooting is that there is NO time to chimp histograms! You MUST use experience and anticipate the coming shots. It will NEVER wait while you check a histogram. With experience, it is actually quite easy. Getting the experience is probably the hardest part.  Cheers, Erl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spersky Posted January 7, 2007 Share #37 Â Posted January 7, 2007 I think it takes skill just to even get good shots like that. That is a very difficult subject, and many would be hard pressed to get good composition in that environment. Â It is sad that the images do exibit such extreme amounts of noise, but it is iso 2500. I personally find that such high noise levels are not very attractive. I frequently dial ISO 1000 to 1600 on my Canon 1dsm2 and the lack of noise is amazing. BTW, 1600 is the max I can dial in that camera unless there is a special function I did not read about. Â On a final note, the high ISO shots I have seen with the M8 exhibit an unacceptable level of noise. That factor along with a couple of others discussed on all of the the forums has made me re-evaluate my desire to own this camera. I guess I am going to be stuck lugging around a the heavy 1dsm2 a few more years. Â Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 7, 2007 Share #38 Â Posted January 7, 2007 It is sad that the images do exibit such extreme amounts of noise, but it is iso 2500. I personally find that such high noise levels are not very attractive. I frequently dial ISO 1000 to 1600 on my Canon 1dsm2 and the lack of noise is amazing. BTW, 1600 is the max I can dial in that camera unless there is a special function I did not read about. Â I think you meant iso 5000 as Rob pointed out (pushed 1 stop) Â which would mean 1/60th sec at your max iso, indeed on reflection, a point of view the author at the time couldnt enjoy, i would have sacrificed iso for slow shutters, and attempt to catch the dance principles in the pause stages that choeography seems to have. This by sequential frames. Â It is asRob points out the shooters call, although i shoot interiors all the time and am used to slow shutter, this is way out of my area Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted January 7, 2007 Share #39  Posted January 7, 2007 ......... BTW, 1600 is the max I can dial in that camera unless there is a special function I did not read about. ...........Regards Steve  Not a special function but a top level menu choice. Press "Menu" and you will see the last item at the bottom of the screen is "ISO expansion", use "select" and the thumb wheel to scroll down to select and set to "ON" Now when you change ISO you will have an additional setting of "H" displayed which will be ISO 3200.  The camera appears to achieve 3200 by multiplying the data from the sensor by two, although that's probably not the whole story. It's been observed odd values are missing from the RAW data. There's been discussion as to whether you can get the same results underexposing by one stop at 1600 and pushing one stop in RAW processing.  For stage work I find a rangefinder is unsurpassed for critical timing. I'm using an R-D1 and do have reservations about the high ISO noise of the M8. I'm waiting for mine to arrive so the decision has already been made. The lowest noise but not necessarily best final results I find are with a Canon 5D followed by the 1Ds MkII.  Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 7, 2007 Share #40 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Er, am I missing something? I could have done better with my mobile phone. Yeah, right. Welcome to the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.