|
Jesus that was 6400??? God damnit, I want a 5D mkII so bad. It's making me seriously consider jumping to a 7D soon if the high ISO is anywhere near as good on that. Edit: drat you top of page, that was in reference to pr0digal's photo.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
I'm sure there are other great solutions, such as NoiseNinja, but I cannot laud the noise-correcting capabilities of Lightroom 3. I've never used a previous version, but it's apparently a vastly superior upgrade from previous versions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Jesus that was 6400??? God damnit, I want a 5D mkII so bad. It's making me seriously consider jumping to a 7D soon if the high ISO is anywhere near as good on that. Yup, 6400 straight out of camera. No editing done at all. I am so glad I have spot metering on the Mark II. If I hadn't switched into it the stage lighting would have blown everything. Most of their set was taken 5000-6400 but I think the ones with just the lead singer came out the best. You can see the noise in this one more than you can in the other one but for being at 6400 it's still pretty drat good.  flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ehansenphoto/4874118444/in/set-72157624683707586/ pr0digal fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I'm sure there are other great solutions, such as NoiseNinja, but I cannot laud the noise-correcting capabilities of Lightroom 3. I've never used a previous version, but it's apparently a vastly superior upgrade from previous versions. See, but there's a difference between general noise reduction and overall crispness and image quality. No amount of noise processing after the fact on my 40D would get even close to that if I shoot above 1600. It'll make the blacks a lot less noisy, but not still really crisp and detailed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
Have you actually tried it? There's a free 30 day demo. Honestly it's leagues beyond the stuff I tried 1-2 years ago. I agree that technically it won't be as good, but you'd be amazed at what you can pull out of otherwise terrible photos. This is the stuff my girlfriend pulled out with a 20x Canon super-zoom shot from the highest levels at a Lady Gaga concert several weeks ago:  Click here for the full 1260x851 image.  Click here for the full 1308x859 image.  Click here for the full 1325x861 image.  Click here for the full 1338x503 image.  Click here for the full 1157x856 image.  Click here for the full 1229x854 image. They allowed "regular" cameras but were checking for "professional" equipment. I take that to mean anything where you can detach the lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
rockcity posted:See, but there's a difference between general noise reduction and overall crispness and image quality. No amount of noise processing after the fact on my 40D would get even close to that if I shoot above 1600. It'll make the blacks a lot less noisy, but not still really crisp and detailed. Keep in mind it's a black and white conversion, so it's not a true display of image quality at that high a speed. Colour photos will usually show way more noise than black and white. Good software can make a huge difference. I regularly run my 40D at 3200 when necessary, like when I'm using my 80-200 and need faster speeds to counter shake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
Just got home, and I am about to fall asleep sitting here. But here's the first thing I see from one of my cards I like:  Click here for the full 2048x1365 image. 7D @ 3200 all night, baby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
4 digit isos pffft   25600 bitches, edited in ps elements without none of this fancy noise reduction  e: Shot Testament last night. Metal has way too many black shirts and too many ponytails. Also, I was the only one in the photo pit with more than a kit lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 09:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:Keep in mind it's a black and white conversion, so it's not a true display of image quality at that high a speed. Colour photos will usually show way more noise than black and white. Good software can make a huge difference. I regularly run my 40D at 3200 when necessary, like when I'm using my 80-200 and need faster speeds to counter shake. Here is a shot in color (at ISO 5000 but you get the idea)  flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ehansenphoto/4874115798/in/set-72157624683707586/
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 13:08
|
|
|
Sorry I've been ignoring this thread a bit, I've been busy with business. Anyway, I haven't really had a chance to play with word press so I'm still new to the thing, but if anyone wants to make an upload guide, feel free. Basically just remember to include links, and make sure those links have some songs people can check out. Other than that it's all gravy. As for the discussion, I want a 7D so bad. I'm thinking that + my 1.4 would look dead sexy. At 1.4 I can get away with shooting 400 iso on my Rebel at some of the nicer lit venues in town, so I'm really excited to see what it can do on a nice body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Sorry I've been ignoring this thread a bit, I've been busy with business. Anyway, I haven't really had a chance to play with word press so I'm still new to the thing, but if anyone wants to make an upload guide, feel free. Basically just remember to include links, and make sure those links have some songs people can check out. Other than that it's all gravy. This was at 800 on a 7d with a 50 1.4, ignoring how poo poo the picture is, the noise is really low (hardly there even) considering it was well after midnight and really, really dark. 
fronkpies fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:This was at 800 on a 7d with a 50 1.4, ignoring how poo poo the picture is, the noise is really low (hardly there even) considering it was well after midnight and really, really dark. You really missed the focus on that one. That's the hard part about shooting at 1.4 with a subject that close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:As for the discussion, I want a 7D so bad. I'm thinking that + my 1.4 would look dead sexy. At 1.4 I can get away with shooting 400 iso on my Rebel at some of the nicer lit venues in town, so I'm really excited to see what it can do on a nice body. Coming from a 7D shooter, save up the few extra hundred for the 5D, unless you really need the 1.6 crop factor. The 7D is great, but the full frame difference is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
http://soundsurveillance.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ishi-the-loft/ :'(
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
dunkman posted:http://soundsurveillance.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ishi-the-loft/ Okay, maybe the photos I got on Saturday weren't that bad after all. I'll take a swing at doing a write-up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:Okay, maybe the photos I got on Saturday weren't that bad after all.  dunkman posted:http://soundsurveillance.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ishi-the-loft/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
I've got an article for The Wooden Sky and one for Monotonix I could do up if you want. Also I emailed you about my wordpress stuff. Haven't heard back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
So I've got an article all racked up and ready to go and well, okay, it's not the greatest, but it's a start. What's the procedure here? Do we just publish to SS and dunkman red or green lights it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 06:19
|
|
|
Whoa whoa whoa. I'm just the first guy to post something. I'm in no way, shape or form in charge of this operation. Fixing my post a bit. I'm just unhappy with my photos overall, due to them turning off the stage lights completely. The show was all right. edit: I say post your stuff, and hit the Publish button. No one but us is looking at this stuff right now, so go ahead and post away and we'll figure it all out when it needs to be figured out. I expect stuff like "dunkman, we've agreed you're a terrible photographer, and you and your seed should be wiped from the earth. Please never post again." And then stuff like "HPL, your photos are glorious beyond comprehension, we have decided to stop posting, and merely act as your assistants globally." Just post your stuff, we'll figure out what we like as a group and eventually come up with a good template. I just posted what felt right for me. If "we" agree it's not right, I'll be happy to change it up to fit with the new standard. double super edit: I hate all of the pics from that show. check out http://photos.tfatf.com/ for decent concert shots, including some of that same band. milquetoast child fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 08:24
|
|
|
I think a start is band names in bold face, and song names in italics. Writing up a short review and throwing some photos into the ring for publication. edit: Er, I'm not actually added for the site. Can I be please? My details may have been lost in a sea of ISO discussion: feedback.photography (at) gmail (dot) com
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 09:50
|
|
|
rockcity posted:You really missed the focus on that one. That's the hard part about shooting at 1.4 with a subject that close. I was very, very drunk ha. Why don't you install wordpress onto the actual sound surveillance website?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 10:05
|
|
|
I'm up for this, missed out on the start because I've had no internet for a month or two. willminers (at) gmail I can shoot stuff in the southeast of england, mainly Bristol. I have access to a decent amount of shows due to ties with my university.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 12:12
|
|
|
I'm just starting to get into the whole concert-photography thing and so far I'm loving it! I've been to my second concert this weekend and shot Bonaparte. First time I saw them live and they were awesome. Unbelievable how much fun they seem to have on stage! Too bad they only allowed us to shoot the first three songs.. they seemed to get more and more crazy after every song. Here's the rest of the gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harald-schaack/sets/72157624679500266/ Critique and suggestions on how to improve are more than welcome! I don't have a press card, so I still have to try to get into everything with a lot of talking, or with some luck and maybe some help from people I know who know someone..
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
HPL posted:So I've got an article all racked up and ready to go and well, okay, it's not the greatest, but it's a start. What's the procedure here? Do we just publish to SS and dunkman red or green lights it? I think it's set up that you just write it up and submit for review. That's what I'm about to do now with my write up for I Call Fives. *edit* I have the write up saved as a draft but I can't seem to add photos because I do not have permission to upload files according to the site. pr0digal fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
So I just realized dxo optics doesn't support anything less than full sized raw files. anybody have a clever idea for a work around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:So I just realized dxo optics doesn't support anything less than full sized raw files. anybody have a clever idea for a work around? I'm betting no, as I'm sure it actually needs that extra information and pixels to be able to actually do its job. I highly doubt it could work correctly with cropped photos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:So I just realized dxo optics doesn't support anything less than full sized raw files. anybody have a clever idea for a work around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:53
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:So I just realized dxo optics doesn't support anything less than full sized raw files. anybody have a clever idea for a work around? Eh? I've worked with regular image files in DxO before. What format are you trying to load? Also, can we get some more categories on SS? I can't seem to get a "Vancouver" category happening. HPL fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
HPL posted:Eh? I've worked with regular image files in DxO before. What format are you trying to load? I can't get a Boston Area one either. Nor can I upload photos. I think that because we're just contributers and not editors we can't really do much
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
I was thinking about getting a longer prime, like a manual focus 135mm 2.8 or something like that for shooting at concerts (and street photography). Anyone in here have experience shooting manual focus with teles in concerts? They are so cheap, and it sounds like it would be something fun but at the same time infuriating, depending on how much everyone moves about and how close to the stage I would be shooting from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
nerdz posted:I was thinking about getting a longer prime, like a manual focus 135mm 2.8 or something like that for shooting at concerts (and street photography). Anyone in here have experience shooting manual focus with teles in concerts? They are so cheap, and it sounds like it would be something fun but at the same time infuriating, depending on how much everyone moves about and how close to the stage I would be shooting from. Don't do it. Telephotos are so persnickety about focus compared to normals or wides. It's fine if you want to use it in a situation where you can take your time, but that doesn't happen too often in concert land. If you want to try out manual focusing, grab a cheap 50mm and an adapter and have a go at it or flip your AF lenses into manual mode. Just keep in mind that at concerts you'll be focusing dark on dark a lot of the time so it's not like outside in the sun where there's plenty of contrast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
HPL posted:Don't do it. Telephotos are so persnickety about focus compared to normals or wides. It's fine if you want to use it in a situation where you can take your time, but that doesn't happen too often in concert land. If you want to try out manual focusing, grab a cheap 50mm and an adapter and have a go at it or flip your AF lenses into manual mode. Just keep in mind that at concerts you'll be focusing dark on dark a lot of the time so it's not like outside in the sun where there's plenty of contrast. Oh well. I've yet to try shooting concerts with my manual 50/1.2, so I will do that and post some pics later. I wonder what a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 would be able to do at concerts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
nerdz posted:Oh well. I've yet to try shooting concerts with my manual 50/1.2, so I will do that and post some pics later. I wonder what a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 would be able to do at concerts. At f/1.2, almost all your shots will be out of focus to one degree or another unless you get lucky. I have shot concerts with an 80mm f/1.9 in medium format and the razor-thin DOF is brutal for low-light manual focusing on moving subjects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
just got word that I'm confirmed with a photo pass for Chromeo on Friday, they always put on an incredibly fun show, this is the first time they've played a venue in Portland with decent lighting though so I'm looking forward to seeing what I can get.nerdz posted:Oh well. I've yet to try shooting concerts with my manual 50/1.2, so I will do that and post some pics later. I wonder what a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 would be able to do at concerts. it better be a pretty low-key show, otherwise have fun trying to catch the focus of a performer moving around onstage with a 2" depth of focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Why's that a problem for you? I shot at medium-quality raw (10mp) instead of the normal 18mp. I had a solid day to shoot, and ended up blowing through all the memory I brought with me even on medium quality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
HPL posted:Don't do it. Telephotos are so persnickety about focus compared to normals or wides. It's fine if you want to use it in a situation where you can take your time, but that doesn't happen too often in concert land. If you want to try out manual focusing, grab a cheap 50mm and an adapter and have a go at it or flip your AF lenses into manual mode. Just keep in mind that at concerts you'll be focusing dark on dark a lot of the time so it's not like outside in the sun where there's plenty of contrast. Seconding this. When you're at anything above maybe 85mm at 2.8 or less, you need to be spot on with focusing. You're actual depth of field is going to be pretty minimal with most concert shooting distances that the odds of you getting usable photos will be pretty low. Anti_Social posted:I shot at medium-quality raw (10mp) instead of the normal 18mp. I had a solid day to shoot, and ended up blowing through all the memory I brought with me even on medium quality. I don't know why people don't bring anything less than all their memory cards with them when they go out. I have a couple of cases that house all my cards and any time I take my camera with me the cases go too. And with how cheap memory cards are now, there's no excuse not to own enough to never run out before having time to ingest your photos. God I remember when I first started for the newspaper and I wanted my own card to use with their cameras and I spent something like $120 for a 128mb card and it held like 70 photos in jpeg on a D100. rockcity fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I don't know why people don't bring anything less than all their memory cards with them when they go out. I have a couple of cases that house all my cards and any time I take my camera with me the cases go too. And with how cheap memory cards are now, there's no excuse not to own enough to never run out before having time to ingest your photos. God I remember when I first started for the newspaper and I wanted my own card to use with their cameras and I spent something like $120 for a 128mb card and it held like 70 photos in jpeg on a D100. I blew through 48 gigs of CF cards.  I shot a lot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
edit:
Tincans fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:I blew through 48 gigs of CF cards. Jesus. I shot a 3 day festival shooting bands as well as social photos (yay for drunk people) and I only went through one 16GB and one 8GB card on a 5D shooting full res raw. Be less liberal, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Jesus. I shot a 3 day festival shooting bands as well as social photos (yay for drunk people) and I only went through one 16GB and one 8GB card on a 5D shooting full res raw. Be less liberal, I guess? seriously, I was thinking this exact thing... try editing in-camera between shooting. 48GB gives new meaning to "pray and spray"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 00:25
|
|