Opportunity came knocking!

On 10/25/2015 03:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/24/2015 11:11 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/24/2015 09:28 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, philo said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly
the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
X/db.tt/x7jpg0lH





Thanks for the great comments.


I agree. Most of the time I'm going for mood rather than trying to
produce a technically perfect photo.

To me, a bit of blur or a grainy image can often convey a lot.

Here is an old mood shot, not as good as it could be, but it
demonstrates that not all images should be sharp.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg



I like it...looks like a pencil drawing in a way

On 10/25/2015 02:13 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/23/2015 10:57 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/23/2015 09:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
X


snip
X
Don't have to read that,. I know what you meant and thank you!

Don't mention Macbeth either.

Don't you mean "The Scottish Play"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play




Now...I am wondering if I can bring this back to photography.

Last night we did the shooting in a fairly dark movie theater. I
generally do use a flash, but it would have been called for.


The theater is an old landmark and as with art galleries, I was
immediately informed "no flash allowed".


http://www.landmarktheatres.com/milw...l-theatre/info


I was using a Canon G1-X and my wife had the Nikon D5200


Although both cameras have sensitive enough ISO settings to easily do
the job in low light...there was a lot of lag.

It's difficult to shoot faster than one frame every two seconds.

In good light either camera can shoot in rapid succession so I think
it's more to do with the ability to focus in low light rather than the
need for an external battery pack.

Since I've been doing low-level light photography for many years, I am
used to the lag and know how to handle it. Since candid shots are what I
seem to do and like best...the fact that there is a slight delay means
what I see when I snap the shutter is not exactly what I get.

Sometimes I miss one but sometimes I get something better than expected.

My wife however only has experience shooting in good light and
eventually grew so frustrated with the camera, she switched over to her
iPhone and brought Jeanne over to slightly better lighting.


It all worked out fine though as before the shoot, Jeanne understood
that I would be doing the candids and Colleen would be doing the posed
shots.


Most of the posed shots were great...with one being what I would
described as "absolutely nailed it".

One good , posed shot was all that was needed.


So...just wondering if there is a way to shoot faster in low light or if
a different camera would help.

It is a bit late to follow the Duck's advice on renting, but try
processing with DXO. It has excellent noise reduction capabilities. You
can download a thirty day trial version at:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/download




Thanks

as I just mentioned elsewhere Silver Efex is installed on one of my
machines...good features but cumbersome to use.

I will probably keep using the software I have.

I use GIMP and ACDsee


but if I want do have access to Photoshop on my wife's machine

On 10/25/2015 7:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-25 23:24:55 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/25/2015 5:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/24/2015 11:11 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/24/2015 09:28 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in
color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or
sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly
the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but
converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great
B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
"Doug_bar_HobNob.jpg" (linked to in another thread) is an excellent
result. If he gets to the right place, the road taken doesn't matter.

The reason we do black and white is to convey mood. If we want
realistic portrayal, we strive for a color photograph that accurately
represents the subject. Sometimes, though, we have a photograph were
what we want to present is a "feeling" about the subject.

He's done that in the photo of that bar scene. The viewer gets an
impression rather than a straight reproduction. Your photograph of
your step-daughter (?) is technically well done, but it doesn't
register as showing anything that a color photo wouldn't.

The first thought of the photographer in the converting process
should
be about what effect is sought. If the original photo doesn't have
something about it that can be brought out in black and white, no
processing method is going to work.

Not the greatest, but...
https://db.tt/x7jpg0lH

Thanks for the great comments.

I agree. Most of the time I'm going for mood rather than trying to
produce a technically perfect photo.

To me, a bit of blur or a grainy image can often convey a lot.
Here is an old mood shot, not as good as it could be, but it
demonstrates that not all images should be sharp.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg

Nice image, but...

Why the glow around the subject in the rocker?

My inspiration for the shot was a scene from an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
When I went to th location, I never thought of the image I made.

The story of the image.
I was looking for inspiration at the Wilson Farm, in ME. (Where Andrew
Wyeth lived during much of his life.) This room was bare, except for
the rocking chair, when this young woman with a bun walked into the
room. The scene from Psycho popped into my head, and I asked her to pose.

Except Mrs. Bates was in the dimly lit basement.

Perhaps you could have asked the young woman to go outside. The with the
farmhouse in the background you might have been able to do your version
of "Christina's World".
http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/457/app_zoom/CRI_165457.jpg


Wrong color dress, wrong hair style, and we couldn't find the location I
asked the caretaker, who said nobody could figure out the exact location.


The image was made OOF in PS, and I thought the glow gave a ghostly look.

With a bare light bulb hanging over her. Sorry Duck, this was my
interpretation.



Aah! It was given a PeterN treatment.



--
PeterN

On 10/25/2015 02:05 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/22/2015 11:56 PM, philo wrote:
Going through over 1000 shots now.

My wife and I got some real winners.

One thing I forgot about a paying job is that the images are property
of Jeanne Spicuzza so I won't be able to publish any without her
permission.


If you folks get a chance, the movie turned out to be exceedingly
good!!!!


What an evening!

Life is for enjoyment. Hope you continue to take full advantage.




Got much better after we both retired!


Now we have the energy to go to several events in one evening and even
stay up until 1 am


I used to go to bed at 8PM

On 10/25/2015 7:46 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/25/2015 02:18 PM, PeterN wrote:
Xw.lensprotogo.com

Since you are familiar with the Nikon system I would have suggested a
D810 + a 24-70mm f/2.8G, and perhaps a 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII.
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-d810-dslr/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-24-70-f2.8/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-70-200-f2.8-vr-ii/

That is a pro set-up which would have given you all you needed to work
that event in any light, good or bad.


Here's a typical low light shot, where no flash was permitted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/stormy%201.jpg





Proves you can get color in low light.

I figured if Tony Cooper can post images of his grandchildren, I cold
post an image of my granddog.
BTW she qualified for the finals at Westminster, saw a TV camera and
decided that posing for the camera was more important than her agility run.


Anyway...back to B&W I booted up my old XP machine as I thought I did
have that Silver Efex program


It does have good adjustments but I see why I never used it.


There is no process for opening a file other than by association... and
I also saw no "save as" option.

Good program if they would have thought about what they were doing.


It creates a layer in PS, from where yo can do a save as.
--
PeterN

On 10/25/2015 7:47 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/25/2015 03:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/24/2015 11:11 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/24/2015 09:28 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, philo said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly
the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
X/db.tt/x7jpg0lH





Thanks for the great comments.


I agree. Most of the time I'm going for mood rather than trying to
produce a technically perfect photo.

To me, a bit of blur or a grainy image can often convey a lot.

Here is an old mood shot, not as good as it could be, but it
demonstrates that not all images should be sharp.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg



I like it...looks like a pencil drawing in a way


Thanks

--
PeterN

On 2015-10-25 23:46:55 +0000, philo said:

On 10/25/2015 02:18 PM, PeterN wrote:
Xw.lensprotogo.com

Since you are familiar with the Nikon system I would have suggested a
D810 + a 24-70mm f/2.8G, and perhaps a 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII.
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-d810-dslr/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-24-70-f2.8/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-70-200-f2.8-vr-ii/

That is a pro set-up which would have given you all you needed to work
that event in any light, good or bad.


Here's a typical low light shot, where no flash was permitted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/stormy%201.jpg


Proves you can get color in low light.

Anyway...back to B&W I booted up my old XP machine as I thought I did
have that Silver Efex program

It does have good adjustments but I see why I never used it.

There is no process for opening a file other than by association... and
I also saw no "save as" option.

What do you mean "by association"?

Good program if they would have thought about what they were doing.

Silver Efex Pro will function as a standalone, but as a stand alone app
it will only save the B&W converted image file.
So, duplicate the file and rename it. That is not the best way to use
it, but it can be done.It is best to use the NIK collection as plugins.

Drag and drop the duplicate file on the Silver Efex Pro app icon. SE
will open. Make the adjustments and click on "Save" on the bottom
right. It will be saved in the original file format if a JPEG, TIFF, or
PSD. It will not open and process RAW files, for that you have to use
it as a Lightroom or Photoshop plugin where LR or PS/ACR will deal with
the RAW processing tasks first.

On1's Perfect B&W functions as part of the On1 Perfect Suite and will
function as a pure standalone without PS or Lightroom and will work on
a copy non-destructively, and save the result back to the original
location as a layered PSD even if you are working on a JPEG. All
adjustments can be reversed, or tweaked. It can handle RAW files.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_368.jpg
the result:
https://db.tt/AMuyBF5h

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-10-25 23:51:18 +0000, philo said:

as I just mentioned elsewhere Silver Efex is installed on one of my
machines...good features but cumbersome to use.

Cumbersome!!?
You are doing something very wrong if you find it cumbersome.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-10-25 23:51:38 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/25/2015 7:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-25 23:24:55 +0000, PeterN said:
On 10/25/2015 5:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/24/2015 11:11 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/24/2015 09:28 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in
color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or
sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly
the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but
converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great
B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
"Doug_bar_HobNob.jpg" (linked to in another thread) is an excellent
result. If he gets to the right place, the road taken doesn't matter.

The reason we do black and white is to convey mood. If we want
realistic portrayal, we strive for a color photograph that accurately
represents the subject. Sometimes, though, we have a photograph were
what we want to present is a "feeling" about the subject.

He's done that in the photo of that bar scene. The viewer gets an
impression rather than a straight reproduction. Your photograph of
your step-daughter (?) is technically well done, but it doesn't
register as showing anything that a color photo wouldn't.

The first thought of the photographer in the converting process
should
be about what effect is sought. If the original photo doesn't have
something about it that can be brought out in black and white, no
processing method is going to work.

Not the greatest, but...
https://db.tt/x7jpg0lH

Thanks for the great comments.

I agree. Most of the time I'm going for mood rather than trying to
produce a technically perfect photo.

To me, a bit of blur or a grainy image can often convey a lot.
Here is an old mood shot, not as good as it could be, but it
demonstrates that not all images should be sharp.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg

Nice image, but...

Why the glow around the subject in the rocker?

My inspiration for the shot was a scene from an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
When I went to th location, I never thought of the image I made.

The story of the image.
I was looking for inspiration at the Wilson Farm, in ME. (Where Andrew
Wyeth lived during much of his life.) This room was bare, except for
the rocking chair, when this young woman with a bun walked into the
room. The scene from Psycho popped into my head, and I asked her to pose.

Except Mrs. Bates was in the dimly lit basement.

Perhaps you could have asked the young woman to go outside. The with the
farmhouse in the background you might have been able to do your version
of "Christina's World".
http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/457/app_zoom/CRI_165457.jpg


Wrong color dress, wrong hair style, and we couldn't find the location
I asked the caretaker, who said nobody could figure out the exact
location.

Oh well!


The image was made OOF in PS, and I thought the glow gave a ghostly look.

With a bare light bulb hanging over her. Sorry Duck, this was my
interpretation.

There is nothing to apologise for, it is your interpretation after all,
and it was what I saw of your process, which got in the way of my
appreciation of your interpretation.

Aah! It was given a PeterN treatment.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015102518151327491-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Anyway...back to B&W I booted up my old XP machine as I thought I did
have that Silver Efex program

It does have good adjustments but I see why I never used it.

There is no process for opening a file other than by association... and
I also saw no "save as" option.

What do you mean "by association"?

file associations, e.g., jpeg is opened by photoshop.