Comments on this strange flash shot - please

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
....
I've done lots of no-flash available light shooting in similar
situations. I find I need to shoot a huge number of frames and then
sort through them to get one in which both the artists and I hold
still for a 30th of a second and the compostition is also good. The
color is so far off that I can't really correct for it, and then there
is the noise. I'm looking for a "better" available light look with a
higher percenatge of usable shots so I can focus on composition. The
flash is new. I've hacked the dRebel software to get FEC capability
but I have to work on the use.

My next purchase is a grey card so I can get a handle on the
color correction for these strange stage lights.

No flash:

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_5029.jpg
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

This is with the on-camera flash:
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

More club shots with and without on-camera flash.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

The important tones are the flesh tones and it may be more important to get
them on base before concerning yourself with anything else. You may use,
for example, the Air America logo as a source of a neutral, as well as some
of the clothing. I don't think a gray card or color checker is not going to
help significantly, in a mixed lighting situation like this one, with a red
gel on some of the lights the card will either be orange or more or less
pure red.

Interesting images, and I have some thoughts on how to improve them with
curves. Before doing so, and with your permission I'd like to add a cropped
version of one of them to my "Misfortunate Images" tutorial.
http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorial...nate/index.htm . Please let
me know.

Mike

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a
300D. There's lots to learn and I'm generally happy with the results
but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I have seen that happen before. I don't know enough tech to explain it,
though.

Is that the Starry Plough?

Greg

In article ,
G.T. wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a
300D. There's lots to learn and I'm generally happy with the results
but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I have seen that happen before. I don't know enough tech to explain it,
though.

Is that the Starry Plough?


Nope. We're in NYC. http://www.amroadhouse.com/

It very late in the evening of a political fundrasier. I've got
better pics (thank g*d.)








--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article , says...


Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a
300D. There's lots to learn and I'm generally happy with the results
but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don't think I could have done anything different in the camera. It's
shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the
over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and
develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes
laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his
skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer
to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but
that's a seperate topic.

Comments ?

Al,

I won't hold your voting record against you! :-}

I've looked over your shot, and the replies in the thread, including your
followups. You state that you had set the flash to "not push the flash
coverage... " and that makes me wonder. I don't know your gear, but for the
flash to isolate a subject in the center, and farther from the camera, than
others to this extent, it almost appears that he received an inordanant amount
of light - like 2-3 /f's. Could it be that instead of widening out the flash
coverage, you made it much more narrow? In the "old days," of Vivitar 283/285
's, etc. you manually moved the frensel/diffusor back and forth to allow for
the coverage of the lens. Looking at the rest of the image, there are some hot
highlights, but nothing like the man in the hat. Most of the rest could well
be a product of just a major compression to get the image on the Web. All of
the rest, looks like it could be salvaged in PS.

As to your question regarding the UV, it is possible, and to obtain a light
shade in a Panama, there are brighteners used. However, that alone, would not
account for his skin, unless, as mentioned, there is something supernatural
happening - Indian burial ground beneath the inn?

Just some rambling thoughts, and glad you did get some better pics. BTW, did
the hat dude glow white in any other shots?

Hunt

In article , Hunt wrote:
In article , says...


Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a
300D. There's lots to learn and I'm generally happy with the results
but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don't think I could have done anything different in the camera. It's
shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the
over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and
develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes
laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his
skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer
to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but
that's a seperate topic.

Comments ?

Al,

I won't hold your voting record against you! :-}

I've looked over your shot, and the replies in the thread, including your
followups. You state that you had set the flash to "not push the flash
coverage... " and that makes me wonder. I don't know your gear, but for the

The flash is a Canon 420EX on a 300D and the flash knows what focal
length the zoom lens is set to and since the dslr has a 1.6
multiplication factor and the flash assumes a full frame that's a
safety factor.


flash to isolate a subject in the center, and farther from the camera, than
others to this extent, it almost appears that he received an inordanant amount
of light - like 2-3 /f's. Could it be that instead of widening out the flash
coverage, you made it much more narrow? In the "old days," of Vivitar 283/285

It's automatic. I can see the flash bulb move when I zoom the lens.

's, etc. you manually moved the frensel/diffusor back and forth to allow for
the coverage of the lens. Looking at the rest of the image, there are some hot
highlights, but nothing like the man in the hat. Most of the rest could well
be a product of just a major compression to get the image on the Web. All of
the rest, looks like it could be salvaged in PS.

As to your question regarding the UV, it is possible, and to obtain a light
shade in a Panama, there are brighteners used. However, that alone, would not
account for his skin, unless, as mentioned, there is something supernatural
happening - Indian burial ground beneath the inn?

Just some rambling thoughts, and glad you did get some better pics. BTW, did
the hat dude glow white in any other shots?

Hunt


Yup. He made a couple other appearances and he was always glowing.

I've occasionally been in a club with lots of black light and found a
zillion specs of whitener on my shirt glowing from my laundry
detergent. On a dark shirt it's embarrassing. Since this was my
first use of a modern flash I thought UV was a possibility, but not on
the skin.


Thanks for all the responses.




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Ed Ruf wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
(Al Dykes) wrote:



I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn't apparent in the
photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot
on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to :-( .
Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn't let me get close and to the side which I
generally do. I don't have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up
close with a flash.


Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the
red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


You're right. The band is not in focus. Perhaps we pointed the camera at
the head of the man who is left (right on the pic) of the way overblown
man. Also, the lighting is so even that it clearly shows that the scene
isn't illuminated by flash alone. Maybe the camera's ISO setting was set
to high already.

He's a ghost.

-- Martin

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a
300D. There's lots to learn and I'm generally happy with the results
but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don't think I could have done anything different in the camera. It's
shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the
over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and
develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes
laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his
skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer
to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but
that's a seperate topic.

Comments ?





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article ,
Mike Russell -MOVE wrote:
"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
...
I've done lots of no-flash available light shooting in similar
situations. I find I need to shoot a huge number of frames and then
sort through them to get one in which both the artists and I hold
still for a 30th of a second and the compostition is also good. The
color is so far off that I can't really correct for it, and then there
is the noise. I'm looking for a "better" available light look with a
higher percenatge of usable shots so I can focus on composition. The
flash is new. I've hacked the dRebel software to get FEC capability
but I have to work on the use.

My next purchase is a grey card so I can get a handle on the
color correction for these strange stage lights.

No flash:

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_5029.jpg
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

This is with the on-camera flash:
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

More club shots with and without on-camera flash.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

The important tones are the flesh tones and it may be more important to get
them on base before concerning yourself with anything else. You may use,
for example, the Air America logo as a source of a neutral, as well as some
of the clothing. I don't think a gray card or color checker is not going to
help significantly, in a mixed lighting situation like this one, with a red
gel on some of the lights the card will either be orange or more or less
pure red.

Interesting images, and I have some thoughts on how to improve them with
curves. Before doing so, and with your permission I'd like to add a cropped
version of one of them to my "Misfortunate Images" tutorial.
http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorial...nate/index.htm . Please let
me know.

Mike



I've responded to the edited form of this address I haven't
heard back yet.

E-MOVE

Which frames ? DO you want the original RAW images? I'd like to see
what you say about them.

You can email me at the address in my sig.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article et,
l e o wrote:
Ed Ruf wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
(Al Dykes) wrote:



I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn't apparent in the
photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot
on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to :-( .
Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn't let me get close and to the side which I
generally do. I don't have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up
close with a flash.


Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the
red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


You're right. The band is not in focus. Perhaps we pointed the camera at
the head of the man who is left (right on the pic) of the way overblown
man. Also, the lighting is so even that it clearly shows that the scene
isn't illuminated by flash alone. Maybe the camera's ISO setting was set
to high already.


Yup. I just looked at the original frame, blown up. It seems camera
focused on the Man In White.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a
300D. There's lots to learn and I'm generally happy with the results
but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don't think I could have done anything different in the camera. It's
shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the
over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and
develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes
laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his
skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer
to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but
that's a seperate topic.

Comments ?





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

I see nothing funny or strange
I see an out of focus
overlit snapshot,
that does not capture a feeling
3 strikes throw it out!