Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Be careful where you sit...

Subject: Re: [OM] Be careful where you sit...
From: John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:43:24 -0400
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus mail list" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:16 PM
Subject: [OM] Be careful where you sit...


> ... in the auditorium that is.  Some of you may recall this series of
> shots from my grandaughters' dance recital in 2007.
> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/dance_recital_2007/index.htm>


Chuck ............. these are wonderful photographs. I daresay that a critic 
might say that some are too grainy, some are a tad out of focus, some have 
inaccurate lighting, some are not properly composed, etc, etc. As a package 
of images, who cares about any blemishes if in fact there are any blemishes. 
If they were my photos they would be printed large and be in the family 
album. A very happy memory indeed.

jh

ps: I'll be getting to next offerings right away !

>
> There was a similar recital in 2008 but I didn't like any of the shots
> and hadn't processed them at all.  Actually, "didn't like them" is a
> serious understatement.  Motion blur was everywhere due to low light
> levels and very slow shutter speeds.  Finally my oldest granddaughter
> bugged me to prepare some 33 images for her where she either appeared in
> them or she liked them for other reasons.  Those can be seen here:
> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/dance_recital_2008/index.htm>
>
> In going through them I became even more painfully aware of the
> difference in light level between the two events but couldn't figure out
> why it should be.  In 2007 I had set the camera at ISO 3200, shutter
> speed at 1/160 (for a 28-80/2.8 lens) and ended up shooting most images
> at from f/4 to f/5.6.  In 2008 I tried the same thing but quickly found
> that I couldn't maintain 1/160 shutter speed.  I was shooting at either
> f/2.8 or f/3.2 and at 1/80 or 1/60 second or even much slower.  With
> fast moving dancers it was very difficult.  I found myself trying to
> anticipate when the dancers would be be coming to a halt in order to
> reverse direction but not always very successful at all.
>
> Finally I extracted the EXIF data from all the photos from both years.
> I averaged the shutter speeds and apertures from all the images and
> found that there was approximately 1-2/3 stops difference between them.
>   I also noticed that in the 2008 series that I had (very soon in the
> shooting) accidentally set a -1/3 stop exposure compensation level by
> brushing that silly big dial on the back of the Canyons because I hadn't
> locked the settings.
>
> The next question was: Why would there be such a great difference in
> illumination level?  Certainly the light level varies from scene to
> scene on the stage but for the overall performance to have much dimmer
> stage lighting didn't seem to make sense.  I queried Dr. Flash on the
> subject who reminded me that all light (not just flash light) falls off
> in proportion to the square of the distance.  "I know", says me "but I'm
> pretty sure I was sitting about where I was the previous year".  "Prove
> it" he says.
>
> I asked my wife where she thought we were sitting in 2008 relative to
> 2007.  "I think maybe 3 rows further back" she says.  That squared with
> my impressions as well.  So I dragged out a couple images from both
> years, both shot at 80mm and compared the image height of people at
> center stage.  Knowing their approximate height allowed me to estimate
> that the center of the stage in 2007 was about 40 feet away from us.
> But the center of the stage in 2008 was about 65 feet away. Well, that
> was a big surprise.  25 feet was a lot more than 3 rows back.  In fact,
> that's about 1-1/3 stops.  Close enough to tell me that my gross
> estimates of exposure and distance were close enough to explain the
> cause of the problem.
>
> So, when you take your camera into the auditorium sit as close as you
> can to the stage.  Just like flash, seemingly small changes in distance
> can have a major effect on the amount of light you have to work with.
> In my case it went from pretty good to awful by moving back 25 feet.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
> (with assistance from Dr. Flash)
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> 


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz