Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Concert in the park photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:40:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Photos of a free concert 2005/08/07 at Mell Lastman Square, Toronto,
Canada. See http://www.pbase.com/waltdnes/concert_20050807

This is my first serious session. I'm willing to listen to hints for
improvement. One thing I notice is that the vocalists were "lively" and
"animated". I took a lot of shots, but quite a few had the vocalists
blurred.

Towards the end, as it was getting dark, I probably should've gone
with shutter-priority, and corrected the underexposure after-the-fact
with an image manipulation program. I'm surprised that I actually got
anything half-decent with 1/8th second exposure *HAND HELD*. On the
plus side, I've finally gotten to the point where I can take decent
photos hand-held. And the image stabilization system obviously helps.
I had a thread a few weeks ago wondering if *I* needed stabilization.

The EXIF data is there. The camera is a Panasonic Lumix FZ5. Where
EXIF shows focal length 6mm, that's 1X. At 72mm, it's 12x optical zoom.
I got there a few minutes before the concert, and the place was almost
full. No nearby seating was open, so I had no choice but to put the
optical zoom through its paces.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.

More about : concert park photos

Anonymous
August 9, 2005 11:29:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
> Photos of a free concert 2005/08/07 at Mell Lastman Square, Toronto,
> Canada. See http://www.pbase.com/waltdnes/concert_20050807
>
> This is my first serious session. I'm willing to listen to hints for
> improvement. One thing I notice is that the vocalists were "lively"
> and "animated". I took a lot of shots, but quite a few had the
> vocalists blurred.

I think you've captured the spirit of the event very well, and
demonstrated how effective the lightweight Panasonic FZ5 can be under
these conditions. Doesn't the image stabilisation help! I would be well
please with the photos!

By the way: did you try the movie mode and capture a little sound as well?

Cheers,
David
August 9, 2005 2:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
42f7fb6e$0$1602$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Photos of a free concert 2005/08/07 at Mell Lastman Square, Toronto,
> Canada. See http://www.pbase.com/waltdnes/concert_20050807
>
> This is my first serious session. I'm willing to listen to hints for
> improvement. One thing I notice is that the vocalists were "lively" and
> "animated". I took a lot of shots, but quite a few had the vocalists
> blurred.
>
> Towards the end, as it was getting dark, I probably should've gone
> with shutter-priority, and corrected the underexposure after-the-fact
> with an image manipulation program. I'm surprised that I actually got
> anything half-decent with 1/8th second exposure *HAND HELD*. On the
> plus side, I've finally gotten to the point where I can take decent
> photos hand-held. And the image stabilization system obviously helps.
> I had a thread a few weeks ago wondering if *I* needed stabilization.
>
> The EXIF data is there. The camera is a Panasonic Lumix FZ5. Where
> EXIF shows focal length 6mm, that's 1X. At 72mm, it's 12x optical zoom.
> I got there a few minutes before the concert, and the place was almost
> full. No nearby seating was open, so I had no choice but to put the
> optical zoom through its paces.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
> Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
> the instructions at the end of the 550 message.


Fine !

Then, classical musicians indoor in Saguenay, no flash, no stabilization
system, all *handheld*, no Lumix, EXIF included:
http://dhost.info/photocanon/musiciens/index.htm?size=1...

Mike
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:29:54 GMT, David J Taylor, <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:

> By the way: did you try the movie mode and capture a little sound as well?

It didn't occur to me to try. I bought the camera as a still camera.
I was also aware that...

a) it only does 320x240 (choice of 10 or 30 fps)
b) the focal-length and aperture and zoom are locked to the values
they had when you started a clip. To change any of them, you have to
- stop recording
- change the parameter(s) you want to change
- start recording again

If I had intended to do movies, I never would've bought that
particular camera (thanks to sites like dpreview).

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:32:57 -0400, Mike, <mike@home.ca> wrote:

> Fine !
>
> Then, classical musicians indoor in Saguenay, no flash, no
> stabilization system, all *handheld*, no Lumix, EXIF included:
> http://dhost.info/photocanon/musiciens/index.htm?size=1...

Given your ISO 1600 versus my ISO 80, you don't need stabilization or
additional lighting <g>. The one advantage of a ZLR over a dSLR is that
I can zoom in and out at will without lugging around and manually
swapping several lens.

My dream machine 3 years from now...
- high-end prosumer ZLR
- use a bigger sensor for higher ISO

I realize that it would require a longer focal length and a more
expensive lens. The size could be kept reasonable by using a
"movie-cam" shape, with the lens at one end of the box like so...


Lens
|
v

##========\
# # <- Electronic view finder
##. |
| |
|_______|


The current consumer digital camera shape is an anachronism. It's
required specifically by film cameras. You need to have two vertical
spools so a roll of film can advance from one to the other and have the
lens project the image flat on the film. When you go digital, and get
rid of the film spools, that requirement is no more.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
[]
> It didn't occur to me to try. I bought the camera as a still
> camera.
[]
> If I had intended to do movies, I never would've bought that
> particular camera (thanks to sites like dpreview).

Yes, I know the camera has limitations, and I was not suggesting that it's
an ideal video camera or anything - clearly it's not. However, even a
simple movie can help convey an atmosphere if you are trying to present an
occasion to someone who wasn't there at the time, and you might like to
give it a try sometime (e.g. capturing animal noises or movement on a
visit to the zoo).

That's all - just a suggestion.

David
!