Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D at ISO 1600 with FX 580 Speedlight

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 9:08:59 PM

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

If you've ever tried to shoot city lights with a Hand held 20D while
maintaining the lights at reasonable EV and keeping the thing from
blurring the image via camera movement, you'll understand the challenge
of doing that while producing a well lit flashed shot in the foreground.
It's quite doable with a tripod and long exposure with a hand flash to
light it up but what about a completely hand held shot?

Add to that a bride in a white dress with a groom in black and the scene
is starting to move out of the "lets see if it works" area into nearly
impossible. I shot this last Saturday. Hand held, using a FX 580
Speedlight on a 20D at ISO 1600. I used a home made "mini soft box" on
the Speedlight to soften the impact of the light on the dress.

I used "Neat Image" to remove the noise of high ISO and enlarged the
image to 24"x36" (600 mm x 900 mm) before printing it on canvas. There
is quite a lot more detail in the black areas than shows up in a
browser. That's one of the limiting factors of Photography. You either
shoot for prints or the Internet.
http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/89548-southbank1.jpg

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:20:40 AM

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

Pixby wrote:
>
> If you've ever tried to shoot city lights with a Hand held 20D while
> maintaining the lights at reasonable EV and keeping the thing from
> blurring the image via camera movement, you'll understand the challenge
> of doing that while producing a well lit flashed shot in the foreground.
> It's quite doable with a tripod and long exposure with a hand flash to
> light it up but what about a completely hand held shot?
>
> Add to that a bride in a white dress with a groom in black and the scene
> is starting to move out of the "lets see if it works" area into nearly
> impossible. I shot this last Saturday. Hand held, using a FX 580
> Speedlight on a 20D at ISO 1600. I used a home made "mini soft box" on
> the Speedlight to soften the impact of the light on the dress.
>
> I used "Neat Image" to remove the noise of high ISO and enlarged the
> image to 24"x36" (600 mm x 900 mm) before printing it on canvas. There
> is quite a lot more detail in the black areas than shows up in a
> browser. That's one of the limiting factors of Photography. You either
> shoot for prints or the Internet.
> http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/89548-southbank1.jpg
>
Well, you seem to have nailed that one, Doug. The dress and the man's
shirt are spot on, max brightness around 240, and the shadows can be
lifted somewhat as well. The guy's tux reads about 4 to 8, so not
completely black. Not a shot I would want to do and guarantee to get it
right.

Colin D.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:22:51 AM

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

In message <42E4BCF8.A28B6816@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>and the shadows can be
>lifted somewhat as well.

They can? You must be getting a different image than I am. The shadows
are JPEG blocks here, and the sky is 3 goose eggs.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 5:47:29 AM

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

Yes, I've been *much* too harsh. Let's put it behind us. (O:

So, let's stick to the topic shall we? Here, you post an image and
your explanatory notes say:

>If you've ever tried to shoot city lights with a Hand held 20D
>while maintaining the lights at reasonable EV and keeping
>the thing from blurring the image via camera movement,
>you'll understand the challenge of doing that while producing
>a well lit flashed shot in the foreground.

No, I *don't* quite understand the 'challenge'. I've not used the 20D,
but I've used many SLR cameras in similar conditions, and shot *many*
weddings using Bronica SQ MFequipment for an upmarket studio in a
metropolitan area.. This type of night-time lighting was a very common
situation for evening weddings/receptions - a roll of reasonably fast
film was a given, although it can be done quite effectively at lower
ISOs.. It is *not* particularly challenging, and with the excellent
performance of the 20D at high ISO levels, it would be a damn sight
easier to get a decent shot than with 800/1600 (shudder) speed film.
And I simply cannot fathom why a 'pro' would *not* use a tripod for a
set, posed shot like this, where a slow shutter speed would be
necessary to get a decent background exposure. Were you not carrying
one? Did you think it would be 'fun' to experiment at the client's
expense? And why on earth had you not practised this type of lighting
environment, do you seriously mean to tell us you shoot weddings
professionally in a metro area, and you haven't had to do something
like this before???

So, here's my critique, that you clearly, eagerly invite. And I invite
other *experienced* wedding photographers, or indeed any 'pro' who
shoots this sort of stuff regularly, to comment on my observations.


1. Composition.
Subject is too centralised and too far away. Much wasted space at top
(how much black do we need to see?) and bottom (crop at carpet to avoid
the brightlit pavers). Cropping of car also looks awkward, especially
with the brightly lit wheel and rear end, which adds nothing and is
very distracting. You should have been about 5-10 feet to the left,
and closer or zoomed in, which would solve ALL those problems.

2. Pose
The bride is awkwardly posed, almost facing side on, and her arm looks
very uncomfortable. The groom is almost square on, and the whole thing
looks over-posed. When posing a couple for a shot like this, they
should have been angled slightly towards each other, with the
photographer more square on, to avoid the 'arm across chest' look.

3. Exposure
Background is still way underexposed, and could be at least a stop,
probably two, brighter to avoid that 'ghost at night' effect more often
associated with cheap point and shoot cameras. There is NO excuse for
not using a tripod here - it is a *posed* shot, for heaven's sake! For
1600 ISO, this looks like the shutter speed may have been in the order
of 1/8 to even 1/30 depending on the aperture, so not that huge a
challenge to handhold anyway.. (EXIF, please?) By using a tripod, you
could have extended the exposure time *easily* to much better balance
the background and foreground. And the car lights should NOT be on.
They add a distraction - is there something interesting about those
pavers? And of course they have helped light up the (blown-out)
reflective sign. You also refer to a 'home-made' mini soft box - and
yet it is clear from the very hard shadows around the bride that it has
done nothing useful. A softbox would have to be towards a foot wide to
have much effect at that range. As I mentioned above, a city-based
wedding photographer should have MUCH experience with this sort of
shot, and the words 'lets see if it works', and 'nearly impossible' are
a dead giveaway. Even cheap P&S cameras often have a 'night portrait'
mode that will attempt to balance a night scene with a flash lit
foreground. You say you are a professional wedding photographer, yet
you think this is something difficult? For a *posed* shot....???? You
really need to get out more.

>>There is quite a lot more detail in the black areas...
>>You either shoot for prints or the Internet.

No, you POST-PROCESS differently for prints or the Internet. The
dynamic range of a monitor is in fact significantly greater than a
print. How you 'spread' the data over the visible range, be it print
or screen, gives a measure of your skill, or lack thereof. Color gamut
is a different issue, but you referred specifically to detail in
'black' areas. A monitor will show that detail better than a print, all
things being equal and correctly adjusted.

My honest opinion? I would expect such a shot from one of the guests
at the wedding with a P&S, while the professional was setting up to get
the 'real' image. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to print that to
poster size, as the potential is there for a MUCH better image. Maybe
next time..

But I guess we all have different quality expectations, and I'm sure
there is a market for your work, so by all means keep it up, Douglas.
Hey, there might even be some tips for you in what I said above..

Like I said, I would love to hear other comments addressing the points
I make above.

OT....
(Interested observers please note that I *have* questioned Douglas'
'professionalism' with this post. That's it, no other insults. But
note the preliminary attack above, and I'm sure there will be another
coming! Gee, I even made it to his sig - but he keeps re-iterating
that I don't bother him.. ah well, I'll stick to the photography
issues.)
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:04:22 AM

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:42E4BCF8.A28B6816@killspam.127.0.0.1...

> >
> Well, you seem to have nailed that one, Doug. The dress and the man's
> shirt are spot on, max brightness around 240, and the shadows can be
> lifted somewhat as well. The guy's tux reads about 4 to 8, so not
> completely black. Not a shot I would want to do and guarantee to get it
> right.
>
> Colin D.

I don't usually post any of my "work" pictures but I got so pissed off with
a couple of jerks making stupid remarks recently about the snapshots I
posted for the subject matter, I just felt I should produce an example of
what I do for a living for those who might have thought there was even a
shred of truth in anything my pet troll, (Chrlz@go.com) actually says about
me. I'm quite flattered actually, that someone has attached themselves to me
so tightly as to be considered a real, live 'stalker'.

There's also some of my work on the Pbase "shootin" site as well which I
posted in the days before I discovered a lot of my wedding gallery shots on
another person's web site with their name on them. Like my Troll, they
thought they were exempt from normally acceptable behaviour, just because
they were on the Internet.

The image you say I "nailed" is in fact quite poorly developed, with
significant noise and artefacts in the background (on purpose). I used a
better (different?) RAW converter to get the 'real' one for my client. This
follows my commitment to never post any images to the Internet which have
commercial value. I'm not alone. I'd be very interested in hearing from
anyone who has a solution to image theft from web sites.

Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't pat him, he bites!
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:04:23 AM

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

In message <42e553e9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'd be very interested in hearing from
>anyone who has a solution to image theft from web sites.

Post each pixel in a separate image, and don't give their coordinates.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:58:35 PM

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

pixby wrote:

> commercial value. I'm not alone. I'd be very interested in hearing from
> anyone who has a solution to image theft from web sites.

There are commercial watermark services (Such as Digimarc) that include
an annual fee for a crawler service that detects non-authorized use of
images. Images can be modified and digimarc will still find them and
the offending site.

http://www.digimarc.com/watermark/imagebridge/

They used to have pricing info on the website ... seems to be absent (or
I didn't find it.

It can't find anything that's been printed of course .. OTOH, what, of
value, can be printed from an 800 x 600 on a webpage?

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:46:20 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <42E4BCF8.A28B6816@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >and the shadows can be
> >lifted somewhat as well.
>
> They can? You must be getting a different image than I am. The shadows
> are JPEG blocks here, and the sky is 3 goose eggs.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Of course the image is heavily compressed, and there are blocks from
that, but nevertheless there is more gradation in the black area beyond
the couple. I mean, of course, from the original files, not this .jpg.
This image shows it, but you would need the original to actually do it.

Colin D.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:57:12 AM

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

In message <1122367649.585371.207190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:

>1. Composition.
>Subject is too centralised and too far away. Much wasted space at top
>(how much black do we need to see?)

And thinking in terms of printing, "how much black ink do we need to
waste?"
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:09:24 AM

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

>>> Yes, I've been *much* too harsh. Let's put it behind us. (O:
>
>Down Troll. Down!
>Sit... No Beg... Oh just go to your kennel, you sicken me.

Exceptionally immature reply, devoid of any photographic content,
noted.

I guess that means Douglas agrees with my critique. Or at least
doesn't want to argue with any of it.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:31:15 AM

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

>..Go at least to 8"x12" from a well sharpened, 800 wide image
>off the Internet.

Here we go again - not only can we get beautiful 12" wide prints,
pin-sharp (at 66.7 ppi!) he can go *bigger*! Douglas has the magic
touch, there's no doubt.

>A clear (bwahahah, sorry!), 800 wide image (as has been demonstrated
>recently by my pet troll) could be downloaded and inserted into
>someone else's web page as if it were their own.

Gosh, *really???? Douglas, for a start it was nowhere near 800 wide
(here it is - http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg - IT'S
400x600!!). It was briefly reposted by me to show how ridiculous are
Douglas' claims of his image processing prowess (in particular, his
ability to sharpen and jpeg compress to get a decent result). As I
stated clearly when I posted it, it was left there for a few days for
educational purposes, and it has now been removed. A second reason is
because Douglas has a habit of withdrawing his images when he gets bad
reviews.. It's nice to see this one is still there, to disprove his
800 pixel claim..

>Even plastering a copyright notice over it didn't stop him from using it
>for his own purpose.

I left the copyright message UNTOUCHED, and made it clear it was not my
image on the site. Douglas posted it *here* for review. I re-posted a
version of it to
illustrate some points, and in the anticipation of it being pulled.
Would anyone else care to say that was not 'fair use'?

>What chance have my prize winning images got of not having the same
> thing done to them? *NO CHANCE*

Frankly, who gives a toss? All *mine* are still up, Douglas, do what
you want with them. They are all the same size or larger than yours,
and judging purely by the reviews garnered on these groups, they are of
better quality and more interesting (despite them just being tests of a
new camera). I am, strangely, not afraid of anyone making a fortune
out of blowing them up magically with a non-existent algorithm... So
go your hardest.

>I'm not concerned so much about the fool who downloaded 200 of my
>postcards and sold them without paying me a cent

Neither is anyone else here, I suspect. I saw your postcards. (grin)
Why don't you repost *that* gallery, Douglas? Or name the scoundrel, to
prove the misdemeanour. Otherwise it sounds like another TechnoAussie
Fantasy™.

>..as the people who took my Wedding portraits and used them as
> if they had taken them themselves. They promoted their own cut
>price business in competition with mine, using my photos.

Yes, it would have had to be a *cut-price* business, with *that*
quality. And it's just AMAZING how often this sort of stuff happens to
you, Douglas. I mean, your stuff must be SOOOOO good to warrant all
these folk stealing from you - the web is littered with your whining.
And yet you have never, not once, ever, managed to name anybody, not
even their business name, so that any of these 'facts' can be verified.
Just the same recycled claims and constant whining, over and over.
One could almost think it is
part of a plot to try to boost your business value again.. but no,
surely not.. So, name and shame them, Douglas.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:03:20 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> pixby wrote:
>
>> commercial value. I'm not alone. I'd be very interested in hearing from
>> anyone who has a solution to image theft from web sites.
>
>
> There are commercial watermark services (Such as Digimarc) that include
> an annual fee for a crawler service that detects non-authorized use of
> images. Images can be modified and digimarc will still find them and
> the offending site.
>
> http://www.digimarc.com/watermark/imagebridge/
>
> They used to have pricing info on the website ... seems to be absent (or
> I didn't find it.
>
> It can't find anything that's been printed of course .. OTOH, what, of
> value, can be printed from an 800 x 600 on a webpage?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
Well Alan,
You've seen the enlargements I did from a 10D image. Go at least to
8"x12" from a well sharpened, 800 wide image off the Internet.

A clear, 800 wide image(as has been demonstrated recently by my pet
troll) could be downloaded and inserted into someone else's web page as
if it were their own. Even plastering a copyright notice over it didn't
stop him from using it for his own purpose. What chance have my prize
winning images got of not having the same thing done to them? *NO CHANCE*

I'm not concerned so much about the fool who downloaded 200 of my
postcards and sold them without paying me a cent as the people who took
my Wedding portraits and used them as if they had taken them themselves.
They promoted their own cut price business in competition with mine,
using my photos.

Not only did it cost me the price of a new car in legal fees to have
their site taken down, I got 3 of their clients in my studio wanting to
know where their Albums were after the mongrel who did it went into
hiding! So much for watermarks.

--
Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:07:52 PM

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

Chrlz wrote:
> Yes, I've been *much* too harsh. Let's put it behind us. (O:
>

Down Troll. Down!
Sit... No Beg... Oh just go to your kennel, you sicken me.
>


--
Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:10:38 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <1122367649.585371.207190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
>
>>1. Composition.
>>Subject is too centralised and too far away. Much wasted space at top
>>(how much black do we need to see?)
>
>
> And thinking in terms of printing, "how much black ink do we need to
> waste?"

I take it you are an expert in printing, are you John?
One day I just might let you see the Photoshop job I did on that image
to put a sunset into all that black. But then there wouldn't be any
purpose in showing you, better to have my client's happy than try to pat
a troll.

--
Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:10:39 PM

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

In message <42e6fb42$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> In message <1122367649.585371.207190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:

>>>1. Composition.
>>>Subject is too centralised and too far away. Much wasted space at top
>>>(how much black do we need to see?)

>> And thinking in terms of printing, "how much black ink do we need to
>> waste?"

>I take it you are an expert in printing, are you John?
>One day I just might let you see the Photoshop job I did on that image
>to put a sunset into all that black. But then there wouldn't be any
>purpose in showing you, better to have my client's happy than try to pat
>a troll.

I made a joke about printing black, and you have to get all upset. It
had nothing to do with *YOU*. It had to do with the feeling I get when
I print dark images, and watch all that expensive ink get used up.

You are suffering from paranoid delusions of reference.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:18:37 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <42e6fb42$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>>In message <1122367649.585371.207190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>"Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>1. Composition.
>>>>Subject is too centralised and too far away. Much wasted space at top
>>>>(how much black do we need to see?)
>
>
>>>And thinking in terms of printing, "how much black ink do we need to
>>>waste?"
>
>
>>I take it you are an expert in printing, are you John?
>>One day I just might let you see the Photoshop job I did on that image
>>to put a sunset into all that black. But then there wouldn't be any
>>purpose in showing you, better to have my client's happy than try to pat
>>a troll.
>
>
> I made a joke about printing black, and you have to get all upset. It
> had nothing to do with *YOU*. It had to do with the feeling I get when
> I print dark images, and watch all that expensive ink get used up.
>
> You are suffering from paranoid delusions of reference.

You're probably right John.
Sorry... If that helps heal our tiff.
Certainly doesn't do much for the RAW hurt I suppose but we could always
jpeg it on the notice board.

Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:17:03 PM

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

Chrlz <chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
>
>>..Go at least to 8"x12" from a well sharpened, 800 wide image
>>off the Internet.
>
> Here we go again - not only can we get beautiful 12" wide prints,
> pin-sharp (at 66.7 ppi!) he can go *bigger*! Douglas has the magic
> touch, there's no doubt.

*cough*GenuineFractals*cough*

Douglas is actually right on this one, I think, at least as far as the
technology goes. If you can get at least 60 ppi off of the original,
it will still look fairly good printed, depending on the image. The
result may not be "pin-sharp", but that's not what he claimed here. I
just started playing with this and it works a lot better than I
expected it would.

No comment on the rest, though.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
!