Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comments on this strange flash shot - please

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 4:16:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

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.
August 8, 2005 6:25:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

Ghosts don't photograph well ;-)


"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> 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.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 6:52:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <4uNJe.4415$6d4.492356@news20.bellglobal.com>,
jean <try-to@find.it> wrote:
>Ghosts don't photograph well ;-)
>
>
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> 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


That was my thought, too. Luckly I knew he was there and going to be a
problem becuase I was looking at the histogram in the LCD on the
camera. Other than that I'd start believeing in ghosts.



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

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Related resources
August 8, 2005 6:55:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <dd80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com 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 ?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nothing strange here!

The fellow in the hat is completely "blown out" because he is catching the
full power of the flash, the guys to his left and right catch a little less
of it but they are also over-exposed..

The band seems to be pretty well exposed,,, your flash needed to be higher
above the tables, I think.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 7:11:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d61749f17c823589896a8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote:
>In article <dd80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com 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 ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Nothing strange here!
>
>The fellow in the hat is completely "blown out" because he is catching the
>full power of the flash, the guys to his left and right catch a little less
>of it but they are also over-exposed..
>
>The band seems to be pretty well exposed,,, your flash needed to be higher
>above the tables, I think.
>


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.




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

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 8:28:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> 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 ?


He's in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few
guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use
ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 8:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <YKLJe.2770$Wi6.1353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
>
>He's in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few
>guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use
>ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.

Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the
right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In
White. That's a long row of tables and a fair amount of
foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6
multiplication factor).

I wasn't pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn't any light
falloff.


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

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 8:32:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> 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
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 10:25:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <YKLJe.2770$Wi6.1353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>>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 ?
>>
>>
>>He's in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few
>>guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use
>>ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.
>
>
> Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the
> right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In
> White. That's a long row of tables and a fair amount of
> foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6
> multiplication factor).
>
> I wasn't pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn't any light
> falloff.


That's what I said, they are all overblown as well. The closer to the
center, the worse it'll be. Reduce the flash and if you do need flash,
then stand up and aim at the music players only.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 10:31:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <YKLJe.2770$Wi6.1353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>>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 ?
>>
>>
>>He's in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few
>>guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use
>>ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.
>
>
> Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the
> right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In
> White. That's a long row of tables and a fair amount of
> foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6
> multiplication factor).


< I wasn't pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn't any light >
< falloff. >

This is what I see, so I think you can get by without flash, just use
high ISO. The scene doesn't look too dark, otherwise, considering the
distance, I suspect you'd see some light fall off.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 10:31:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <oyNJe.3113$WD.1172@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <YKLJe.2770$Wi6.1353@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>>
>>>>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 ?
>>>
>>>
>>>He's in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few
>>>guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use
>>>ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.
>>
>>
>> Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the
>> right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In
>> White. That's a long row of tables and a fair amount of
>> foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6
>> multiplication factor).
>
>
>< I wasn't pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn't any light >
>< falloff. >
>
>This is what I see, so I think you can get by without flash, just use
>high ISO. The scene doesn't look too dark, otherwise, considering the
>distance, I suspect you'd see some light fall off.


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/

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

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 11:42:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <11ffqsl10fq3j1b@corp.supernews.com>,
G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> 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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 12:06:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D d89f0$2ph$1@panix5.panix.com...
....
> 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/tutorials/misfortunate/inde... . Please let
me know.

Mike
August 9, 2005 6:20:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <dd80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com 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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 6:20:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <dd93ti12lkk@news3.newsguy.com>, Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
>In article <dd80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com 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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 9:21:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
adykes@panix.com (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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 3:01:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

He's a ghost.

-- Martin

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> 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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:10:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> adykes@panix.com (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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...


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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:27:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <IWOJe.2666$zr1.1314@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Mike Russell <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D d89f0$2ph$1@panix5.panix.com...
>...
>> 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/tutorials/misfortunate/inde... . Please let
>me know.
>
>Mike
>
>

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

RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <U21Ke.3361$RS.1353@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>Ed Ruf wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>> adykes@panix.com (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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
>> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
>> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
>
>
>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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:35:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> 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!
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 7:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

In article <qR7Ke.6783$op.5223@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
KatWoman <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D d80g4$l2d$1@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> 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!
>
>


Agreed. I was just looking for feedback of the first use of a new
flashgun and I find the Man In White funny. Other than that it's not a
keeper.


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

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:22:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <U21Ke.3361$RS.1353@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Ed Ruf wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>>>adykes@panix.com (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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
>>>See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
>>>http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
>>
>>
>>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.


It cannot be the man in white. Otherwise, the flash would be much weaker
to compensate for it. You must have pointed it at something dark, during
the time of firing the shutter (NOT the time when you focus - half press
the shutter) - taking the picture.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 2:46:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

On 8 Aug 2005 23:13:04 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:


>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.
>
Al, one more thing - it could actually be the optical brighteners from
the laundry detergent. If the shirt wasn't rinsed thoroughly enough,
you could get transfer from the shirt to the skin.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 2:46:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

in article 609if1t3s7l64d8qpjrd0ic3rib2kgggs4@4ax.com, Hecate at
hecate@newsguy.com wrote on 08/09/2005 2:46 PM:


> Al, one more thing - it could actually be the optical brighteners from
> the laundry detergent. If the shirt wasn't rinsed thoroughly enough,
> you could get transfer from the shirt to the skin.


Yeah, sure.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:18:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:18:57 -0700, Larry Linson
<bouncer@localhost.not> wrote:

>in article 609if1t3s7l64d8qpjrd0ic3rib2kgggs4@4ax.com, Hecate at
>hecate@newsguy.com wrote on 08/09/2005 2:46 PM:
>
>
>> Al, one more thing - it could actually be the optical brighteners from
>> the laundry detergent. If the shirt wasn't rinsed thoroughly enough,
>> you could get transfer from the shirt to the skin.
>
>
>Yeah, sure.
>
Transfer from fibres to skin happens all the time, as does transfer
from chemical components to skin. It's why some people can't use
"biological" wash powders - even the most thorough rinse won't get rid
of all the powder. If you don't understand transfer I suggest you
find a book on forensic science.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:18:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop (More info?)

in article b6vkf15qmpf4rivr6im23fkt2d11r9j9q6@4ax.com, Hecate at
hecate@newsguy.com wrote on 08/10/2005 3:18 PM:

> I suggest you
> find a book on forensic science.


None of that will explain why that photo was the way it was.
!