|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: SLR Photography Question About Lenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-30-2005 01:16 AM
In a small room, trying for shots of 1 or 2 faces in a crowd, I don't thing something 28mm or wider is going to get much unless you're up in their faces. Also, at that width, you may be showing more of how small the room is. And I don't think you'll get much out of 100mm & longer lenses that you couldn't get better from cropping.
I didn't think about it, but you may have to use flash. If this room is lighted with fluorescents, the light will be ugly. I mean Alien Autopsy ugly. If it's lighted entirely by incandescents, the yellowish color may also be objectionable (it's flattering to faces, but white shirts, tables, etc. make the room look dingy).
The first option is to use a filter on the lens; you'll lose some light. But the filter is going to be for a specific color temperature, & especially for fluorescents (which wander around in color) & rooms with a mix of fluorescents, incandescents, halogen, etc., the filter is not going to provide uniform correction.
So you're at bringing your own light, & that's usually a flash, to blast out the existing light. The flash flattens stuff, & not only are rooms that look like painted backdrops uninteresting, it's uninteresting to see faces with no cheekbones, frontal bones, & chins. I think most of these steamrollered pictures are a result of a flash that's too powerful - you just need enough to light their faces enough for exposure & not just drop the bomb on the whole room.
It's a social situation, & with a flash, you become the jerk with the camera. You don't get pictures of happy, relaxed people when they're irritated by the flash & steeling for the next one. It's a small room, use a small flash, go by the theatrical lighting store & get some small scraps of gel like neutral density & bastard amber & keep putting them over the flash to knock it down to get only as much as you need to get over the ugly color light in the room. Flashes will be less objectionable if they're lower in intensity.
If this small room you're referencing is always the same one & the proprietor is engaging you to take photos for him, you might arrange a few things to get better pictures. Table lamps here & there will get some light coming from below for fill get some definition in faces, reducing the toplighted room look & frontal-flash blast. If the person running the show WANTS a flashbulb-popping exciting press party environment, you might ask if you can add as part of the "decoration" a couple of cheap Radio Shack party strobes here & there dialed down to a pop every several seconds. The people in the room will be quickly acclimated to the flashes as part of the environment, & will not have such pronounced negative reactions to flash photography.
There's another possibility for getting around the negative social effects of photographic flash - I was with a group taking interior photos in a VERY dark interior, several were taking stills, a couple making video, & one still guy who did not know how to take pictures in the absence of light asked one of the video guys do shine his video light for a moment on an area he wanted to photograph. Those little battery-operated video lights put out a lot of light, you could consider using one, & even gelling it to knock its output down & making it a little less blue. It would likely be less socially objectionable than flash; people don't seem to start & scowl at people shooting video with them like they do at flash photographers. How well it would work over the period of time you need to take your pictures would be interesting to discover: people may get a feeling after a while from that light prowling around that one of those space ships from War of The Worlds is after them.
For maximum entertainment value, you could check eBay & get a Sylvania Sun Gun or old 4-photoflood light bar & enjoy roaming around causing 3rd degree burns, fake plants to bloom, paint to blister & peel, trailing an orange extension cord & chanting "Don't trip on the cord, whoops, lookout, it's bright, isn't it?"
Pictures would be flat, but it's all about how much fun you have at the party, isn't it?
quote: Brad Miller
Here is the first picture I shot with it, on "full auto"
Cool picture. Is that your screening room? To get some other pictures for variety, you might try one with a light coming from out of the frame like DS left or right raking across the seats at some diagonal. I find that architectural stuff with lots of edges & shapes, especially repeating ones (like seats, drapes, plaster frou-frou on the walls, etc.) often get cool effects with just one light raking across an area of them at some odd angle, pulling out contours to different degrees as the light falls off, the same shapes are positioned differently in the cone of light, etc. A separate, isolated, directional light source also makes the depth pop more. In an auditorium, I usually find an old lighting instrument, hide it behind something, throw a slash diagonally up a wall, across some seats or the stage (wherever there's a sizeable dark area to isolate it) & adjust the output & try a couple of different color gels to find a cool one. Sometimes it's a color that goes with the room, sometimes an oddball color; I'm no designer, just a critic.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ron Yost
Master Film Handler
Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 03-30-2005 12:35 PM
You're right, Tao. I remember seeing a photograph of one of ILM's 'early' motion-control rigs and, if I remember correctly, they had a Micro-Nikkor f3.5 55mm on the camera. I've owned one for years (the lens, not the m.c. rig).
Back to the subject of this thread: I'd advise you get a Canon 28-135mm IS lens, put it on your DRebel, and you'll be all set! A very useful, relatively sharp lens, for the $$. Even for use in low light. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Ron Yost .. former Nikon-F user, now largely gone over to the dark-side of Canon digital. Still have my F's and lenses, tho. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-02-2005 10:06 PM
I’m also now shooting with a Nikon D70 digital (and I also have the N80 film body, but don’t use it much anymore.)
With the film body, I used to shoot with the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 and the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 lenses. They were great lenses, but I always got frustrated with the slow speed, even when using flash, especially when shooting concerts from a distance. If you buy the Nikon D70 as a kit with the lens, it comes with a 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 (acts as a 27-105mm) on the digital body.
So even though they’re expensive and even though on the digital, you can crank up the ASA to 1600, I went with the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S series lenses. I find that I mainly use the 70-200 (which acts as a 105-300mm on the digital body, since the digital imager is smaller than 35mm.) The lens is very large and heavy, but I love that lens. It’s very sharp, focuses very quickly and is easy to switch to manual mode. Only downside is that because the lens is so large, it’s not a good lens to use when you don’t want to be obvious. (I was shooting in a club and management told me that they permit amateur photographers, but not pros. Luckily, I was on the band’s VIP list that night, so they still let me shoot.)
If you’re going to shoot with flash, get a bracket for the camera and flash, like the Statos1035. That will get the Flash higher, reducing shadows, and is also better if you’re indoors and want to bounce the flash. You need a special Nikon cable to use the bracket.
One other note: get filters to protect the lenses and don’t cheap out. People spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars for lenses and then put a $10 filter on it…ridiculous.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic