It's been nice ... but I think we're through!

Keith go a second hand 5d mk1. I can promise you that for the price there is nothing that will touch it in image quality. The mk2 is slightly better in most ways but not worth the extra few thousand if it's not your primary camera.

My advice would be to get:
an original 5d
canon 28mm f1.8
canon 50mm f1.4
canon 85mm f1.8
- or any of those lenses.

Reason for choosing those particular lenses is the ultrasonic motors (USM) which will improve focussing in the dark by a huge amount. If you're willing to spend on some superb lenses, look at the 24mm f1.4L, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L etc etc. They're near unmatched in the low-light digital world.

I'll do you a favor and post some shots from my 5d + 50mm 1.2L @ 3200 iso in an hour or so.
 
perhaps its just matter of checking other lens options for M8 ?

swapping to another camera systems is always expensive.
 
Trius said:
I'm relieved, Keith. When I read the thread title I thought maybe you were leaving RFF.

Maybe do what Lynn suggests AND take the M8 and meter for the screen as well. If the OM/Fuji works well, then a good OM-4 might be a consideration, as it has great spot metering.

I also think the Nikon desrves some thought. See Mike Johnston's comments on his blog. As mentioned, good older Nikon glass is easy to get.
Click to expand...


I do meter for the screens and always take a few test shots and chimp to check the results. Can't see the people in the shadows to speak of so open up a stop or so and the screens become un-recoverable very quickly. I tend to recover detail from the shadows instead and attempt to deal with the noise but it doesn't always look particularly nice ... it's a compromise and it's being created by the Leica's poor high ISO performance.

A Nikon D700 would be appropriate as I had a D70 for several years and liked the menus and layout etc ... maybe I'll stumble over someone who's over the DSLR thing and would like to move to a digital rangefinder for a change and we can do a deal.!

My next sorte for the institute is at least six weeks away at the moment so I have plenty of time to think about this.
 
jarski said:
perhaps its just matter of checking other lens options for M8 ?

swapping to another camera systems is always expensive.
Click to expand...

I do all my shooting in this environment with a 35mm Nokton ... there is no faster lens in this focal length and it would be impossible to use anything longer in the space I have to work in!
 
HI Keith, perhaps learning to use "layers" effectively in Photoshop (I do not/can not) may be your answer to handle the dynamic range.
 
FrankS said:
HI Keith, perhaps learning to use "layers" effectively in Photoshop (I do not/can not) may be your answer to handle the dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Good HDR (if there is such a thing 😉) requires multiple exposures of the same scene. I don't see how that could be achieved in an environment that Keith shoots in. There is the possibility to work with differently treated layers of the same image, but the results look very unrealistic and flat.
 
I doubt that a new camera will solve Keith's problem with this particular shoot. He can always rent a camera to find out, though. I would suggest exposing for the monitors and use fill flash in this situation, to give enough extra light so as to see the people. At the slow shutter speeds you're using in this situation flash sync should not be a problem with the M8.

Sometimes it's not the camera that's at fault, it's just rubbing up against the laws of physics. You need more light on the subject.

~Joe
 
This badly represents what I think Keith is trying to achieve...

2008_04_001_strip1000.jpg


Now before everyone brings the house down, this strip of negatives is old Fuji Press 1600 pushed to 6400, shot meter-less(guesstimate) with my Nikon F with a Nikkor 50/1.2(I think) and very badly scanned on a flatbed scanner in low-resolution as contact sheet.

The artworks were back-light transparencies that were very bright and the rest of the room was very dark, like so dark that the official event photographers had to ask to have lights turned up just abit so they could shoot, and they were using D3's.

I did do decent scans of a few of these negatives and the details of the artwork is all there(could not find the scans at the moment). So there is no reason that with fresh color negative film, say unpushed ISO400 or even 800, with good metering and careful scanning cannot easily and comfortably deliver the goods.
 
Last edited:
HuubL said:
Good HDR (if there is such a thing 😉) requires multiple exposures of the same scene. I don't see how that could be achieved in an environment that Keith shoots in. There is the possibility to work with differently treated layers of the same image, but the results look very unrealistic and flat.
Click to expand...

Not HDR is meant but creating layers from a single image. Here's how you proceed: clone the original layer and change it's blending to 'Overlay'. Your image instantly becomes a lot darker and colors get saturated. Now, use the 'opacity'slider to decide how much of the original layer you want to show through. This provides for an easy lighting correction. The slider can be found in the 'Layers' floating menu.

Before I get to this stage, I usually even out the curve to what I need in Lightroom. I find it works far easier there than it does in PS. Next, open the file in PS and perform the above mentioned.

Here's a short from PS showing it:
instructlayers.jpg


There's a number of blends you can choose from, and they all have their own advantages at certain raw shots. Remember, you can always reverse the action with Ctrl-Z or multiple actions with Ctrl-Alt-Z 🙂

Slightly OT, but important none the less: I have noticed more than once that we all agree film should be developed, but the digital sections on this forum are only for digital printing, scanner software, photo software, but no digi-developing it seems, maybe we should get into that more. Bartender?
 
Last edited:
I think you've answered your own question. Shoot film. I was at the local Cinco de Mayo festival over the weekend and thought, since I normally only shoot B&W film, I'll just bring the wife's digital for the Flamenco dancers. Boy I wish I hadn't! The pics I got are great, but they look less than ideal because they're digital files. If I had been smart enough to load the R-5 w/ some Fuji Pro color film I would be sitting pretty. And as you know, once the opportunity's gone, it's gone. When you want the very best, shoot film. Yeah, I know, I know. Yada yada digital voodoo humbug. Bull. Just try it. The quality is better.
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
This badly represents what I think Keith is trying to achieve...

2008_04_001_strip1000.jpg


Now before everyone brings the house down, this strip of negatives is old Fuji Press 1600 pushed to 6400, shot meter-less(guesstimate) with my Nikon F with a Nikkor 50/1.2(I think) and very badly scanned on a flatbed scanner in low-resolution as contact sheet.

The artworks were back-light transparencies that were very bright and the rest of the room was very dark, like so dark that the official event photographers had to ask to have lights turned up just abit so they could shoot, and they were using D3's.

I did do decent scans of a few of these negatives and the details of the artwork is all there(could not find the scans at the moment). So there is no reason that with fresh color negative film, say unpushed ISO400 or even 800, with good metering and careful scanning cannot easily and comfortably deliver the goods.
Click to expand...

Using the technique listed earlier, I have come up with this:
20090505kpr200804001str.jpg

Getting to the right colors is a bit tricky (near impossible) when starting out with an internet JPEG, but there certainly is more detail to be had with the Lightroom-Photoshop approach. Especially with the right hand picture, where there is even the portraits background recorded in the shot, using the appropriate technique brings it back out again.

Keith, you can send me a DNG if you like, I'll love to have a go at it!
 
I would use (get) a CV Nokton 35/1.2 and Fuji Neopan Superpresto 1600PR and / or Fuji Natura N1600 for this kind of shooting. Since I don't have that lens I either use my 35/1.4 or 50/1.0 instead. From my experience, film can handle high contrast situations with large dark areas quite well.
 
The beauty of RAW files is that you can change the exposure after shooting.

Landscape photographers often expose twice in difficult light situations - once for the foreground and once for the sky. RAW allows you to do this with one image by exposing for each and layering the 2 exposures and then using the erase tool to remove the sky/land from the top image revealing the properly exposed section behind it in place.

Such a method should achieve what you're after Keith if you create one image dedicated to the highlights and another to the low light sections of those images - after all - all of these advancements in RAW/digi cams/photoshop are to aid such difficult lighting situations.

also, have you ever used a noise reduction program called noise ninja?
 
Last edited:
Keith,

These were taken in extreme darkness with my 5d and my old 50mm f1.2L. (I sold that lens to an rff member in the US due to money problems, not because I wanted to get rid of it - best 50mm lens I've ever used.)


3503832433_6e790a065d_o.jpg

ISO 3200, f1.2, 1/80th

3503831461_4792d7c7dd_o.jpg

ISO 1600, f1.2, 1/30th

3503830665_b6a663118c_o.jpg

ISO 3200, f1.2


I've found the 5d to cope extremely well in badly lit areas, especially where there are extremes of lighting. I personally thought the camera handled pictures above pretty amazingly considering they're shot in near darkness with stage lights going off left right and center. I love the look of fuji 1600 films, but for commercial/client commissioned work the 5d spanks film. I would normally let you borrow the 5d to have a play with for a week or so, but I've been using it quite heavily recently and can't really be without it for more than a day.

Keep in mind the d700 is as good or better than the original 5d, just a lot more expensive, and lacking many decent fast AF-s (needed for fast and accurate low light AF) primes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom