Prev: So why do we keep having to buy memory for digital stillcameras????
Next: The geriactic quintet
From: Scotius on 30 Jul 2010 16:37
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:56:03 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-07-28 20:30:25 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
>> <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 4:35�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>>>>> Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>>>
>>>> � � � � I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>>>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>>>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>>>> distracting.
>>> ...
>>>> � � � � I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>>>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>>>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>>>
>>> It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>>> flash at a concert. These were taken (not by me) without flash. I
>>> wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>>> possible:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>>
>>> Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>>> D3000, as far as sensor size.
>>>
>>> You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>>> FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
>> have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
>> image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.
>
>If you are still considering IR, you could buy a use D70 or other
>camera and have these guys do a conversion for you. That way you would
>have a dedicated IR camera.
>They have several different options. Also check their IR gallery.
>
>< http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html >

Thanks much.

I'm not in a position to buy another camera just yet, but I
might consider this when I am.
From: Scotius on 30 Jul 2010 16:38
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:13:24 -0700 (PDT), otter
<bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 10:30�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bighorn_b...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 28, 4:35�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>> >> >Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>
>> >> � � � � I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>> >> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>> >> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>> >> distracting.
>> >...
>> >> � � � � I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>> >> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>> >> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>>
>> >It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>> >flash at a concert. �These were taken (not by me) without flash. �I
>> >wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>> >possible:
>>
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623...
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623...
>>
>> >Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>> >D3000, as far as sensor size.
>>
>> >You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>> >FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>>
>> � � � � Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
>> have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
>> image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yeah, look at the "ISO Sensitivity" section in your manual. I think
>you can get that camera up to 3200, but you need to see what that does
>to noise.

It gets pretty noisy at the higher ISO settings, depending on
how much available light there is. It's okay though, because I can
always shoot with a faster shutter speed in RAW format and then
brighten it up without banding at home later on.
From: Scotius on 30 Jul 2010 16:40
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:10:47 +0100, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote:

>
>"Scotius" <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
>news:hf81565vddhjdppb56e7uvp4fehq820bvd(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>> <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>> I know that color infra-red images look really weird (for lack
>>>> of a better term), but I once read that infra-red light cuts through
>>>> fog/haze etc better than regular light, which I suppose is why B & W
>>>> infra-red shots always look better than B & W shots without IR flash.
>>>> So I'm wondering if there's a program that could accurately
>>>> predict based on IR color what the colors present should be, and
>>>> convert them, so it would be possible to do color shots better in
>>>> haze, etc.
>>>> Anyone know of anything like this?
>>>
>>>Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>
>> I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>> distracting.
>> I had read about B & W infra-red photography in an old issue
>> of Popular Mechanics, I think, that my Dad had lying around somewhere.
>> Then I had read an article on color infra-red, and I thought "Oh, well
>> then I'll just shoot pix like that in color infra-red and convert them
>> on the computer back at home. People can't see infra-red, so there
>> won't be a visible flash, and I'll convert the pix and have great
>> shots that didn't bother anyone".
>
>I'm not sure that is practical, while you can't see infra red I'm not sure
>if ther';s a flash that flashes infra red.
>I've used colour IR in the past in was the old E4 process
>(slide/transparency film) and from memory the film is very slow for gig
>purposed under 100ASA.
>
>> It's since been explained to me that there's no method of
>> converting the color infra-red pix, since the information about actual
>> color is just as gone in those as it would be in black and white.
>> I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>
>I've used IR a few times, and gigs quite often. I;m not sure if it'll be any
>good for gigs though.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/616881236/
>

What I'll probably end up doing is just shooting with a high
enough ISO and fast enough shutter speed to have an image but not have
it blurry, and if I shoot in RAW format, brighten it up later. I've
noticed that the RAW files don't have "banding" after changing the
colour or brightening, since there's so much more information there.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: So why do we keep having to buy memory for digital stillcameras????
Next: The geriactic quintet