'Cos I live to see the music

[vin_petrol]

My Screaming Banshee Aircrew pictures are finally online at:
http://vinpetrol.fotopic.net/c244168_1.html



I took my Kodak digital camera along to this one. It's 3.1 Megapixel
DC4800 zoom camera, but a few years old. I never really intended to use it for gig photography, but seeing wendles's pictures recently relit my passion for this sort of photography. I thought it might work out OK 'cos I can set the aperture and "film speed" and let it decided for itself the shutter speed. I used to do this all the time with a Minolta SLR back in the 80s and early 90s, and got good results. So I set it for ASA 400 (as high as it will go) and f2.8 (wide open). Sadly, this was still only giving me 1/8th of a second shutter speeds, which explains the blurring on some of the pictures (I was braced against stuff, but the subject was moving). I switched to flash for most of them, but AFAICT it was still going at 1/8th of a second *with* the flash. This has a slightly odd blurring effect on the pictures.
Reading up on my camera this morning I discover that I can set the shutter speed manually too, so next time I may just set this to 1/30th and see what sort of results I get.
Another thing about all digital cameras I've used: pressing the shutter doesn't really take a picture, it more tells the camera that you would like it to take a picture sometime in the near future. It's nothing like using a manual SLR, which really is point and shoot. I suspect this is entirely a "money related" feature, and that if I spend more money this effect will lessen. It's worse on my cheap little ickle Agfa pocket camera compared to the Kodak.
I've a horrible feeling this could all cost me a lot of money in the future...

I must admit I really do like this one:
http://vinpetrol.fotopic.net/p6292124.html
There's a manic gleam in mister_ed's eyes and a lovely wicked grin on ant_girl's face - "he's going to jump that barrier in a minute."

Comments

[kneeshooter]

At gigs I tend to open right up, using 1.8 or 2.8 lenses, stick the ISO to 400 or 800, and routinely underexpose by 2points.

I have cranked it up 3200 before - but the noise gets high - so tend to stick to 400 or 800 by choice.

Then I often end up pushing the exposure back up by a point or two when importing into Photoshop.

And still the light mostly sucks. And yes - lock up the credit card - I know exactly how much I've spent - and I keep trying to forget...

[ellenscult]

*grin* Good piccies! And that particular photo is great - Mister Ed as a manic goth leprechaun on speed, or somesuch! *grin*

[sheepthief.livejournal.com]

How I miss my old A1 - you could push the film speeds to 64,000 as I recall, though this did require special processing (but I was much more interested in darkroom work than taking the pictures anyway). Of course you got grain the size of golfballs, but the special effects were part of the fun.

[kneeshooter]

I've never been into the whole darkroom thing. In fact, I'm so hopelessly un-dextrous and disorganised I'd be surprised if I ever managed to develop anything.

[vin_petrol]

I've just realised that if I can tell me camera if it's under/over exposing by up to two stops, and set the shutter speed manually...
* f2.8 at 1/8th got reasonable exposure, therefore:
* f2.8 at 1/30th of a second with the 'underexposure' set to two stops should give THE SAME exposure. Result!

I have cranked it up 3200 before - but the noise gets high - so tend to stick to 400 or 800 by choice.

Ooh, I didn't know that! I thought with these things being CCDs that you could pretty much set the ISO to anything you liked. Interesting... I don't feel so jealous that mine stops at 400 now.

[sheepthief.livejournal.com]

I think I had something of a fetish for dangerous chemicals. That and a love of false-colour infra-red film (can you still get that? I had to develop that by hand as I couldn't find anyone that would process E4).

[vin_petrol]

I've never been into the whole darkroom thing.

I spent a large amount of the 80s in darkrooms. Loads of B&W amateur photography. I worked on the campus newspaper at York so I did absolutely loads of pictures there. I must have got through a roll or two of HP5 every week. A current plan is to scan a lot of these old negatives. I only ever printed a tiny proportion of them (chosen from contact prints), but with digital scanning there's no real effort to scan them all.

There's a film processing lab near where I work in Leeds. Every morning I ride through the pungent smell of stop-bath (Ethanoic Acid?) and it takes me right back.

[sheepthief.livejournal.com]

I can smell it now, in my imagination, and I've not used it in over 20 years. I sold my camera to pay the bond for a bedsit in Brum, then said I'd take up photography again when I got my own place where I could set up a proper darkroom - and then I got involved with computers instead. I've recently unearthed a box stuffed full of maybe 50 films-worth of negatives, and when I've finished moving house I'll be putting them through the scanner here at the university. I've no idea what's on them.

[kneeshooter]

Look at http://www.dpreview.com/. The Canon sell-grandma Canon EOS-1D Mark II still only goes up to 3200.

The sell-both-grandmas Canon EOS-1Ds which has a 35mm size sensor (and hence no focal length multiplier) only goes to 1250.

A lot of it depends on your tolerance for underexposure. I actually like slightly underexposed pics with heavy shadow, so it's an effect I seek.

[kneeshooter]

IR film is still popular. Apparently. You can shoot IR with some digital cameras too - depending on how they're built. Apparently.

[sheepthief.livejournal.com]

Well there's two sorts - the black & white stuff, and the false-color colour stuff. In the former anything with chlorophyll in it becomes white, and of course it's great for cutting through atmospheric haze. In the latter anything with chlorophyll in it becomes a dark red, and most of the other colours are shifted. Skin tones become an unhealthy yellow palour - great for dodgy goth shots in the woods.

You can see infra-red with most digital cameras - easily tested with a TV remote - but of course the visible spectrum isn't altered and there's no effect from chlorophyll. And I've just realised that I have no idea why not.

[vin_petrol]

Look at http://www.dpreview.com/

Argh! Foul Temptor... Lots of lovely pieces of shiny technology...

[blue-condition.livejournal.com]

Stabilised lenses *rock* - I've had good sharp night-time shots from my Lumix FZ-10 out to about 1/5s - some lovely pics of the pair of 37s on the weedkiller train last Weds night.


I am more and more impressed with that camera every time I use it; I needed serious telephoto for railway and racing shots, the Leica lens sucks in light like a black hole, and unlike previous digital cameras I've used, it's quick - and has a burst mode that will grab half a dozen pics in very quick succession. My only criticism is the metering seems a bit fussy (but you can control everything manually)....

[fritx.livejournal.com]

That band needs a gimmick :lol:
I think I *do* remember that face from LT's wow