How to shoot 350 people in the middle of the day?

Well why didn't you say so in the first place, that should do it!!!

Ellis; thanks for the info on the prices...<BR><BR>For the 2400 dpi scan of a 4x5 negative; I charged my client 45 bucks....They got a good deal I spent several hours time getting a spot on scan...Here inkjet goes for about 7 bucks/sqft....for a 36 " width roll output...Thus a 3x5 foot poster runs around 3x5x7= 105 bucks.....For the second copy many want one half this price; about 3 to 3.5 bucks/sqft....<BR><BR>Some local poor saps are doing the printing at absurdly low prices; like 3 dollars/sqft for the first 4x5 foot poster...ie 60 bucks for the photo in this thread discussion.....BUT they turn out horrible work; and are newbies on a death spiral without any knowledge of paying off ones equipment..they got a government small business loan...I am tired of hearing "well XYZ will do it for QMI dollars/sqft"....There is no winners in a Commodity market....We got our printer several years ago from a company that when bust.....<BR><BR><b>Lighting</b> The middle of the day part of this thread title scares me a bit........weird shadows and squinting eyes hopefully can be resolved with maybe reflectors of flash....

Kelly,

 

Do you have something against the period and the complete sentence?

Chris, get enough two way radios for you and each assistant.<p> Erik, get a life... t

In my salad days I attended an ancient university where the

custom in the summer time was to dress up in bow ties and

dance till dawn with several hundred to a thousand of your fellow

students. Everyone who made it through to 6am was

photographed by a local studio in a "Survivors' Photo". They

were typically sold as 12-14" square prints and usually depicted

up to 500 bleary-eyed revellers. Even if you stood at the back you

were recognisable, and these guys used medium format. 8x10

will make them 'more' recognisable, and avoid too much grain in

your large print.

 

The standard layout was a wedge of people, with preplaced

tapes or marks on the ground if the photo was taken on open

grass and not a courtyard. The camera would be on a lift, or in a

second or third story window. People would be herded into

position, and told to concentrate (by the photographer with a

bullhorn) only immediately before the photo was taken. Those at

the front (who come out largest) were warned to adjust their

dress, for every zit would be visible, those at the back were

warned not to move.

 

350 people is a block only 18 or 19 people square - not many

really, and a random crowd will pack a bit closer if you really

need. You can estimate the size of the wedge by making your

helpers march about and line up, and you can get the focus and

tilt down pat with one helper at each corner. Good luck, and have

fun.

There was aphotographer in the 30's and 40's who was famous for creating images of famous things, like the statue of liberty or the American Shield, by using crowds of people. He would shoot from a very high scaffold and at times the crowds were well over 1000 people who were organized to create the outline of the subject, and the shading was accomplished by having the people where certain colored clothing. He often used soldiers, in there different uniforms to create his shots.

He shot 8X10 black and white, and I've seen cropped portions where you could clearly see the peoples faces. So it's not impossible. I'm sorry, I do not remember his name.

 

The organization and logistics will be the most difficult part of the job. I'd shoot color neg for the laditude and 8X10. With a good scan you should have no worries at all, except getting 350 people to all say "cheese" at the same time.

"I'd also get a couple of banks of the type of halogens that road crews use at night to soften the shadows, though I don't know a specific filter pack for that." Has anyone done it? Did it work out? I've got access to a large number of these sorts of lights and will do it if it makes sense. I'm going to do a test shoot with on Monday and the real deal will happen on Friday.

Use flash, "hot lights" are about 10-20X less efficient judged watt

second against wattage of the lights. 2 or 3 2400 w/s packs

each with one or two heads and standard reflectors (forget

umbrellas andsoftboxes because of the wind factor) will be fine

and will help freeze the motion.

Yes, Ellis Flash...

 

If people are 18" or half a meter accross the shoulders, across the shoulders, and 12" m/3 back to chest, you get 6 per square yard or meter.

 

If you put you film back horizontal, the subject area can be square, and you could get them in 8 yards by eight yards... and all the faces would be the same scale.

 

Using the movements to optimise focus, you could shoot using a wide apeture, and would not need much flash power (borrow my 3,000 ws of elinchrom if your are in the UK).

Here is the strange end to this story.... <br><br>

 

On the day of the event, it was 95F / 35C, 80% relative humidity with broken clouds. It was horrid weather. The extreme weather conditions and other factors decreased the number of people from the expected 350 to about 175. On the day of the shoot, I also had to change the location where the photograph would be taken. My options were limited so I ended up I a cherry picker about 40 feet off the ground. This would have been OK, except for 2 things. You can�t shut off the motor on a cherry picker when it is in operation, so vibration from the engine was transmitted to the bucket. The other issue was that the bucket was only about 2 ft square so I couldn�t extend the legs on the tripod. I had to lash the top of the tripod to the bucket. Imagine for a moment, trying to operate a view camera from this position.<br><br>

 

I had the people line up in 5 height specified columns first. They then filed into position. Given the extreme heat, I did not take the time to clean up the left hand edge of the group. In retrospect, I should have. From the time they began to file into position until the time I completed the four exposures was about 10 minutes.<br><br>

 

I took the four sheets of 4x5 Provia 100F to the lab for processing. To my horror, when I got them back I found they had processed them via C-41. I sent out a call to photo.net and asked for ideas on how to salvage the shoot. Printing black and white seemed to be the consensus. However, Ellis Vener had another idea. He suggested I have a drum scan made via <a href=" http://nancyscans.com/">NancyScans</a>. He indicated they have a reputation for excellent work. Ellis has always given sound advice so I shipped the cross-processed sheet to them via overnight mail so that they received it on Tuesday. I indicated that I needed a CD with the file by Friday.<br><br>

 

On Thursday I received the scan back, I was amazed to find that <b><u>NancyScans had converted the cross-processed Provia sheet to a normal looking digital image!</b></u> I was not available to be reached after I sent them the file, but they took the initiative and made the digital correction to the file. Find attached a small section of the file that resulted. Please note the different races that were properly rendered in the image. The only change I made was sharpening. (nik SharpenerPro, internet / autoscan, Ana, 50% fade)<br><br>

 

I learned many lessons from this experience. I was lucky this time, but I can't count on luck in the future. The next time I will: a) be better prepared so I don't have to change locations on the day of the shoot b) take the extra time to arrange the group more carefully even if it means I have to reduce the number of exposures c)only submit half the film for processing at one time d) use a different lab. <br><br>

 

I am extremely surprised that NancyScans could salvage this shot. They have earned my future business. You might want to give them a try as well.<br><br><div></div>

That's amazing correction work.

I forgot to say that I used Grain Surgery (default conditions) to reduce grain in the initial scan.

<p>That is out<i>stand</i>ing. Chris, if I didn't know you were an honest person, I'd have a very hard time believing the film this was scanned from was cross processed! Wow, I just can't get over it....

Someone asked for a picture of the whole group. Here is it.<div></div>

Philippe Gauthier had indicated some doubts regarding the authenticity of my claim regarding the color correction, so here is a scan from a cheap flatbed scanner. I used the curves command in Photoshop to lighten the image and increase the contrast. Other than that, it is uncorrected. I hope this convinces the skeptics.

No doubts at all, Chris. I just wondered how bad the original was, as a way to assess the quality of the job. Well, I'm impressed - the original is really horrible (contrast is not too high, fortunately) and it's hard to believe it finally turned out so well.