'Fireworks' (Salut)

Several iconic photographers have advised over time 'shoot the

audience' not the spectacle', and that is what I have done here.

These people watch fireworks celebrating the end of World War II, and

the repelling of the occupying Nazis who ruled and destroyed much of

their homeland, and although it happened over half a century ago,

memories run deep. Your rates, comments, and remarks are invited and

most welcome. If you comment very critically, rate harshly or just

wish to make an observation, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

In Russian, one of two languages of Ukraine, the word 'fireworks' in English is pronounced 'salut' or 'salute' depending on how you want to spell it.

It is similar to the 21-gun salut, and is used because of the loud noises associated with fireworks, I guess, just as with gunfire, as I think the English 21-gun (or other gun) salute, and the Russian word 'salut' are closely related - just variations on the same word.

Lexicographers?

Linguists?

john

John (Crosley)

My lighting source for this f 5.6 capture (1/6 sec.) was the fireworks themselves.

When you're shooting 'street' you have to use all available sources of lighting, especially at night.

Why not use the spectacle they're observing as their lighting source?  You can practically see it in the foreground gentleman's eyes.

john

John (Crosley)

The faces expressions are cheerful! Good technical quality considering the lighting circumstances, almost perfectly composed! The guy with the glasses should maybe be cropped out! Or should have been integrated in the composition, but I couldn't know whether he would fit!

Best regards John!

PDE

Thanks for the compliment on the expressions - I saw them and that's why I took the photo.

I could have done better but a vigilante (you know, an officious bystander who took offense) stuck his hand in front of my camera and said essentially 'don't' to which I replied that he was an ochen ochen ploho moschina (very, very, bad man). He had angered me, and prevented me from getting a slightly better composition.

The man, left, with glasses would have had his head integrated more, except for those glasses, which through their brightness and intricacy tended to pull viewers' eyes, I figured, toward him and distract from the whole composition.

I left him in because I wanted the composition to tend toward triangularity, with four figures -- the leftmost in front, rather than from to back in a sraight diagonal, from the right viewer to the youth, back.

This was taken with a 10 megapixel camera, max ISO 1600, and I was pushing it, with 1/6th second exposure.  It is a cheap camera, purchasable for less than $300 refurbished, and with a VR lens, it's really pretty good -- I think it has essentially the same sensor as the D200 did, which at one time was plenty good for most everything, even professional work.

Thanks for a healthy and helpful comment, Pierre.

john

John (Crosley)

It's amazing to see the light effects created by the fireworks , Very interesting result . I love the expressions as well , Fireworks take effect on all ages

Theres a valuable lesson here for me at least, something you referred to at the start as being quoted by several iconic photographers "Shoot the audience not the spectacle" Ok I've heard that sentiment uttered before in photographic circles, but have not really paid it any heed.............untill now.  This example of "shooting the audience" brings home to me the magnitude of the spectacle, albeit that I'm only experiencing third hand through the eyes of the audience and through your camera lens. It doesn't detract in any way from the experience, on the contrary it serves to heighten the sense of awe, wonderment and captivation by viewing the expressions and upturned eyes and faces of the different generations.  I think the lighting is impressive, and the movement just serves to add the life of the image. Would flash have worked here, or would it have totally destroyed the atmosphere created by the reflected light, and made you more prominent in the process? I think I've probably answered my own question here, but would appreciate your view on using flash?

Sincere Compliments John

Alf

When I saw these guys from afar, though I had a cheapo Nikon DSLR and a cheapo but VR lens that would only stop down at telephoto distances to f 5.6, I decided to give it a try.

I'm a pretty steady holder, and this is I think 1/6 of a second, available light (but I'll check) and at telephoto distances on a crop sensor camera, somewhere the maximum 120 mm telephoto setting of the lens.

How lucky can you be?

Lots of times it doesn't work out, and my hard drives (50 or more terabyte or larger hard drives spread throughout the globe), and I just store the captures, trying not to delete, to remind myself how rare the good ones are.

But mostly this one worked.  It might have been better, but for the bystander 'vigilante' who approached and put his hand in front of my lens - *sshole, I muttered under my breath, but only told him he was 'ploho' (bad, very bad) in Russian. You gotta be careful whom you offend in Ukraine!

I think this photo is extremely flattering to the guys depicted -- if it were me depicted, I would want a copy or be making a copy by right clicking and print it out for the scrapbook -- they're superstars of this photo and look very, very human.

Thanks Alon for the comment.

john

John (Crosley)

Alf Bailey, I enjoyed thoroughly your discussion of the attributes of this photo and its lighting, etc., then got to the end, and you posed the question of whether I thought flash would have improved it.

First of all, this is a flash photo -- all flash provided by fireworks in the sky and ambient lighting from stadium type lighting (in a public square, not a stadium).

So, your question surprised me, since I thought the answer was self-evident in view of your very learned discussion -- a flash would have KILLED this photo by competing with the natural lighting.

This is meant to be entirely an available light photo with light coming from one direction, (see the catch lights in the rightmost man's eyes?).  Any competing light source, other than ambient light from stadium lights of the square, would have thrown other catch lights and cast lights and shadow from different directions - it would have turned a simply lit photo into a lighting nightmare, I think.

This is not a scolding, as I make lots of screwball conclusions about lots of things each and every day and each and every day, almost hourly or more often I am correcting - that's how one gets knowledge, and better to get it by asking a GOOD question (yours is a good question if you didn't see the answer), than go out, and make the mistake of using flash and ending up with angry bystanders and a crap photo to boot.  Flash would have completely overpowered this lighting situation as well -- there was nothing to 'bounce' a flash off of, and you couldn't have dialed a flash down enough to make it insignificant enough to just slightly fill in - (leave that to 'fill' in Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw ;~)) which acts just as a slight, huge flash for your photo's darker areas.  Really!

In fact, I used that for this photo, as it was quite dark, then again, 'shadow filter' of 'shadow/highlight filter', to bring it to acceptable levels of brightness because out of the camera it was very dark.

And yours was a GOOD question, so don't get upset at the answer; I'm happy to answer too . . . . and what may seem obvious to me, I remember, may have been a mystery to me last year or the year before!

Best to you, Alf.

john

John (Crosley)

I never thought of it in quite the terms you describe as a "flash photograph" although I was aware of the available lighting that was utilised to great effect. ie; the fireworks. But since you have described so well the attributes of the display and lighting effect, I am forced to widen my perception of the term "flash photography"

Your answers did not upset me in the least and indeed you confirmed what I suspected. I am grateful  that you have taken the time to inform me as your experience can only aid my efforts. Without asking, my suspicions and guesses would remain just that, untill I take the time to make my own mistakes of course, which invariably I will do anyway....but perhaps less so with the knowledge I have gleaned from you here. I imagined that flash would have destrroyed the scene, but with little knowledge of shooting scenes like this, it was only a supposition. I have enjoyed this discussion

Many thanks for your enlightenment!

Alf

There were decades when I didn't take photos, but I was thoroughly familiar with all the steps of photography. I had been a photographer (never really did it much though because I basically quit to be a writer) for Associated Press and later a Photo Editor at their NYC World Headquarters and certain hours a department head at age 23-24.

Even though I didn't take many photos after my next job which was writing and a little photography, I never lost the knowledge, or it seems the skill, though I did have to renew everything when I began here on Photo.net, as I had never had my work critiqued, and I was sensitive.

I felt personally it was 'important' (the early stuff) but how to get back to that standard - I feel I have done that and more and am incredibly productive.

I am here to share my knowledge to help repay the site and its members for the wonderful experience of having a forum and the mostly wonderful and well thought out critiques (notice I don't get a lot of 'atta boys', but some real critiques, and with substance.  That's because I ask for them.)

Why should you learn by trial an error something I can give you an easy answer to,just like reading a book, except it's written expressly for you (and all others members who troll my writing -- a significant number I understand, from my e-mail and from content of comments?

You're welcome; any time.

You can't steal my style, so what have I to lose?

john

John (Crosley)

'There were decades when I didn't take 'many' photos.

correcting 'any' to 'many' (even not very many for better parts of decades, truth be told though those I did take were largely successful, just as before, but still hot, sweaty work, and no one to view or critique them - for me a dead end street as far as photography was involved.

I had been used to seeing my work published and distributed worldwide and/or nationwide (the journalism work) and other work I kept privately with no one ever seeing except a very, very small number of chosen (numbering probably less than 10 or 15 total.  My work, I found out early on, BORED non-photo friends, and I learned not to bore them.

This is a photo site, and if you're bored, you only have to stop reading ;~)))

I do hope for photoraphers and an audience that is interested in photography that I take 'interesting photos'.

john

John (Crosley)

Looks like a picture on film from one of the masters of 20th-century photography. Reminds you of what photography is all about. Congrats.

That is a comment after my heart.  To me it's so wonderful it's like buddah [butter to foreign readers spelled in an ethnic way for humor] (to borrow a phrase)

john

John (Crosley)