tom l

"Settings AV 2.8"

 

I would suggest shooting manual to better control your shots. You will not get consistent exposure in Av or Tv as you pan across the stage due to the hot & cold spots.

 

"Make sure you do NOT under-expose - with high ISOs it is an invitation for lots of noise"

 

Chances are you'll have a choice - underexpose the shadows or blow out the highlights. Protecting the highlights I think is much more important. You can deal with the underexposure and noise in post-processing. Its not ideal but you can not recover blown highlights. Faces, arms, legs and especially white (or light color) costumes will reflect brightly. ISO 1600 & 3200 are a must for this kind of shooting.

 

Adjust ISO as the lighting changes and watch your histogram.

 

Use a tripod, helps to steady and keeps you on the same level as you shoot a sequence moving across the stage.

I would definitely suggest working in Manual with RAW. Don't worry about the color balance, that you can straighten out in post-processing. It will change constantly as they change pieces and use the spot light. The spot light will make everything blue but don't worry, you can fix that later. Concentrate on your exposure. Don't use AV or TV. Remember the lighting will constantly change plus you'll have hot and cold spots on the floor and so I'd recommend an exposure that keeps the highlights from blowing out and a minimum shutter of 1/200 (1/320 is better) to stop most action. Aperture is likely to be f2.0 - f4.0 depending on how hot the highlights are. You can fix a lot of underexposure problems but you can't fix blown highlights. Faces will blow out quickly if you're not careful.

 

I take a tripod and situate myself so that a little off center of the stage and I'm slightly above eye level with most dancers (For me that is a nice perspective). I like the tripod because I can pan in a nice even arc and flip from vertical to horizontal quickly. I've shot with an 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 L 2.8 with success. I usually find ISO 800-1600 is required for many shots. When they bring up all the lights or hit a spot light for awhile I'll crank the ISO down a little.

 

See the following link below for some samples of the last Nutcracker event I did: http://www.jettcnc.com/Nutcracker/adn_intro.htm<div></div>

I had a 30D for over a year and moved to the 40D for precisely the reasons you mentioned. I have no hard test results to give, just impressions while using each in difficult conditions. I do some sports shooting for the local paper and hit the area high school football (night time mostly, rural areas, poor lighting), basketball (some places have really bad lighting) and hockey (fair light with all that white ice reflecting). I mention the bad lighting situations because that is where I saw the most problems with the 30D's focus. Low-light, fast moving action, the camera had trouble locking on and keeping focus. I've tried all the focus modes, single shot, servo, etc and found the 30d lacking in these conditions. Too many times I'd go to take the shot and it would not shoot because it did not have focus lock. The 40d I feel is a definite improvement but does not eliminate this problem. I do think it locks focus faster and better. Get in bad enough lighting and there is just nothing that you can do but my perceived differences makes the 40d worth the investment. Plus I was surprised how much I like the faster frame rate - didn't think it would make much difference over the 30d but it did. Bright light conditions, I think the differences are smaller but still give the advantage to the 40d. It is all around quicker, processing the images , fps, and focusing. I'd love to give the 1d3 a try but that is out of my price range for now.

I have never had any luck using Av mode and flash. Any time I need the flash (except for a little fill flash) the situation is dark to begin with and even at the widest f-stop the camera metering yields a shutter speed way too slow to stop anything. As a result I normally shoot in Manual or Tv mode so I can pick a minimum shutter first.

Thanks, Jason.

I bought LR a few months ago and have been really happy with it. Only last week did I happen to notice a difference between DPP and LR raws. The LR seemed to be a little less intense in color and color balance not quite the same. I had trouble trying to match with DPP (comparing DPP window with LR window).

 

Jason, you mentioned a little work with LR and creating presets & camera calibration. Can you elaborate what tweaks need to be made and how to do that in LR?

 

Thanks.

 

Tom

Paul, I shoot in Tv mode or manual if the lighting is tricky. If you're interested here is a little slide show of a football game: http://www.jettcnc.com/football

 

It was an evening game starting just before sunset and kept getting darker from there on out. Poor lighting in a small town rural environment. I kept the shutter speed at 1/400 and adjusted the ISO from 400 up to 3200 by the end of the first half. No flash. Lens was a 70-200 L f2.8. The slide show includes a selection of shots, not just the cherry picked extra sharp ones so I could judge a little bit how well the 40d does focus (and maybe how steady I am holding it <g>). It rained at one point and I had an umbrella stuffed down the back of my jacket for a while when shooting.

Thanks also to Ryan & Peter for your replies. Peter, yes as I understand the print shop would print a quantity of 1 for me and do so with the offset process.

Thanks Rich. You make good sense here. Yes, $100 per image. I was concerned about the 100 ppi and don't know much about offset printing but figured these print shop guys had been doing this for a while and probably knew what they were talking about - maybe that more applies to signs than to true color photos though. I feel more comfortable going with the photo lab & inkjet print now.

 

As for what to charge, I am supplying only the canvas print, a framer is going to handle mounting and installation. I am used to printing my own up to 13x19s which are not terribly expensive to make so what I'm charging there is fairly profitable. These larger prints are a significant chunk of change and I am unsure what is a suitable markup.

I'm hoping a few of you will have been through this before and will perhaps have

some advice to offer.

 

A local company has decided to redecorate and would like to use about 15 of my

images. They want them printed on canvas and sizes range from 20x30" to 40x60".

This would be my biggest job to date - not only in scope but in print size.

 

To provide a ballpark estimate I have asked two different companies to quote

a price on the 40x60. One is a print shop in a large city the other is my

local trusted but small photography shop. The print shop caters to large

images, car wraps, wall size banners, etc. The photo shop is a pro-level

shop that has done custom lab work for 30+ years.

 

The print shop is doing a 6 color offest process, requires an image at

100ppi in EPS format, says no need to spray the print and wants a sample

print to match color.

 

The photo shop is doing an ink jet process, requires an image at 300dpi in

TIFF format, says spraying is a good idea (nominal cost) and also will match

color to a sample print.

 

The quoted price from each is $106 & $108, no spray, no frame.

 

Questions:

 

1) Is one process (ink jet vs offest) better than the other?

 

2) Why 100 ppi vs 300 dpi?

 

3) Both say their printers will interpolate or upsize up to the finished

40x60. Is it better for me to upsize in PP or let them do it?

 

4) Does this ~$100 cost seem reasonable?

 

5) How would you price this to the final customer? Do you add a simple

markup to the print cost?

 

Any other thoughts?

 

Many thanks.

I agree, the 70-200 2.8 would be a good choice for this venue. 85 1.8 is a great lens but I don't think you'll have enough reach with it.

 

As far as flash goes, for those that use it, what shutter speeds are you shooting at? Is 1/250th sufficient? The 580ex has a high sync mode for faster shutter speeds but it lessens the output of the flash and I wondered at these distance if that would be rendered less useful. It does work very nicely tohugh for indoor sports such as basketball. I can shoot comfortably at 1/400th with the high sync flash. Any faster shutter and the background quickly goes to black.

If I had only one lens to take along... it would the the 70-200L f2.8. I'd also take my tripod and not worry about whether the lens has IS or not. During rehearsals, a tripod is not going to get in other peoples way and for me hefting the 70-200L f2.8 for several hours is tiring. I set up back far enough so that my camera is above the floor and maybe head or at least shoulder high to the people on stage so I avoid having an angle that shoots up at faces which to me is not an aesthetically pleasing perspective. I bump up the ISO to 1250 or 1600 and try to keep the highlights from blowing out - which usually means I don't have to shoot 1.4 or 1.8 (had I brought my 50 or 80mm prime along).<div></div>

Thanks, all for the advice. Jim Simon - we may be talking about two different things. I know in lightroom you can export to jpg and specify the color space as you mentioned. What I was refering to was Lightroom's display (or perhaps internal working space?) - this is unchangeable, you can not turn it off and you can't change it - I believe they make this a selling point much to the dismay of other posters I've seen complain that they wish they could change it or turn off CM altogether in lightroom.

 

Robin, while I'll believe what you say, but it sounds seriously more expensive than my hobby ego can take right now. <g>

 

After the past couple days I am seriously considering the ColorVision PrintFix Pro suite. I hope this is not overkill, I see their other product offers just monitor calibration and/or printer software calibration but this PrintFix Pro has caught my eye as a possible solution. I'd welcome any comments pro & con from anyone that has used this product.

I know the folks that use color management would bulk at this, but I was getting good enough results with my unmanaged setup prior to adding Lightroom to the mix. What I saw through the camera looked like what was on the screen (with the exception of making the +1 exposure adjustment) and the printout looked just about like the display. I could give the image to a couple local shops and get prints that matched what I printed at home. What I posted on the web, looked like what I saw on my display and what was printed. That's pretty good if you ask me. I know it's not accurate as in calibrating my devices but when you get down to it, it's the end result that count.

 

I added Lighroom because my editing software (corel Photo Paint) does not support RAW images and Lightroom seemed to make my workflow a little easier for reviewing lots of photos quickly. Unfortunately, its forced color management messes up all that I had working satisfactorily before.

 

Wondering about what Canon expects of its users environment was an attempt to either rationalize that its ok to need to bump the exposure +1 in an unmanaged setup or to accept lightrooms's parameters, be happy I don't have to bump the exposure any more and then focus on try ing to get my printer recalibrated to print like I want and start worry about what results I'll get posting to the web or giving the images to other printers.

 

Thanks.

M, thanks for the link, yes I have read that.

 

Roger, from M's link it says "Lightroom assumes a gamma value of approximately 2.2."

 

Anyways, my question really is - does Canon expect it's users to be viewing images under Color Managed applications or Un-managed applciations? What I see in having to bump my exposure up +1 most of the time in the un-managed application but don't have to change the exposure in the color managed app lends some thought whether that is just coincidence or intentional.

> M Barbu - Have you tried setting it all to sRGB?

 

unforutnately you can't in Lightroom. You are forced to have CM on and use their ProPhoto color space therefore you must convert to sRGB or AdobeRGB if you want for web or print.

 

Thanks

I recently purchased Adobe's LightRoom as a front end to my editing software

(Corel PP). Corel does not directly support RAW so I wanted something to try

other than DPP.

 

However, I've noticed that Lightroom requires you to work in a color managed

environment - which I had not been doing before. Frankly, I had tried color

management and it seemed like a big pain espeically when I tried printing or

sharing images with others (or on the web). As it is I've had pretty good luck

going from the camera's card, to Corel (via DPP before) to my printer with

images that matched each other fairly well. Images I posted on the web also

looked pretty much like what I had intended.

 

My only complaint was that my 30D always seemed to require an increase in

exposure of +1 otherwise everything was too dark.

 

Now under Lightroom which works in ProPhoto color space and forces a gamma of

2.2, all of a sudden I find myself not wanting to boost exposure any more -

exposure looks good in Lightroom. After turning on Color Management in Corel and

getting a profile that works, images look good in Corel too.

 

Printing is still a problem, too dark and often a color shift. (so if you've got

any suggestions on that they'd be appreciated too).

 

I'm using decent equipment (not professional but not generic stuff either), a

30D, monitor is a Lacie 19 Blue IV, and printer is an Epson R1800.

 

I guess what I'm really wondering is whether the camera's images are designed to

be viewed on a color managed system? What color space does it work on (Adobe

1998 I thought)?

 

Is the use of Lightroom and it's higher gamma what was intended for view images

out of my Canon? I know it seems more convenient right now because I'm not

changing the exposure up all the time but is that just coincidence or was it

planned to work this way?

 

If that is the plan, and the camera does expect a color managed environment,

then what are people doing with displaying on the web (which is color

unmanaged)? Do you all convert your images and adjust gamma & shift the colors

for web presentation?

 

As far as printing goes, I must still not have found the right profile or

correct settings - it worked so well before with CM that I'm amazed it is such a

struggle to get right under CM.

 

Help, please.

Thanks, that helps.

Is it just my imagination or has the way the view counter counts changed in the

last few months? I get an number of average ratings on many of my photos but it

always made me feel a little better that people were at least looking at my

photos which I based that on the view counts that show under each image. Lately

though I see significantly fewer views for most of my recent photos - well

scored and not so well scored alike.

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

I am still curious if people would give up their single point AF selection and allow the camera to choose AF points. I was under the impression a lot of 10d/20d/30d people use only a single AF point like I do. Is that not the case with any of the 1d series of cameras in addition to this latest 1d III?

"It will be better ... nobody can give you any quantitative data right now."

 

I agree with the first part, wasn't sure about the second part. Guess we'll have to wait and see how much better.

 

That said, the other part of my question, in a sports environment such as basketball, would those who currently use only a single focus point, consider allowing the camera pick from its 45 points if AF was markedly better - or would you still feel the need to stick with a single focus point?

 

Sticking with a single focus point, makes me think that there would not be any focusing advantage to going with this new camera over what I currently have since I'd be turning it off anyways by forcing the camera to just use the one point.

Regarding the new specs (see below for excerpt) and AF performance, does anyone have a feel how much better this will be than the 30D? I've had a 10D & now a 30D and almost from day one set them both so only the center focus point is used. I've started shooting more sports and find particuarlly in basketball where light is marginal and action is close up (I stand at one end near the hoop) that the Servo mode can't alway keep up. Also in One Shot or Servo, I find the AF system will frequently fail to lock focus at that time I actually press the shutter. I frequently pre-focus in one-shot mode so focus is close to the subject at all times.

 

So I'm wondering will the new 1D III be appreciably better? Will it solve all my problems? (not likely <g>) For those of you that also use just the center focus point, will this new camera make you change your mind and let the camera take over that choice for you?

 

The EOS-1D Mark III raises the bar for AF performance. It uses an extraordinary 45-point high-density area AF system that provides not only the industry's largest continuous AF coverage area, but also the greatest range of control over focusing point selection. The focusing point can be selected automatically by the camera (based on high-speed microcomputer analysis of image content), or users can manually select any of 19 high precision, cross-type AF points which can be complemented by 26 additional Assist Points for pin sharp accuracy, instantaneously.

 

A processing unit devoted solely to focusing the 1D Mark III uses advanced algorithms that ensure the fastest, most accurate AF performance under the widest variety of conditions, with processing up to 3 times faster and a full stop darker than on the EOS-1D Mark II N. The One-Shot AF mode is ideal for more static subjects. The camera rapidly selects the optimum focusing point and the subject is instantly brought into focus even if it is off-center. The AI Servo AF mode is excellent for moving subjects. Aided by a highly "intelligent" predictive focusing algorithm, it precisely tracks subject movement, even at speeds of up to 10 fps. Even with erratic or rapid subject movement, the photographer can shoot continuously, concentrating solely on image composition.

Thanks, Michael & Peter. I will investigate your suggestions. Michael - yes we did have a newspaper photog come and it was an excellent presentation.

Thanks Stephen, I appreciate the response. College art prof have not gone over well. We've had a couple and they must be so far out in front of the curve that their images leave us scratching our heads. <g> I really am hoping to find someone that is a professional photographer and speaker on a higher level than the local individuals. Someone whose portfolio can inspire our group. Again this is intended as a real treat for the group.

Pennsylvania, near Lake Erie.