[stasber]

February 27, 2009 at 11:34 pm

J – thanks a lot for your comments, some good stuff there that’ll certainly come in useful in future.

Some of the comments don’t apply to the posted pic(s) in my opinion, which is fine (won’t hold that against ya ;) ) – that he’s a musician is irrelevant in my OP; I had no intention of portraying him as such and only mentioned it as an afterthought further down. The pictures themselves were a few casual grab shots without particular planning, so setting up lighting or whatever wasn’t on anyone’s agenda.

The scenario, to explain, was a recording session that I sat in on, and had my camera with me; the room was quite narrow and rectangular & cluttered (as recording studios can be) and not much room to maneuver for four people. The agenda for the day was recording rather than taking pics. Setting up reflectors or lighting would have interfered with the recording schedule and equipment on this occasion.

So.. these shots can be judged on their own merit and result – though I take from your post some observations for a planned shoot. And I agree with you about the shadows and (lack of) tone in hat/face, so thanks for bringing that up.

I’m a fan of getting in close, maybe too close for some people’s tastes ;).

“Is it a portrait, or just a picture of a face?” –
That’s a good question! Not sure that I know the difference, or how to define it! What’s your interpretation? (And anyone else too?)

Here’s the uncropped, as shot, version of the OP image:

[stasber]

February 26, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Thanks a mill Marie ;)

Hi Sinead, yes he’s very photogenic, and a brilliant trumpeter (1, 2, 3) too. I’m lucky in that I have some very photogenic musician friends around me. One of these days I might get round to a project that’s been on my mind for a bit, which is to photograph them with their instrument by natural window light. So yeah I plan to shoot him again some time – again these were just candids in the moment. I’m not too keen on the last pic either tbh, just posted it as a variation and with ‘normal’ processing.

All the best

Stas

[stasber]

February 26, 2009 at 1:42 am

jessthespringer wrote:

Got any more?

There were a few, not as dramatic as that one, though they are more spontaneous (as candids tend to be, like..) and a bit off-focus & some with blur, but sure, here ye go (keeping same processing style):

And an au naturel (as in normal processing!) posed shot:

[stasber]

February 26, 2009 at 1:27 am

jessthespringer wrote:

I was going to say it looked a little underexposed, but I think it’s just the screen I’m viewing it from.
Maybe a tad too much cyan, but that could be this screen too.

Thanks Sinead – The original was underexposed, which I had to bring up, and on my screen it looks OK. I went for processing style, but did another version with a tad less cyan – difficult to know sometimes ;)

Expresbro wrote:

There does seem to be the slightest blue tint in the whites though. Maybe that’s the processing?

And with razor sharp hawk eyes like yours, you’re right to pick up on the eyes – seem to remember I had this issue before… Something I should watch out for. Good man Robbie!

His eyes, by the way, are naturally quite ‘cloudy’..

Rehashed version with a tad less cyan and saturation dialed down on the eyes:

[stasber]

February 21, 2009 at 11:30 am

As above – I’d also suggest to sell him a print. Maybe also ask for a snapshot of his growing wall collection before you print, as you’re intrigued by the concept (I have a wall collection too- sorry I can’t show it to you though) ;)

It’s odd how people like your photography but not enough to put money on it.

[stasber]

February 18, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Nice one – 3rd one works best for me ;)

[stasber]

February 18, 2009 at 12:27 pm

peterasmith wrote:

Funny how you sometimes don’t see these things until someone with a fresh eye points them out!

Did that many times at work – can’t figure something out so walk over to ask someone then just about-turn with an “err, thanks, got it”, I’m sure they thought I was nuts at some stage :lol:

peterasmith wrote:

I’d like to keep the guitar case in as it’s part of the reality of busking, but this does mean I’d have to also keep the distracting break in the wall

You’re right, the case is part of it, though it doesn’t necessarily need to be included in its entirety.

peterasmith wrote:

Thinking about it now, if I’d taken the shot from a lower angle it might have been better too, even if this meant the guitar case and the busker would be intersecting each other even more!

I stopped short of offering my take on it as I don’t know the circumstance you were in but would have gone lower if possible and changed the angle slightly given the scene and those peripheral distractions. Should have asked him to move right a tad & angle his guitar up a bit more. Oh and move the guitar case a bit too. :lol:

But sure, we all see the same picture opp differently..

[stasber]

February 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm

Hi Pete – interesting find. I would prefer to lose the distractions around the sides and crop in, like Liam, to exclude the upper sign, simplify it; I don’t see how that upper sign could add to the pic (but someone else might). Also I see 2 versions in my mind’s eye both symmetrical left & right with the windows.

One being cropped from the bottom about half way up the guitar case keeping the feet in shot and from the right to include the head of the guitar.

The other being tighter still, bottom up to approx base of the shop front (clone out the bottle perhaps) and cutting off part of the guitar head on the right, so that the busker (bvsker!) really fills out more of the lower third of the image.

Keeping the same aspect ratio should bound the frame as to what you can do with it.

Hope this helps!

[stasber]

February 17, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Congrats on a real classic workhorse of a camera Robbie, the FM2N is one of my all time favourites. I had to sell mine at one point and lamented it ever since but these days prices are very good for this sort of kit so I bought another – happy days!

There is quite a difference, I find, in digital optics and what went before – analog if you will – and I would recommend, if you can, to go for some AIS lenses. Their sharpness, feel and dof is really nice and not the same as the clinical perfection we’re used to with digital.

I have three, which I also use on my Canon (don’t spit!!) with a converter, and they’re a joy to use. The ones I have are 135mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 24mm f2 (links are to a sample image taken with that lens albeit on a Canon body (I said don’t spit! It’s rude! ;)), and they need to be stopped down manually as well as (obviously) focused manually – which means that I miss a fair number of shots compared to AF!

Have a few pics taken with the FM2N and 135mm lens on my PBase site here. It’s the ones starting with “N07” about half way down the page; they’re nothing remarkable, just gives you some feedback.

You can pick them up at a reasonable price these days (not like when I really wanted them some 15-20 years ago!).

Above all, enjoy your new toys ;)

[stasber]

February 14, 2009 at 12:45 am

Reminds me of my film SLR camera days – I had (still have actually) a Nikon FA with an LCD in the viewfinder that displayed shutter speed or aperture or warnings. As Mike says, if the lens wasn’t set to the the minimum aperture [in any of the automatic modes like A, S or P] then the ‘FEE’ warning would flash up. Once set to the min aperture all was well.

The effect it had was that the camera would still function but you’d be limited in available aperture range. For the lens and body to be coupled correctly, the lens should be set to the min aperture. In those days it was all about levers and mechanisms working together, don’t know what the impact is in today’s cameras, plus I don’t use a Nikon DSLR so don’t know the low down on it, though Mike suggests having a look through the manual.

mkrzysztofowicz wrote:

I’m sure the link that SteveD has given you points you to exactly this explanation.

I had a look through a few of them – generally people writing paragraphs about “I’ve got this problem” and people writing paragraphs about their experiences of it “yeah I get that too” etc.. Usual Googlage :lol:

Good luck!!

Stas

[stasber]

February 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Seems unlikely, I asked in MacSweenys a few months ago and they pointed me to Conns in Dublin :(

[stasber]

February 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Nice one Paddy – thanks for that.

[stasber]

February 9, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Hi Paddy, so how does that work then, with the papers re-selling photos? If I supply a picture that is published, does the paper then decide it can sell it if it wants to or does it actually pay attention to usage rights terms/copyright on that image?

[stasber]

January 19, 2009 at 12:33 am

randomway wrote:

It doesn’t work for me.

I haven’t been there, but it comes through as if she was overacting (is there such a word?)… I prefer the more surprising, unexpected gestures and facial expressions from actors. Being on all fours, the guy can’t really act, he is just not involved, and he looks confused.

If I was shooting that play, I would have struggled with that background for sure… when they put in these panels, half covering the background, they think about the audience seeing the whole picture. Maybe it’s just my crazy idea, but I always want to avoid high contrast dividing lines going through the actors head or body, and if possible compose one actor in front of the dark bg, the other to the bright bg. This way there would be more tension between the confused guy and the screaming lady.

I would have framed the shot a bit wider, too. I don’t have a problem with her leg cutt off, but on the top it feels too tight.

The sharpness and detail is very good, and no noise anywhere… how did you do that?

Zoltan

Many thanks for your constructive feedback. In terms of shooting position I was limited to exactly where I was standing/crouching, leaning against the wall to one side of the stage (and partly obstructing the door the actors used to enter/exit the stage); the place was packed and the audience was right up to the stage almost, with a narrow strip in front of the stage that was also used as an acting space.

The background wasn’t particularly appealing to creative photography as you mentioned, making the photographer work harder! That’s a good & helpful reminder about using the vertical background to split the actors – one instance where the background can add or detract, and something I could have helped if I was quick enough in the moment. Thanks Zoltan.

I shot it wider actually, and cropped it this way for impact of the mother screaming. I too wondered afterwards whether it was too tight at the top but was in a hurry so didn’t go back over it (away for a week so won’t return to my machine till then). I remember hoping that her actor husband would in some way connect with her to add emphasis but alas…. He does seem to be showing confusion rather than empathy or helplessness (given the scene portrayed).

I’m still getting to grips with my newest war machine, a Canon 1D MkIII (bought from Merv actually), and this play was the first attempt at shooting with it, so I’m still tweaking it. ISO 3200 with a good overall exposure (on Manual) and High ISO NR switched on. Post processing was minimal across the board and done in Lightroom 2.2.

[stasber]

January 18, 2009 at 11:24 pm

Thanks Merv :)