Dance Competition Photos

David Evertsen · February 15, 2009

I shot my girls Dance Competition last weekend. There are 3 pictures that really stood out for me..

1. This is my one of my favorites all time. It just happened like normal..

2. This is really cool but was heading towards the side of the stage...

3. Love my youngest Daughters face in this one..

The theater had been completely relighted since last competition and it was more towards the center
than even like past years. I had a great time taking pictures all day.. Let me know what you think.

David
www.phaboulousphotos.com

johng · February 15, 2009

David,

Tough situation. Framing works ok for the 2nd shot but it's too loose for 1 and 3 where you're left with an enormous amount of uninteresting dead space. Just as with sports, faces are critical - and the faces take up such a tiny portion of the frame. I realize you're more restricted on where you can locate and probably needed a prime because of the light but if someone posted a basketball photo with the people filling up the same portion of the frame the dancers are in 1 & 3 they'd get the same comments. If dance is going to be an important part of your shooting you're going to need to some different equipment to get you better framing.

David Evertsen · February 15, 2009

johng wrote:

David,

Tough situation. Framing works ok for the 2nd shot but it's too loose for 1 and 3 where you're left with an enormous amount of uninteresting dead space. Just as with sports, faces are critical - and the faces take up such a tiny portion of the frame. I realize you're more restricted on where you can locate and probably needed a prime because of the light but if someone posted a basketball photo with the people filling up the same portion of the frame the dancers are in 1 & 3 they'd get the same comments. If dance is going to be an important part of your shooting you're going to need to some different equipment to get you better framing.

John,

Points very well taken, I should have cropped 1&3 in this set. I am using my 70-200 2.8 L on my 50 D for this. I am in the back of the theater to get clean shots and close to center so I do not have people standing in the wings as part of the pictures. I used center focus on all and #3 is a duet and I was focusing on my daughter, #1 was a group number and I was able to catch this series focusing on the one in white. I make sure to keep the stage in the frame. I try to crop to still get the stage in the frame but have not done anything with these photos.

Thanks,
David

johng · February 15, 2009

David Evertsen wrote:

John,

Points very well taken, I should have cropped 1&3 in this set.
Thanks,
David

As with sports shooting you can't crop that much. It needs to be FRAMED tighter to begin with. Good luck!

David Evertsen · February 15, 2009

johng wrote:

As with sports shooting you can't crop that much. It needs to be FRAMED tighter to begin with. Good luck!

John .

With where I was able to shoot from that was the best I could get for framing with what I have especially the duet in #3. I have two people in that shot and had to focus on someone while keeping both in the shot. It is what it is. I honestly do appreciate and get your advice. I work on it every time I go out.

Thank you,
David

Art Scott · February 15, 2009

All great shots......next time just try to be a little closer....as for number 2.....it can be fixed easily by cloning the backdrop across and just past the tip of the shoe....about the same as the right side....then it will be balanced.

At times a large stage in the shot of 2 small dancers can be beneficial to the shot.......it shows just how smal the performers are ..... but if you only have frame filling shots .....well with the costumes and make up it is hard to tell that little janice is 7 or 8 yrs old and not 25.......most of my stage work has lots of background to show the workspace of the performers.......sometimes getting those standing in the wings just happens tho......

Over all really good shots.

divamum · February 15, 2009

I think these are great. So often in a theater you simply can't get tight-cropped framing in camera and have to compromise and I think you've done a great job - a bit of cloning as Art suggested and you're good to go on that one.

While johng's points are good ones and it's certainly worth trying to crop in camera when possible and appropriate, I think with dance - particularly where you have multiple people - that the action is often spread out across the stage and to get the full impact you actually *need* wider shots - it's always going to be a compromise, but I think the context can add, and often compensates for the lack of expressions and details. A point to remember too is that dancers are often taught to sustain a "fixed" expression throughout, putting the emotive content into their arms and bearing so closeups are often less flattering/interesting/compelling than longer shots. We want to see the grimace of a wrestler, but not a ballerina!

Of course, some closer "solo" shots are neat too when you can get them - it's nice to have both, IMO.

Great job! I'm following all of these with interest since I have my first "other side of the camera" theatre-shoot gig coming up (ie first time I'm shooting instead of performing, so I'm trying to get my ducks in a row!)

David Evertsen · February 15, 2009

divamum wrote:

I think these are great. So often in a theater you simply can't get tight-cropped framing in camera and have to compromise and I think you've done a great job - a bit of cloning as Art suggested and you're good to go on that one.

While johng's points are good ones and it's certainly worth trying to crop in camera when possible and appropriate, I think with dance - particularly where you have multiple people - that the action is often spread out across the stage and to get the full impact you actually *need* wider shots - it's always going to be a compromise, but I think the context can add, and often compensates for the lack of expressions and details. A point to remember too is that dancers are often taught to sustain a "fixed" expression throughout, putting the emotive content into their arms and bearing so closeups are often less flattering/interesting/compelling than longer shots. We want to see the grimace of a wrestler, but not a ballerina!

Of course, some closer "solo" shots are neat too when you can get them - it's nice to have both, IMO.

Great job! I'm following all of these with interest since I have my first "other side of the camera" theatre-shoot gig coming up (ie first time I'm shooting instead of performing, so I'm trying to get my ducks in a row!)

I was fighting with framing all day based on who was dancing and where they where on stage. Group numbers presented several problems because my 70-200 as to long to get everyone on stage some times. Here are some of the things I fought with my framing.

#1 above there where dancers to the left that I did not want in the picture and I focused on the one in white to get.

#2 Was especially hard to catch that leap. The girl on the right is supposed to be spaced out and not even spacing so if I focus on the center I have to be wide to get all of the leaps. I don't know who gets more ticked cut out a hand or foot, me or the dancers.

#3 Duets I find are the hardest to center obviously I have to focus on one or the other dancers. These kids are 3 graders and aren't that big and the leap was upstage about the 1/3 mark. That is why you cannot see the front of the stage like in 1.

Here are some solos from the competition where I tried different things.

1. This is my daughters solo on the front of the stage. I wanted to get tight but not show the audience in the shot.

2. Same spot on stage roughly another dancer shows up larger because she well is. I am always afraid on this dancers since she utilizes the stage so much to not get to tight and cut something off.

3. Here is a vertical shot that I really had an issue with because of where they where on stage. I was afraid to get tight didn't want to cut something off.

4. This one I do not like because of the audience in the pictures. I always use center focus or bottom focus point depending on where they are. Groups it is easier to use bottom than center.

5. Here is a trio from 1 above that is very tight. This is the beginning of the number and I pulled in I could probably do more of this but the kids love the leaps and I don't want to miss them..

6. Then again here is what I fight with Group numbers and my 70-200 and my 50D.. I can't pull out of the frame enough and cut stuff off.

Let me know what you think I have a habit of going larger than tighter and fight it all the time. I am working on it for sure. I find myself cutting off sticks in LAX and I just have to keep diggin'. Thanks for everyone's comments.

David
www.phabulousphotos.com

Art Scott · February 15, 2009

There is one thing that really bothers me about all the photos and it has nothing to do with how they are shot.......

The cyc curtain at the back should be as close to the floor as possible and stretched tight.....it is tight but a good foot and a half or more off the floor and there is a steel pipe running thru a pocket in the bottom of the cyc curtain.....that pipe noramlly extends out each end of the curtain........damage can be done if a dancer runs into that pipe..........

The cyc is there to create a color wash as your back ground and it is one thing for a lighting designer to have gradients in their lighting but to have a solid black horizon with a bright wash on top is just not right......it in itself is the distraction..........hijacking rant over,,,,,,,I now return you back to your regularly scheduled programming of fantastic dance photos.........................

David Evertsen · February 15, 2009

Art Scott wrote:

There is one thing that really bothers me about all the photos and it has nothing to do with how they are shot.......

The cyc curtain at the back should be as close to the floor as possible and stretched tight.....it is tight but a good foot and a half or more off the floor and there is a steel pipe running thru a pocket in the bottom of the cyc curtain.....that pipe noramlly extends out each end of the curtain........damage can be done if a dancer runs into that pipe..........

The cyc is there to create a color wash as your back ground and it is one thing for a lighting designer to have gradients in their lighting but to have a solid black horizon with a bright wash on top is just not right......it in itself is the distraction..........hijacking rant over,,,,,,,I now return you back to your regularly scheduled programming of fantastic dance photos.........................

The cyc curtain is all the way down to the floor. The black you see below it is a foam barrier placed there about 2 feet in front of it to make sure the dancers have a warning track. They never really go near it. I have seen over 1000 dances there and noone has ever bothered it. These where taken at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center in the Ferguson Theater. They do everything first class and always look out for our dancers onstage and backstage. The competition has the same lighting pattern on the cyc curtain and not artistic lighting everything is the same. We have other stages for our Nationals that have used convention curtains for the crossover and are setup in ballrooms they are mostly horrible, the stages sway with large group numbers. This by far is the best stage we get to compete on year in and year out.. Back to our program..again..

David
www.phabulousphotos.com

divamum · February 15, 2009

Totally agree with you Art - the edges on the cyc were perplexing me too, especially since the black legs they're using make it look like it isn't even spanning into the wings. However, sounds like not much that David could do about it given the explanation!

I absolutely agree that for dance you stay wide so you don't miss anything and crop later. Sure, in a perfect world you frame in camera (and when possible, go for it!) but it is so tricky, particularly in a competition like this where I suspect you don't know all the routines/dancers and thus can't anticipate the choreography.

David, having seen many stage photog's proofs when singing in productions, I can GUARANTEE you that they are not always framed tight in camera but are cropped afterwards, even easier now that it's digital of course.

Here's one shot from a major US house (I'll link to avoid copyright issues) http://www.metroweekly.com/articles/attachments/2007-05-10_opera_2695_3478.jpg I was involved with this production and thus can tell you with absolute certain that there was a wall of people behind them on one of the funkiest angled and harshest-lit sets I've been on in years and I would be very surprised if the photographer framed that in camera. I suspect, in fact, a fair bit of cloning and bg work to get it this clean and I'm actually amazed she could get any shots at all without serious flare, since it was all very stylized, harsh, directional, 100% power white lighting, with many lanterns angled straight across and/or coming from upstage (there were incidents in the first act with people being light-blind coming offstage to the point they had to have an ASM in the wings helping people off the set because nobody could see).

So, all that said, I think you can be much braver with your crops in post for some of these more solo shots - there's no reason why you can't take 3 and 4 below in tighter with a pair of scissors, IMO.

Anyway, fwiw. I think your shots are great and I have no doubt that the performers are thrilled to have them

thumb

#1 and 2 rock - dead on the money, IMO

#3 & 4- as mentioned, I think you can crop them down, thus losing the audience heads/reflections.

#5 I like it a lot, and I think you've got about the right amount of space although it could easily have gone wider OR closer and still been a good shot. One could argue that decentering it might be "classical" composition, but I really like it.

#6 maddening for you, I'm sure! Unless you can anticipate the shift to a big number like this and go with a wider lens OR move back, the only thing you can really do is take it as a panorama and stitch it up in post. I did that with a show of my daughter's last year. I do NOT offer this up as a perfect example since the lighting was beyond bad and it was pretty much my first attempt at doing more than cropping and boosting contrast in post (I really should revisit them and redo them now I have paintshop and actually know how to use layers and do somewhat more sophisticated PP - gahh.... that distortion curve along the top... those blown highlights...the horrid wb.... I didn't know how to handle that stuff in post when I took these last summer!) but fwiw,. It does show how a quickie pano a viable option when you have a wide group, even when they're moving (although not travelling anything like as much as dancers in this shot)

Again, I have more experience as a subject than as a photographer, but I think my armchair eye is ok even if my shutter finger is still a rookie

Enjoying this discussion immensely and it's very helpful for me with the little "freebie" shoot I have coming up - glad you posted!!!

johng · February 16, 2009

divamum wrote:

While johng's points are good ones and it's certainly worth trying to crop in camera when possible and appropriate, I think with dance - particularly where you have multiple people - that the action is often spread out across the stage and to get the full impact you actually *need* wider shots

It depends on what the resulting image is. If your goal is to capture a number of dancers I agree - wide is better ASSUMING you have the dof for it. That's an important assumption. And that's a matter of being aware of your equipment and what kind of DOF you'll get given the position you're shooting from.

But, in the original posts, 2 of the shots were of a single dancer and the image was dominated by the very boring background. That background isn't like a play for instance where it adds context. So, if the only item of interest is a single dancer then that dancer should dominate the frame. If there are multiple dancers or the background provides context you frame accordingly.

Case in point - David's Feb 15th 5:58 pm post:
The framing works well for the stage full of kids shot.
The shot of the 3 dancers - pretty good, but a tough exposure results in lost detail on faces but still a good shot.
But the 3 leaps they are just way too loosely framed. The result is there is no detail. Yes, it's scary and difficult to frame tightly. And yes, you'll occasionally mess up and cut off a hand or foot. But for an isolation shot, detail REALLY improves the shot.

kwkodiak · February 16, 2009

I like sport pictures that convey a sense that you're in the front row, one step away from the action. The facial expressions of the dancers in #2, 3 and 4 are compelling and I would have liked a tighter shot and/or crop to bring out this emotion.

divamum · February 16, 2009

kwkodiak wrote:

I like sport pictures that convey a sense that you're in the front row, one step away from the action. The facial expressions of the dancers in #2, 3 and 4 are compelling and I would have liked a tighter shot and/or crop to bring out this emotion.

Emphasis mine, and I think this is what defines the different viewpoints in this discussion: even though this was a competition and was posted in the sports forum section, IMO formalised dance is NOT "sports photography" but (again, just my opinion) theatre/performing arts photography... I think all points so far are entirely valid, but we're coming at it from an entirely different (you should pardon the pun) perspective, thus the different approaches. It's all good... just different!

johng wrote:

But, in the original posts, 2 of the shots were of a single dancer and the image was dominated by the very boring background. That background isn't like a play for instance where it adds context. So, if the only item of interest is a single dancer then that dancer should dominate the frame. If there are multiple dancers or the background provides context you frame accordingly.

Agree in principle, but am curious why you would be reluctant to crop in post (which is what I was emphasising and which would have been my choice for those shots)? As long as you have the resolution, I don't see that as a problem. Sure, in a perfect world framing in camera is always the better choice, but I have to agree that in this context I'd rather shoot wide to ensure I catch the actionand then crop down, rather than frame tight and wind up with a cut-off head or foot.

Again, just my 2c and to reiterate that I'm really enjoying this discussion - it's given me some new perspectives and ideas by forcing me to think more objectively outside "the moment", iow, making me think more like a photographer and less like a performer which is actually a big jump in some regards. Thanks!!

johng · February 16, 2009

divamum wrote:

IMO formalised dance is NOT "sports photography" but (again, just my opinion) theatre/performing arts photography

It really isn't just a sports thing. It goes back to my statement about whether what is left in the image adds to the message or distracts. A plane blue background adds nothing so there's no good reason to have so much of it in there. It's an aspect of photography that is true of all types - sports, performance, portrait, scenic etc. Frame your subject so it is compelling and exclude distractions where possible.

divamum wrote:

Agree in principle, but am curious why you would be reluctant to crop in post (which is what I was emphasising and which would have been my choice for those shots)?

Ah that one I can answer - because the results are usually poor. Especially at higher ISOs. The results are poor for 2 main reasons:
1. the looser framing results in poorer focus
2. lost detail to noise

You just don't have the leeway to get sharp details - especially in faces when the face initially takes up such a tiny portion of the frame. In better light at lower ISOs you have more leeway to crop. Try it if you like. But after tens of thousands of low light action images I have found you can't crop heavily and still retain detail. Just can't do it. Of course, it also depends on what you consider an acceptable level of detail. Even in low light situations you should still have good facial detail (ISO 3200, f2.8):

Dance is no different - if your subjectis a single dancer, his/her face is going to be a compelling part of the image - seeing detail makes it a better shot. Seeing a lot of blue background because it's framed too loose does not. Cropping severely afterward will fill the frame more but you won't have the detail because of the issues already mentioned.

jonh68 · February 16, 2009

I will agree with the tighter framing and cropping. Get those one or two wide shots to set the tone of the event and the leaps, but then get in tight.

The facial expression here would have been worth cutting off some limbs by shooting tight. The kids may like the shots, but they and parents would REALLY like close ups.

This was from nieces first dance recital. Naturally, she isn't leaping, but it's a full body shot.

Then a close up.

divamum · February 16, 2009

+1 for continued great discussion!

I hesitate to continue to "state my case" lest I sound belligerent or as though I'm being contentious - I'm not, not at all. That said, I will continue to play devil's advocate a bit because I'm finding this all very interesting ....

I just googled "New York City Ballet" to pull up pages of classical dance images. I got through about 8 pages before I gave up, and there wasn't one that I saw which focused on the face to the exclusion of other elements. Yes, they were tighter than some of the OP's originals, but in general they were all closest-crop-possible of tje full length (full width) solo dancers rather than anything tighter. Maybe there were some others further down the search hits, but none near the beginning....

Here's the pages i pulled up, just for reference. (http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&q=new+york+city+ballet&start=0&sa=N)

Again, please know that I'm not "arguing" - your points are all very good ones!!! - I just know that the shots I've seen of top pros in this field (presumably taken BY the top pros) seem to prefer medium and wide shots of the whole body rather than tightly zoomed in on the face/facial expression.

Of course, the OP was taking shots of kids so that's going to demand a compromise (and John68 those are ADORABLE shots of the little girls in white) - point well taken that for parents these kinds of shots will be important! - but I do see where the OP is coming from with his choices if he's been taking his style cues from shots of professional dancers.....

Edited to add:

johng wrote:

divamum wrote:

Agree in principle, but am curious why you would be reluctant to crop in post (which is what I was emphasising and which would have been my choice for those shots)?

Ah that one I can answer - because the results are usually poor. Especially at higher ISOs. The results are poor for 2 main reasons:
1. the looser framing results in poorer focus
2. lost detail to noise

Gotcha - fair enough!!

jonh68 · February 16, 2009

Because ballet, dancing is all about form, it is even more important to get tight so the background isn't overpowering. I looked at those shots and they are tight. I also think good tight shots of the face are needed in those galleries.

A wide approach is necessary when there is action on one side of the stage, and something important is going on the other that the performers there are reacting to. If it tells a story, wide is needed. However, having a wide shot with wasted background is just a snapshot.

David Evertsen · February 16, 2009

jonh68 wrote:

Because ballet, dancing is all about form, it is even more important to get tight so the background isn't overpowering. I looked at those shots and they are tight. I also think good tight shots of the face are needed in those galleries.

A wide approach is necessary when there is action on one side of the stage, and something important is going on the other that the performers there are reacting to. If it tells a story, wide is needed. However, having a wide shot with wasted background is just a snapshot.

This thread has been really great, I actually fight getting tight all the time and know I should. Of course I have found that faces gotten from cropping are not nearly as good as being framed on the camera correctly.

The kids and parents I shoot this competition for always want to see all of the leaps. Not cutting anything off. A good compromise is to not cut anything off but not waste space on them for sure. Would it be worth not having the stage in the shot to get that tight?

I don't get nearly as much opportunity to shoot dance as I would like. That is why I shoot sports in my local area to get experience shooting low-light action. It has helped immensely and this discussion has highlighted some of the differences of the two but definitely been worth getting the help on offered in this discussion.

I guess like anything in life we just need to move out our comfort zone and keep moving forward to get where we need to be. Photography is proof of this every time I press the button.

Thanks,
David
www.phabulousphotos.com

johng · February 16, 2009

divamum wrote:

+
Again, please know that I'm not "arguing" - your points are all very good ones!!! - I just know that the shots I've seen of top pros in this field (presumably taken BY the top pros) seem to prefer medium and wide shots of the whole body rather than tightly zoomed in on the face/facial expression.

Gotcha - fair enough!!

Exactly - the dancer fills the frame. not 20% of the frame. They are a great example of the point I'm trying to make - look at the detail in them in the face, in the muscle tone, etc. But, Jon's point is that parents love close up portraits of their children. It's not the only photo to take. But it's good to capture the child in action (filling the frame) as well as some portrait shots which show the child's personality. Those portrait style shots are often some of my best sellers. In the end, it's the same concept - your subject should fill the frame. Sometimes your subject is the whole body but sometimes it's just the face or torso. But in both cases the amount of space NOT taken up by your subject is minimized.

divamum · February 16, 2009

johng wrote:

But in both cases the amount of space NOT taken up by your subject is minimized.

On which point we're in 100% agreement

Great discussion, all!

jonh68 · February 16, 2009

Along the same lines, I also think you're getting a bit too much flack about framing more tightly, about cropping, etc. You and I both shoot dance regularly and we both know that it just isn't realistic to try to frame every shot ideally at the moment of exposure. You've got to shoot a bit "loose" to give yourself some safety margin. After all, if you're at the basketball game and happen to cut off a bit of the point guard's foot, it's no big deal... but if you're shooting Swan Lake and cut off the Swan Queen's toe on pointe, you've got a non-usable picture!

This is why you shoot with a final crop in mind. If you are going for a full body shot, or time a leap, allow space for cropping, but it still has to be tight within the framework of the final intention.

When you want face/portrait type shots, limbs, toes, legs etc are going to be cut off. Applying rules of cropping and composition don't change regardless of the type of venue. Are you going to throw away a great facial expression because the toe is cut off? You crop and make a upper torso shot out of it.

When you shoot a basketball player, you get full body shot, then a tight upper torso action shot if you can. Ballet and dance is all about movement and expression, just like sports. Neglecting the close tight shots does a disservice of capturing the expression.

divamum · February 16, 2009

jlw wrote:

After all, if you're at the basketball game and happen to cut off a bit of the point guard's foot, it's no big deal... but if you're shooting Swan Lake and cut off the Swan Queen's toe on pointe, you've got a non-usable picture!

Bingo! Exactly the point I was trying to make (however ineptly I did it!!

)

Look at the photos on Lois Greenfield's website, for example -- she always composes these images with a careful balance of figure space and negative space, rather than just framing the figure as tightly as possible.

Great link. However, am I right in thinking many of those were "staged" (as opposed to "stage") shots? They look like in-studio shots rather than live captures from performance? Just trying to educate my own eye better

Now I've got something for you about your issue with duos, trios, etc. Yes, these are always hard to shoot because the dancers need enough space to move freely, which leaves dead space in your shots. Here's one way to handle it if you can stand to take a risk: Get away from the center and try to shoot along the diagonals, so you can bring the figures closer together in the picture space

Love your example. shot!

Presumably you're using these angles during final dress, though? I wonder if the OP has access to those opportunities - I know that in Operaland (especially, although not only, union houses) there is NO photography of any kind going on during actual gigs. Just wondering.....

As an aside, using diagonals onstage is often prized in direction (and presumably choreography), so I can imagine there are great shots to be had that way too

Also, semi-OT to JLW: what lens do you like for your stage shots? I find myself shooting an operatic concert as a favour for some friends and am taking suggestions on tele(zoom) lenses to consider renting for the occasion (thread here). Plus any other comments you can offer if you have a chance! (PM or the other thread s fine, as I don't want to hijack this one...)

David Evertsen · February 16, 2009

There tends to be a lot of padding on my part of my images, more than should be at times but, I also have to acknowledge that my venue is part of the issue. Another thing is that I am still trying to get a firm grasp that my viewfinder is not always a true representation of the within a few feet of the image produced. I don't want to cut anything off..

Here is are a series of images that I realized I was missing to much and too wide.

1. Horizontal leap trying to keep the stage in the shot..Should be ok..

2. Vertical of the same dancer.. Yes it is a back and butt shot.

3. Another vertical honoring the space in the viewfinder.. Could have moved down on the center focus point. Thought this was good though..

4. Picked the center on this group and pulled out to get them all...

5. Should have been Vertical and tight, having never been able to see the rehearsal I was unable to plan this out. Still will not be hurt by cropping out in proofs.

6. This is tight enough for the lighting provided. Had a hard time with the black and white and center focus point. Cropping wont' hurt this at all..

I have learned that tight is better and I can't always get as tight as I like still trying to figure out the viewfinder sometimes. Does anyone believe that noise reduction software would help with some of the noise on the background in the original photos posted and not make them to soft?? If there is one picture I could have back and be tighter knowing cropping would not help?? It would be one in the duet posted earlier where my daughter is in partner cartwheel (the exact photo is not posted) with an expression her face that is priceless. Yes that one should have been vertical and tighter. Cropping would make for a horrible image, hind sight may be 20-20 but I get to take the images again at the Nationals in NYC this summer.

Thanks,
David
www.phabulousphotos.com

divamum · February 17, 2009

My 2c on these below (just my opinion, ymmv etc etc etc

Regarding noise work - what are you using for noise? Thanks to a recommendation here at dgrin, I acquired a copy of Noiseware and the difference was AMAZING - much better results than the built-in noise algorithm in either Paintshop (which I used to use) or Photoshop. That photo from the kids' show I posted above isn't a great picure (it's terrible, in fact), but you should have seen it *before* I ran it through noiseware!!!

The "community" edition is free (which is the one I'm using), but you can also purchase a Photoshop plugin. It's at http://www.noiseware.com/download.aspx (you have to scroll right down to find the free one, but it's there at the bottom).

David Evertsen wrote:

I think this is a lovely shot. I especially love the shadow cast in the lower right - nice. You could perhaps draw more attention to that part of the composition by cropping down a little from the left, but I agree that it doesn't need much. I would definitely clone out the crease on the cyc and might clone out the lights on the stage for a cleaner shot, but if they don't bother you, then no harm no foul. These are representational shots, and thus I don't think the reality of the background poses a problem for the intended audience.

Again, I like it - my only nit is the lights on the floor, particularly the on that breaks the line of her feet. However, that's what there is and I suspect it's the kind of detail that won't bother the subjects or intended audience.

I would definitely clone out the head in the front and probably shave some of the dead space above her. It doesn't add a sense of scale in this one. I would take some off the top and left hand side to get her body in that left hand 3rd so the eye is drawn away from the distractions of the lights behind her. [/quote

This is a good shot of the dancers in the air, but the problems for me photographically in this one are both their unequal height in the air and spacing, and the distractions onstage. The heads in the front (easily cloned out) and the lights (presumably the other reason they use that black masking/barrier in the earlier shots you have - it's a much cleaner look), but also... not the prettiest chairs ever which (to me) make it look like a rehearsal shot rather than performance. As a *photograph*, I think it would work better with just the two ladies on the right because of their matching height in the air, but I'm sure that's not an option in the context of them being a trio! Again... that's what was there, and you're shooting for the participants who won't care so much about these photographic nits, so it's not big deal IMO. I hope LJW chimes in again, because I'm guessing this is the kind of scenario where he was imagining using a diagonal angle instead of square on (?)

Btw, if it IS a rehearsal shot, then you can ignore much of the above paragraph

Clone out the heads and crop it to portrait orientation and this one's a winner!

I personally LOVE this one - the lack of background distractions for me make it one of the best of the shots you posted, even if the dancers aren't as dynamic as some of the others. You can crop it in a bit, but I think that the light falloff actually gives a sense of the stage space and too tight will take that away. Big thumbs up for this one

Again, I can only reiterate that while I'm still learning to *take* theatre shots, I'm very used to being **in** them and have looked at many over the years, hence why I'm commenting freely. I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that these are far, far, FAR better than anything I could take in similar circumstances, and I think you're doing a great job!

PS as a final thought: next time you have that kind of lighting set up (cyc lights across the back in shot, either open or masked), can you situate yourself a litttle higher so that the angle will diminish their presence? Balcony vantage point? Small ladder? Just a thought.

David Evertsen · February 17, 2009

divamum Thank you!!

I did not use anything for noise on these yet. Especially the first set, thanks for letting me know about the community version I am going to experiment with that this week.

The first three in the last set are from a Local HS Dance Magnet show that I shot. The performance was at a local church and it wasn't an ideal setting but I manged well standing on a chair in the back on a flat floor. I wanted to provide something I had shot so that I know how it was setup to work better next time at gettting shots framed better or if these are good examples of what is needed. The last one of this set is Art lighting at a Dance Festival shot at Florida Southern College, I always get a huge kick out of low light shots at this theater, the stage is always fun.

Thanks again,
David
www.phabulousphotos.com

David Evertsen · June 1, 2011

Revisiting
This thread gets more than 400 hits a month on my site as Smugmug statistics show and thought I would revisit how I am doing 2 years later.. Same Stage in Tampa, Fl, shooting lots tighter leaving room for cropping but not digging up noise if possible.

1. Group Photo that is truly about the faces and emotion.

1a. I even made a virtual copy of the photo above and cutout the monster to show more of the monsters.

2. My youngest Daugther you have seen the leap before but now you can see more of the face and emotion and as much of the stage to suit the picture.

3.One of my favorite pictures framing it far enough out to allow for 8x10 made it interesting, still fighting the battle over feet in the pictures.

4.Nice Leap really clean and tight, Like to show the stage..

5. Group number nice and tight for the final pose.

6. Musical Theatre Number where the faces and emotion sold it..

7.I have also found when shooting Artistic dance like this picture, (Not taken at the Tampa Venue) of a professional Dance company the light becomes more dramatic the tighter you shoot.

Thought it would be interesting to see how far someone has come or not, the last picture is Artistic Dance and not shot for Parents to buy, so you learn to work with both.

johng · June 1, 2011

David,

Exposures are a bit dark for my tastes on 2 & 3 but really great stuff otherwise. Great moments and nice framing on all the shots.

Dance Competition Photos

Comments