rutt:
great stuff in the links richard posted
i especially love the first one here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=93364 fantastic!!
about your post here: i think the color shot from you rutt looks equaly wonderfull actually,
the grain/noise only shines of more goodness, so the attempt to "fight it" as you say fails for me,
i guess some like the painterly feel as much as i like the OOF'S, but "paint-photo" is not for me.
now its my turn to use the questionmark paint-photo and NPR = ? i dont get it
again, lovely shots both of you!
Rutt
I followed those links that Richard posted (thanks Richard) and it was well worth it. The ballet photography is tremendous and I know the degree of difficulty is high. I very much enjoyed looking at the images. I also must add that I enjoy reading the text and learning the story behind what sounds like a long term project for you. I know that text which accompanies photos is slightly frowned upon here (is that fair to say?), but, speaking just for myself, I love to read the stories behind projects like this. I always think the post is richer when it is together with some interesting story and background.
Jim
I don't want the cheese, I just want to get out of the trap.
Yes, but B.D. has the better shot to start from because of the positions of the dancers left feet. We'll see how his color post looks later today.
Non Photo Realistic It's a whole big thing all by itself.
Okay - Here we go - First, pretty much what I got out of the camera (At least it was before I uploaded it - it was blue, but for some reason it's purple here. )
Then, with correction. This is pretty close to the colors, but the noise is utterly bizarre -
I have some other images from the same act where the color is as accurate as Rutts - though the images are nowhere near as good as his. I think the difference, in terms of the colors, is that the dancers were better lit in those shots.
Okay - Here we go - First, pretty much what I got out of the camera (At least it was before I uploaded it - it was blue, but for some reason it's purple here. )
I'd guess it is supposed to be blue because it's moonlight. Stage lighting is often VERY colorful in order to invoke a certain mood. Trying to fight the colored light to get natural tones often doesn't work well.
If you look at the exif info on all these pictures they are wide open and F2 or bigger. As someone who can't afford these lenses I can offer a few tips. Look for a pause in the dancing. Look for a dancer passing through a spotlight or better yet paused in a spotlight. Open the aperture up all the way. This one came from a Nikon D50 at iso800 and the horrid Nikon 70-210 f4 lens.
Personally, I didn't like Giselle. As a dad of a ballet dancer I've learned to abhor ballet. Although I liked Balanchine's Symphony in C.
The ballet photography is tremendous and I know the degree of difficulty is high.
Yes and no. You have to:
Have access
Learn a lot of technique (shoot time and post)
Learn the dances
But the dancers and the company do the real heavy lifting. They devote their lives to presenting these beautiful productions. Personally, I find street photography much harder.
I also must add that I enjoy reading the text and learning the story behind what sounds like a long term project for you. I know that text which accompanies photos is slightly frowned upon here (is that fair to say?), but, speaking just for myself, I love to read the stories behind projects like this. I always think the post is richer when it is together with some interesting story and background.
As the title says, we are very far from street photography here. [Richard: notice where B.D. chose to post this.]
I'd guess it is supposed to be blue because it's moonlight. Stage lighting is often VERY colorful in order to invoke a certain mood. Trying to fight the colored light to get natural tones often doesn't work well....
Personally, I didn't like Giselle. As a dad of a ballet dancer I've learned to abhor ballet. Although I liked Balanchine's Symphony in C.
For me Giselle was an acquired taste. It's all about that second act, which better be really good.
If you like Balanchine, what about Serenade, my personal favorite ballet.
I posted this partly to make a point. The lighting for this is also very blue. I wanted to show that light. But if I just let it be blue, it just looks like a duotone, not really believable at all (like B.D.'s unprocessed image.) The trick is to get at least something right and then let the rest be blue. For this shot, I got some flesh into the Y>=M>>C range and then let the blue light show everywhere else.
For me Giselle was an acquired taste. It's all about that second act, which better be really good.
If you like Balanchine, what about Serenade, my personal favorite ballet.
I posted this partly to make a point. The lighting for this is also very blue. I wanted to show that light. But if I just let it be blue, it just looks like a duotone, not really believable at all (like B.D.'s unprocessed image.) The trick is to get at least something right and then let the rest be blue. For this shot, I got some flesh into the Y>=M>>C range and then let the blue light show everywhere else.
Lovely. And I particularly like the way her foot reflects on the "street."
I posted this partly to make a point. The lighting for this is also very blue. I wanted to show that light. But if I just let it be blue, it just looks like a duotone, not really believable at all (like B.D.'s unprocessed image.) The trick is to get at least something right and then let the rest be blue. For this shot, I got some flesh into the Y>=M>>C range and then let the blue light show everywhere else.
I agree 100%. No matter what colors are present, if you can get the flesh tones looking at least close to humanoid the image will look decent.
But sometimes you don't want to "fix" the colors. I actually prefer BD's blue version of the image because the lighting matches mood of the dance.
I agree 100%. No matter what colors are present, if you can get the flesh tones looking at least close to humanoid the image will look decent.
I think you only have to get some of the flesh cloe and then the rest will show the color of the light believably.
People have an internal auto color balance system, sometimes called "simultaneous contrast". We really want to correct for colored light and see flesh tones the way they would look under "normal" light. I think there are millions of years of evolution behind this. It a survival trait to be able to tell if people are sick, if food is spoiled, &etc. Thus the lighting director had to go way overboard in order for us to see the blue light in Act II. But we don't (at least I don't) see what the camera sees in this situation. So I like to get something usually at least some flesh right. Then the colored light elsewhere really shows in a believable way.
That's what makes Giselle Act II a great color challenge. Unlike Serenade, the women aren't supposed to be healthy; they are dead. So the Serenade trick doesn't work. You really don't want C<<M<=Y healthy looking flesh. Might be that my treatment of Mirtha this time around is too alive looking. Maybe I'll redo and cool her down quite a bit. The picture of her from a few years ago isn't as good a picture, but maybe the color palette is better...
That's what makes Giselle Act II a great color challenge. Unlike Serenade, the women aren't supposed to be healthy; they are dead. So the Serenade trick doesn't work. You really don't want C<<M<=Y healthy looking flesh. Might be that my treatment of Mirtha this time around is too alive looking.
Actually there is a very interesting discussion of color management and correction here. What do you aim for when there are a lot of different colored lights?
We use orange or green gels over our flash to shift it to tungsten or fluorescent light color. What should we do in a theater when there are many different color lights? Should we correct white balance so flesh tones look correct? Should we correct so that the colors match as closely as we remember seeing them? Should we just be artistic about it and do what pleases us?
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the power of the black empty space in BD's original post, not present in some of the others. We don't often think of the negative space, only the positive, but I think the black empty space above the dancer is very important to this image.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the power of the black empty space in BD's original post, not present in some of the others. We don't often think of the negative space, only the positive, but I think the black empty space above the dancer is very important to this image.
This is a very good point. B.D. is really good at framing and cropping and using negative space well.
We use orange or green gels over our flash to shift it to tungsten or fluorescent light color. What should we do in a theater when there are many different color lights? Should we correct white balance so flesh tones look correct? Should we correct so that the colors match as closely as we remember seeing them? Should we just be artistic about it and do what pleases us?
I've tried all these things. Generally, I've found that getting some flesh tones within range and getting true black shadows works well. But Giselle Act II is a different story because the flesh isn't supposed to look healthy and the lighting and makeup are so over the top in order to overwhelm simultaneous contrast.
Forgive me if this has been said already - I have skimmed the posts for the last few days rather than read in detail (am fighting the clock and trying to catch up as best I can, but I may well be missing things!)
My point: on stage, "natural" and "pleasing" skin tones aren't always what the lighting designer or director wanted. This scene from Giselle would be a perfect example: it's meant to be spooky, otherworldly, unnatural and dead-looking, and the lighting designer's job was to contribute to that feel. To turn the ballerinas into healthy-looking "neutral" with skin tones to match actually doesn't capture what was there, or what was desired.
It's a very interesting journey becoming more photographically literate/educated/skillful and then applying that knowledge to things I know from another side - no doubt that sometimes what I want to see as a 'tog is COMPLETELY opposed to what I would want as a performer (and vice-versa)
I'm lovin' this thread all round - thanks for posting BD and Rutt
Comments
great stuff in the links richard posted
i especially love the first one here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=93364 fantastic!!
about your post here: i think the color shot from you rutt looks equaly wonderfull actually,
the grain/noise only shines of more goodness, so the attempt to "fight it" as you say fails for me,
i guess some like the painterly feel as much as i like the OOF'S, but "paint-photo" is not for me.
now its my turn to use the questionmark
again, lovely shots both of you!
Yes, but B.D. has the better shot to start from because of the positions of the dancers left feet. We'll see how his color post looks later today.
Non Photo Realistic It's a whole big thing all by itself.
I followed those links that Richard posted (thanks Richard) and it was well worth it. The ballet photography is tremendous and I know the degree of difficulty is high. I very much enjoyed looking at the images. I also must add that I enjoy reading the text and learning the story behind what sounds like a long term project for you. I know that text which accompanies photos is slightly frowned upon here (is that fair to say?), but, speaking just for myself, I love to read the stories behind projects like this. I always think the post is richer when it is together with some interesting story and background.
Jim
I don't want the cheese, I just want to get out of the trap.
http://www.jimwhitakerphotography.com/
Okay - Here we go - First, pretty much what I got out of the camera (At least it was before I uploaded it - it was blue, but for some reason it's purple here.
Then, with correction. This is pretty close to the colors, but the noise is utterly bizarre -
I have some other images from the same act where the color is as accurate as Rutts - though the images are nowhere near as good as his. I think the difference, in terms of the colors, is that the dancers were better lit in those shots.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I'd guess it is supposed to be blue because it's moonlight. Stage lighting is often VERY colorful in order to invoke a certain mood. Trying to fight the colored light to get natural tones often doesn't work well.
If you look at the exif info on all these pictures they are wide open and F2 or bigger. As someone who can't afford these lenses I can offer a few tips. Look for a pause in the dancing. Look for a dancer passing through a spotlight or better yet paused in a spotlight. Open the aperture up all the way. This one came from a Nikon D50 at iso800 and the horrid Nikon 70-210 f4 lens.
Personally, I didn't like Giselle. As a dad of a ballet dancer I've learned to abhor ballet. Although I liked Balanchine's Symphony in C.
Yes and no. You have to:
But the dancers and the company do the real heavy lifting. They devote their lives to presenting these beautiful productions. Personally, I find street photography much harder.
As the title says, we are very far from street photography here. [Richard: notice where B.D. chose to post this.]
For me Giselle was an acquired taste. It's all about that second act, which better be really good.
If you like Balanchine, what about Serenade, my personal favorite ballet.
I posted this partly to make a point. The lighting for this is also very blue. I wanted to show that light. But if I just let it be blue, it just looks like a duotone, not really believable at all (like B.D.'s unprocessed image.) The trick is to get at least something right and then let the rest be blue. For this shot, I got some flesh into the Y>=M>>C range and then let the blue light show everywhere else.
Lovely. And I particularly like the way her foot reflects on the "street."
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Never seen it.
I agree 100%. No matter what colors are present, if you can get the flesh tones looking at least close to humanoid the image will look decent.
But sometimes you don't want to "fix" the colors. I actually prefer BD's blue version of the image because the lighting matches mood of the dance.
Well, having seen the dance, the 'real' colors, which are a sort of dead-flesh green-tinged white, work best.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I think you only have to get some of the flesh cloe and then the rest will show the color of the light believably.
People have an internal auto color balance system, sometimes called "simultaneous contrast". We really want to correct for colored light and see flesh tones the way they would look under "normal" light. I think there are millions of years of evolution behind this. It a survival trait to be able to tell if people are sick, if food is spoiled, &etc. Thus the lighting director had to go way overboard in order for us to see the blue light in Act II. But we don't (at least I don't) see what the camera sees in this situation. So I like to get something usually at least some flesh right. Then the colored light elsewhere really shows in a believable way.
That's what makes Giselle Act II a great color challenge. Unlike Serenade, the women aren't supposed to be healthy; they are dead. So the Serenade trick doesn't work. You really don't want C<<M<=Y healthy looking flesh. Might be that my treatment of Mirtha this time around is too alive looking. Maybe I'll redo and cool her down quite a bit. The picture of her from a few years ago isn't as good a picture, but maybe the color palette is better...
It looks life real life dressed in B&W for the shot
Actually there is a very interesting discussion of color management and correction here. What do you aim for when there are a lot of different colored lights?
We use orange or green gels over our flash to shift it to tungsten or fluorescent light color. What should we do in a theater when there are many different color lights? Should we correct white balance so flesh tones look correct? Should we correct so that the colors match as closely as we remember seeing them? Should we just be artistic about it and do what pleases us?
Or do we say "screw it" and convert to B&W?
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
This is a very good point. B.D. is really good at framing and cropping and using negative space well.
Lyle did this:
Speaking of masters of the crop.
I love this, but it's not really Myrtha. I asked Lyle to please put on his best Halloween spirit and try again. We'll see.
I've tried all these things. Generally, I've found that getting some flesh tones within range and getting true black shadows works well. But Giselle Act II is a different story because the flesh isn't supposed to look healthy and the lighting and makeup are so over the top in order to overwhelm simultaneous contrast.
My point: on stage, "natural" and "pleasing" skin tones aren't always what the lighting designer or director wanted. This scene from Giselle would be a perfect example: it's meant to be spooky, otherworldly, unnatural and dead-looking, and the lighting designer's job was to contribute to that feel. To turn the ballerinas into healthy-looking "neutral" with skin tones to match actually doesn't capture what was there, or what was desired.
It's a very interesting journey becoming more photographically literate/educated/skillful and then applying that knowledge to things I know from another side - no doubt that sometimes what I want to see as a 'tog is COMPLETELY opposed to what I would want as a performer (and vice-versa)
I'm lovin' this thread all round - thanks for posting BD and Rutt