Theatre Photocall

fullofpaintfullofpaint Registered Users Posts: 103 Major grins
edited March 3, 2010 in People
Taken during photocall for Hippolytus, a greek tragedy. I'd love some feedback! Taken with a 40D and a 16-35 F/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L, and a 24-70 F/2.8L

795492114_cwGTY-M.jpg
795495222_gw3nh-M.jpg

http://fullofpaint.smugmug.com/School/Theatre/Hippolytus/11329610_xQcZg#795492277_uui3j
Canon 5DMk2, Canon 40D
16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
www.timkerigan.com

Comments

  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2010
    First thing I notice:

    D***, I wish actors would learn to find their light properly (or designers put it where the actors need it!)

    /performer rant

    Do you have some other shots where the important part of the scene is lit so the eye goes there? It is TOUGH sometimes - and in some productions they make it nearly impossible, no matter how much you try to watch for places to grab lit shots - but in both of these I'm finding I'm not looking at what I think is supposed to be the main subject. You can fix some of it in post (lift the faces as much as you can in that first one so that the attention isn't on the bg girl's face and the guys left arm)), but it's mostly what was there, so you're stuck with it - not the tog's fault, although it IS our job to try and make it look better than it was (::mumbles incoherent imprecations about lighting designs that don't do the job they're' supposed to::)

    The 2nd one is better on that score, although I find I"m looking more at the purple-lit gals than the silhouette, which I assume was meant to be your main subject.

    Post some more shots - these are technically fine as far as focus and "capturing a moment", but I bet you have some which focus attention more clearly where it needs to be! thumb.gif

    PS Question for you: did you know the show/staging before you shot, or was this your first viewing? I've found that knowing the "money moments" before I shoot (even if that means attending an extra rehearsal) can make a HUGE difference in the quality of the pictures I get. Fwiw.
  • fullofpaintfullofpaint Registered Users Posts: 103 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2010
    Oh you have no idea the light problems haha, the last show I shot everything was so dark that even with my 2.8's I was shooting around 1/30 and 1250-1600 ISO. It's either that or our lighting designer uses these awful pink lights that just destroy skin tones absolutely.

    I had seen the show before though, I work for our theater department as a...I guess documentary shooter is the best description? I capture as many of the rehearsals and production stuff as I can.

    Here's some better stuff, for some reason when I was picking my original shots, half of my stuff wasn't showing up so these should be better.

    795513011_ph7oC-M.jpg
    795513092_QdfUq-M.jpg
    795500697_uJxie-M.jpg.
    Canon 5DMk2, Canon 40D
    16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
    www.timkerigan.com
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2010
    Much better :)

    I don't mind colour casts from lighting when it's a clear effect, but can you find a more natural white balance for that last one? It's reading fairly orange (straw gels I'll guess :D) on my calibrated monitor. The first one in this 2nd batch looks good for WB.

    Btw, why 2.8 since you have good rehearsal access (ie aren't stuck shooting from miles away and can move around)? I use my fast primes and NEED that extra light gathering they offer. Yeah, the dof gets shallow, but I"m seldom so close that I can't work around that. I tend to shoot loose and crop down as needed. My fast 50, 85 1.8 and 135 f2 are vital in those lighting situations, I've found. YMMV of course...
  • fullofpaintfullofpaint Registered Users Posts: 103 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2010
    Yea, the white balance is still a bit funky in some, trying to lighten it up a bit but some shots are beyond recovery unfortunatly.

    Main reason I don't shoot with anything faster is twofold, firs tI'm still a student..I.E broke haha, I actually own the 70-200 2.8, borrowed the other two from my photo editor for our paper. That's the 2nd reason, since I more of my time is spent shooting for the paper/yearbook having the zooms I find is a better option because I'm more versatile that way. I want to pick up a cheap 50 when I can afford it I think, after I get my own 16-35 2.8, that's next on my list.
    Canon 5DMk2, Canon 40D
    16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
    www.timkerigan.com
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2010
    Get the 50 1.8 or 1.4 - you won't regret either. They're not perfect lenses, but in SO many situations they're a lifesaver!

    Btw, on that first one - if you had taken one step to the left (assuming you could), you would have avoided the statue growing out of his head and framed him between it and one of the guys in the background.... I would probably crop it down as much as you can and maybe add a vignette to minimize the distractions? A wider ap would have melted those away in bokeh as well as given you some more light... (can you tell I love fast primes? :D)

    Theater shooting is so tricky - lots of light and almost NONE of it useful for the camera rolleyes1.gif
  • fullofpaintfullofpaint Registered Users Posts: 103 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2010
    yea unfortunately I realized that I had done that when I was reviewing them later :/

    I've used the 1.8 before, jsut messing around with it nothing serious and I really liked it so it's defintly on my list to get
    Canon 5DMk2, Canon 40D
    16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
    www.timkerigan.com
Sign In or Register to comment.