3 from the subway platform (Lightroom 3:)

lizzard_nyc

First Lightroom 3 shots btw.
I don't know what the hell I'm doing yet-It will take me sometime to find my way, so bare with me.

Which one works best?.


1. Flourescent lighting.


2.


3.

rainbow

#2 works better IF #1 is the white balance color version of the pic (it is NOT pleasing...). #2 over #3 because the wider view and others add to the interest.

Richard

I don't much care for the color either, I'm afraid, so my choice would be #2. However, I think all of them are a little too soft. I don't mind some blur when people are in motion, but I think a stationary subject ought to be sharp.

lizzard_nyc

Thank you both for commenting.
I don't know why I wanted to post that version of the color conversion. I found it jarring myself, but liked it though I know it's kind of hideous. Maybe because the subway system is kind of hideous with that ugly lighting.

About the image being soft. Need a little help here.

I had my 25mm 2.8 for this.
The camera was hanging from my neck when I pressed the shutter (it's the best way to keep it stable in this type of situation where I want it fast and not obvious since I'm so close to the scene).
Is my equipment just lacking? Is the only way to make this sharper to use a tripod? I notice when I have subway shots they are never quite sharp enough. They are better inside the train than out, but still never quite as sharp as B.Ds etc.

Help!

gecko0

Is my equipment just lacking? Is the only way to make this sharper to use a tripod?

EXIF shows 1/8 sec shutter speed @ ISO 500, which is why it's not as sharp as it could be. I don't think your equipment is lacking...try finding something to stabilize against or up the ISO to get that shutter speed up a bit.

colourbox

Make whatever changes are necessary to the camera and lens (up the ISO for instance) to get the shutter speed to 1/30 sec or faster. With an image-stabilized lens, you can often go 1/15 or slower. If I'm already in an ugly ISO range I hold the camera against the nearest post or wall, if it's not a problem looking obvious.

rainbow

Time to learn about your camera's capability on higher ISO. Indoors, I usually shoot ISO 1600 on my Canon 5D or 40D (and rarely 3200 if necessary). If needed, can use noise removal software (especially if underexposed). Any noise is usually prefererable to motion blur.

And I stick to the standard ISOs: 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200. Read on occasion (without knowing if it is true) that intermediate ones are just in-camera adjustments.

Richard

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

About the image being soft. Need a little help here.

Yes, it was probably too slow a shutter speed resulting in camera motion blur. Bump the ISO. In subways, I usually shoot at 1600 or 3200 depending on the light and the aperture I want to use. LR3 has good noise reduction capabilities so don't worry about the noise. Another thing to be aware of are the mysteries of autofocus. I don't know how Olys work, but unless you select an autofocus point on a Canon, it will select the closest big object. If that turns out to be someone in motion, then nothing will be sharp. I generally select the center focus point when shooting from the chest and hope for the best.

lizzard_nyc

Richard wrote: »

Yes, it was probably too slow a shutter speed resulting in camera motion blur. Bump the ISO. In subways, I usually shoot at 1600 or 3200 depending on the light and the aperture I want to use. LR3 has good noise reduction capabilities so don't worry about the noise. Another thing to be aware of are the mysteries of autofocus. I don't know how Olys work, but unless you select an autofocus point on a Canon, it will select the closest big object. If that turns out to be someone in motion, then nothing will be sharp. I generally select the center focus point when shooting from the chest and hope for the best.

Thanks guys.
just goes to show how little I shoot outside of daylight.
I rarely ever push my ISO higher than 800.
This is a wakeup call.

And now I know that LR3 has a kickass noiseremover. Just gotta figure out how to use it.

MarkR

I notice your black and whites have a lot more contrast than your color image. I actually like the "ugly" lighting of #1 but it feels rather flat.

bdcolen

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

Thanks guys.
just goes to show how little I shoot outside of daylight.
I rarely ever push my ISO higher than 800.
This is a wakeup call.

And now I know that LR3 has a kickass noiseremover. Just gotta figure out how to use it.

Two asides, Liz - One, soft or not, this image is much better tonally balanced than allot of your stuff, and I'm going to guess that that comes from your finally having some decent post-processing software.

Second, if I'm right in remembering, you're using an Olympus DSLR. Being an Olympus shooter myself, I'd advise you to stick to 800 iso and not push it much higher; the Olympus cameras have allot of pluses, but the iso noise gets pretty ugly much above 800.

bfjr

#1 got that ole Polaroid look to it

lizzard_nyc

MarkR wrote: »

I notice your black and whites have a lot more contrast than your color image. I actually like the "ugly" lighting of #1 but it feels rather flat.

Thanks for commenting Mark,
I am a slave to the high contrast b&w,dont' know why I dont' try it in color--I've been trying to tame/beat down that high contrast addiction though.

lizzard_nyc

bdcolen wrote: »

Two asides, Liz - One, soft or not, this image is much better tonally balanced than allot of your stuff, and I'm going to guess that that comes from your finally having some decent post-processing software.

Second, if I'm right in remembering, you're using an Olympus DSLR. Being an Olympus shooter myself, I'd advise you to stick to 800 iso and not push it much higher; the Olympus cameras have allot of pluses, but the iso noise gets pretty ugly much above 800.

You know, I read somehwere (been reading so much since I got the camerea) not to push the ISO over 800 and I guess it stuck.

Also thanks about my balanced tones:) I'm learning. I'll be lost in LR3 for a while til I start developing a proper workflow (Oh Rutt would be so proud).

lizzard_nyc

bfjr wrote: »

#1 got that ole Polaroid look to it

I just got a Polaroid---love it. Film is too damn expensive though, even through "the impossible project".

That first shot does have a retro vibe to it.

TonyCooper

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

Thanks for commenting Mark,
I am a slave to the high contrast b&w,dont' know why I dont' try it in color--I've been trying to tame/beat down that high contrast addiction though.

1. Don't go into rehab for that high contrast b&w addiction. You do it well.

2. The color version looks like a scan of an old, faded color print. Do what
you do well.

3. Have you changed your avatar?

lizzard_nyc

TonyCooper wrote: »

1. Don't go into rehab for that high contrast b&w addiction. You do it well.

2. The color version looks like a scan of an old, faded color print. Do what
you do well.

3. Have you changed your avatar?

Thanks Tony.

And yes I changed my avatar a couple of months ago or so. I'm going through a self portrait phase it seems. I blame Frida Kahlo.

misterb

bdcolen wrote: »

Second, if I'm right in remembering, you're using an Olympus DSLR. Being an Olympus shooter myself, I'd advise you to stick to 800 iso and not push it much higher; the Olympus cameras have allot of pluses, but the iso noise gets pretty ugly much above 800.

I have noticed the same thing- and I've read where Oly's prefer a faster lens, shot in RAW, and kept below ISO 800.

The E-620 is an excellent camera (I have the E-520) and I just got Lightroom 3 specifically to use the Adobe RAW.

How did you set the white balance in your camera? Auto?

Here's a link to a "under $500" prime lens that would give you f1.4 and allow lower ISO:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/

I'm looking at this lens as well.. a similar Leica (Panasonic) Summilux is over $800!