Carolina People at the Aquarium

ginger_55

Most of these were shot without flash at 3200 ISO, they have not been run through any noise reduction programs with the exception of the noise thing on PS CS2. I just wanted to point out that I already know about the noise in the photos, but to me the content outweighs the noise situation. These are "content" shots, people shots. I see them as such and the content was the main consideration for me.

Yes, I had my flash with me, but we had limited time, there were long lines, many people, it was dollar day, and I just wanted to shoot, so I took the flash off, upped the ISO and shot. I often had to open the lens way up to keep the shutter speed doable. I will go back and work with the flash, but I like these and wanted to share.




















Photography by ginger
1/16/2006
Charleston, SC

3200 ISO, 17-40mm lens...........

ShannonW

Hey Ginger,


Fun set! The first and last pic's are my favorite!

I have got to go to our Aquarium! Maybe this Saturday I have a meeting with a client in Atlanta. I have no excuse but to go!

John Mueller

Ginger,
All good,but 1 & 3 do it for me.

livinginoz

yes, number three is especially personal.......nice shots, ginger. sometimes the content and mood definitely are more important than the process.

DJ-S1

John Mueller wrote:

Ginger, All good,but 1 & 3 do it for me.

Really nice, Ginger. I might consider making the top of the window horizontal in #1, but that's nit-picky. You should be very happy with these shots.

JimM

I like how you kept people in the aquarium shots... adds interest and excitement. The first one is my favorite.

Sally

Aquarium by Ginger
A _fine_ haul, Ginger!!
Great aquarium you have there.

Sally

elfving73

Hey! Nice set! I agree with you, when a image has contents, noise isn't a problem. I like the effect on #4 - it took me a sec or two to see the boy. Is it a reflection, or do ya see through the aquarium via that hole? I think this one in color would be very cool!

Matty

ginger_55

Thanks everyone. Let me see, that is Shannon, Laurie, John, DJ, Jim, Sally and Matty.

Gosh, I appreciate all the nice responses. I, too, like one and three, then again, I like the last one a lot. Actually, I like all of them, but I think #! would be the killer.

I was standing there with a gazillion people looking at the ugly fish and someone brought that woman up in the wheelchair. OK, so that was interesting.

Then the people kind of melted away, and the person with the wheelchair woman just left her. I backed up and took that photo and a few verticals (bad, bad, didn't get enough in), but then took one more horizontal and it was the one I am using.

Yes, I could have straightened it. I was going to crop the extraneous wall stuff away, actually, and it would have looked good. Then I suddenly thought to work it up "whole". I really, really liked it, and I did not know exactly why. When that happens I can be, if I am smart, reluctant to start changing things without a good reason.

Now I know why I liked it so well, and I am glad I did not straighten it or crop it. The walls, the slight tilt, everything serves to make the woman's aloneness more obvious, that is just my opinion.

Matty, on that one that looks like a collage, it is not, it is a straight photo.
I did not see the boy right off either, now I can't not see him, and he looks pasted on. However, if you look really hard you can see the windows are also in the shot and they continue with him. I don't know if he is reflected or if the camera looked through the aquarium, and off to the side which is more likely.

Here it is in color.




I worked it up in color first, saved it, then went back and did the "toned" blk and white one. The colors were not as pleasing to me as I had hoped, and I liked the differentness of the lack of color, so I went with that, but they are both good, IMO. I just like the other one better.

Thanks everyone for everything you have said. I haven't felt well today, my throat seems to be on fire, and I did finish a cemetery set which I will post tomorrow or the next day.
I apologize for not making immediate responses, but I saw and appreciated everything and everyone.

ginger

amunsie

Ginger,

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a great series. The first is my fav. Did you get a release on that? Would make an excellent stock photo.

ginger_55 wrote:

Most of these were shot without flash at 3200 ISO, they have not been run through any noise reduction programs with the exception of the noise thing on PS CS2. I just wanted to point out that I already know about the noise in the photos, but to me the content outweighs the noise situation. These are "content" shots, people shots. I see them as such and the content was the main consideration for me.

Noise, smoise. I don't know what the big obsession is with noise. Why does every photo need to be perfectly pristine? I'm not that old, but when I shot film back in high school, we called that film grain and worked with it :soapbox

Now as I climb of my platform...

Have you tried Noise Ninja? I like this program a lot as it's very easy to use does a good job and it's cheap. Not sure which platform you're using, but they have it for Mac and that other kind...

I've got one of those "noisy" cameras (Oly E1) and I really just try to pull out the odd color artifacts and keep some texture. Noise Ninja excels at this - details aren't overly smoothed to look plasticey. Reminds me of the old ISO800 stuff I used to use in my old Pentax ME Super.

ginger_55

Thanks, Amunsie.

No, I did not get a release. Are you kidding??? I am terrified of people........and releases are beyond my comprehension of asking for. Especially when I am taking a photo of a child (I don't like the wording on the releases, or of someone who is "different", I don't want them to know I am taking the photo. My mother must have told me not to stare or something.)

I take the photos, I have to, and I can smile. Most people appeared to know I was taking their photos and were OK with it, but it was done very fast. In and out, as Andy would say.

With the woman in the wheelchair, I could not tell if I was being detected or not. I don't think she would have been thrilled, but then again maybe it would have been OK, but now that is a prime opportunity for "rejection", I just can't ask for a release.

In my opinion, I am probably OK with the wheelchair woman as it is from the back and silhouetted. The one I am not OK with is the black and white with the bird and the kids.

I can say that I did not do most of this work until the last 1/2 hr. I ran from exhibit to exhibit. If I had stopped for releases, well, I would have missed most of it.

But I do not ask for releases, I should comment on that on the "rejection" discussion thread.

Also, yes, I have Noise Ninja. It was 3 AM, I did a lot of photographs, I planned at the time I was working them up to run them thru Noise Ninja when I got through, then it was so late. I just uploaded them to smugmug and brought them over here. As it was, it was 5 AM when I finally got to bed............so I could use it now, if there were a need.

Funny thing, on the blk/white one with the bird and children, I dialed in a small amt of EXTRA noise. Well, the books and articles mention that a lot with blk and white digital. I did not want to put a lot in.

These photos are really very noisy, more noisy (maybe as it was dark) than even my usual 3200 ISO photos. I don't know if they would be well served smoothed out as the lack of detail might be more obvious, but then again, I haven't tried it. Could. Thanks anyway for the suggestion.

Viewed at a distance, or for the subject, the noise is not a factor for me. If I were selling such things, with releases and all, I don't know how much of a factor the noise would be.

And, I am not sorry I took the flash off, the effect would have been totally different with flash. Plus I have thought about the lens situation and how Andy et al have suggested strongly that I need a fast lens, if only the 1.8 Canon 50 mm cheapie.

The problem with that is that here I was effectively using a wide angle, I don't think the 50 would have done as well either. I don't know what fast lenses are available as wide angle. I had the Canon 17-40L on my camera. It is F4 at it's widest. (And that gave me less DOF than I wanted.) It all seems to be a trade off. And I don't think I am going to have money for new lenses this year. I will probably get the 1.8 or something faster than I have, just to see if I use it. I have owned it before and not used it. But I can't get a terribly expensive lens, I am running into lots of problems here with necessary expenses as it is.

Thanks for looking and the nice words and suggestions. I sure wish I had the nerve to ask for releases, but I don't see that anytime soon.

ginger

gildco

Fine work
Very good job of capturing the fascination people have for "inner space," as Jacques Cousteau said. I particulary like the shot of the couple who seem to be completely absorbed by the show in front of them. Nice job, Ginger.

jrollins

Here's another vote for 1 and 3 - nice work.

My wife is pressuring me to head to the new Aquarium in Atlanta (90 miles south of here). Of course I will be sure to pack the camera.