"The Dollmaker's Secret" - a dance performance

[LaFoto]

I have debated over and again if to post photos of the performance, if so, which ones, if to tell the whole story or only choose some of the best?

Then I started putting photos together so I have to upload less links ... now I am no longer happy with that, but since I've done all that work...

The ones I am sending now are only from the first scene (out of three) and the little dancers (between 4 and 9) are not even here yet...

What do you think about these so far (it will be a surprise for me, too, to see how they are going to show now):

Would you prefer some individual photos to this way of presentation?

 

[LaFoto]

They suck, don't they?
Or they are really badly presented?

 

[MyCameraEye]

I think you got some nice shots. Most of the shots have good lighting, a few are dark but sometimes in a performance situation, it's difficult. Nice job!

Scott

 

[LaFoto]

Thanks so much. It was very difficult indeed not to overexpose those who danced themselves into the light of the spotlights while those in the background got too dark. I did overexpose a good many during my first session and went to shutter priority for the second, which was wise, so I was able to find out in the end.

 

[photo gal]

I think you did a fine job, especially with the lighting conditions you had to work with! And NO they do NOT suck! Nice vivid colors and nice action! I almost feel as if I were there! : )

 

[LaFoto]

Take a look at the dancer who does the handstand in that one picture (I should maybe start a series on her).
Only later did I learn that she is SIX MONTHS PREGNANT!!!

 

[Big Mike]

Shooting this kind of thing would be really challenging. It's dark and they just won't stand still.

While motion blur can add to a shot in some circumstances...I think it's hurting some of your shots here. I'd much rather see a frozen pose than blurry hands, feet and faces. The one that I think it does work for, is the guy on his head.

I doubt that you would be allowed to use flash (or could you?) so something you might try, would be to use the highest ISO setting...and maybe even use a faster shutter speed...irregardless of underexposure...and then try to salvage the image with software (shoot RAW if possible).

 

[photo gal]

You know that was one of the stand outs for me......and now to know she is six months pregnant I am even more impressed! : )

 

[Chiller]

Very cool job Corinna. Ya captured some great colours. Shooting in those lighting conditions are really hard. Pretty much any indoor event that has such low lights can be hard and frustrating.
Big M, has some really good points.

Nicely done Corinna.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, whichever mistakes I made when I documented this performance were made. There is no going back. There are other photos in which I tried hard to capture them just when their movement was coming to a halt for a second or less than that, but when they were dancing, this was not always possible. I could do that while they were acting though.

Is anyone interested in seeing some more photos from the performance?
Should I leave them alone, i.e. send in only one, and not a compilation of photos of one scene? What do you suggest?

 

[Peanuts]

Well I for certain want to see more
Great job with these Lafoto, it is so hard to think on your feet with these performances as you try to guess what the performers are going to do next and watching your metering etc. etc. ! You did a wonderful job

A suggestion, that really helped mine, was I shot in RAW, and underexposed by a full stop while shooting. In post processing I was generally bumping it up a good 1.5 stops, that way I was able to get speed (and as you probably noted, 1/80s is a 'fast' shutter speed in these situations )

 

[LaFoto]

(Pssst ... must tell you a secret, come closer: I don't KNOW HOW to shoot in RAW and what to do afterwards :blushing: )

 

[Peanuts]

But you are missing half the fun .
I didn't start shooting in RAW until having my 350D for at least 2 or 3 months, and at first it is rather, 'intimidating' so to say, but in all honesty, there is absoblutely nothing different to shooting in JPEG (Except, you have to go through the menu and select RAW ) I am embarassed to say shooting in RAW has probably saved 1/4 of my postable images, as it just allows me to change so much more while postprocessing in comparison to JPEG.
The only reason to not shoot (minus the times you will be shooting, say a family reunion and have plans to just throw all 400 of the images you took on a disc and hand them to the relatives) is if you don't have a program that supports RAW. Unfortunately, I don't know which ones do other than Photoshop, though I am certain everyone else on TPF can help if you need to know that.

So on that note, from the little bit I know, I highly recommend shooting in RAW

 

[Peanuts]

Quick 'find' update regarding shooting in RAW. I just downloaded on my laptop RawShooter essentials 2006 from www.pixmantec.com onto my laptop, and it looks like a wonderful program for editing RAW pictures if anyone doesn't have photoshop etc.

So sorry for hijacking your thread :blushing: