SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

James, I agree, except I wouldn't know about the bars and churches!! :lol:
SS

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

OK, brain fart alert. I meant to say Photoshop. Sorry for the mixup!

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

... :oops:

PhotoGator Loc: Florida

I do appreciate your offer. I will give it a shot first.

prayingmantis

To get your histogram into the left 1/3 of the image just vary your aperture until you see the entire histogram or at the majority of it in the left 1/3 of the histogram. Don't close the aperture too far as would be evident in the histogram with a tall line on the far left border of the histogram. Also, you asked Bobspez how he got such a usable image from a very underexposed image. He no doubt shot in RAW. You can recover a great deal of useful information in the underexposed images shooting in raw.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

The problem you lay out is the reason every lens I buy is the largest in f stop available in that length, from the 50mm f 1.0 to the 600 mm f 4.5. I shoot soccer, such as the Chicago Fire when they were still at Soldier Field. Can't beat "big glass" when the light is dim and movement fast. Upping the ISO (the old ASA) degrades the definition eventually. Buy the big glass once and it will last you for a lifetime, and age slightly improves optical glass thru lessening slightly spherical and chromatic aberration. You can't lose.

prayingmantis

I also own and use very fast lenses such as my 35mm and 50mm f1.4 or my Carl Zeiss 135mm f1.8. I shoot mostly primes. However, having said that I am always looking to stop down a little, say down to f2.8 to get more depth of field. Why do I do that. Lets talk about that soccer shoot in Chicago. The depth of field with a 300mm f2.8 full aperture is so minimal that you better be certain that your autofocus is very precise and very fast. Furthermore you might want to have increased depth of field to clearly visualize the player working the ball as well as the player on the defense trying to catch him. Another good reason to stop down is that most lenses have a sweet spot where they are sharpest which is usually in the f5.6 to f8 range. All but the most extremely expensive 50mm f/0.95 lenses have in the past been rather soft. The Leica is the exception (they have the record for the fastest lens ever produced at f/0.7) and that f/0.95 Leica sells for a mere $10,995.00 at B and H photo (the Noctilux M Aspherical). Canon's first f/0.95 back in the 1960's was for their rangefinder camera bodies and was very soft. Another problem which really doesn't bother me but for some applications is a problem is vignetting when shot wide open. This usually disappears by f/2.8 on a f/1.4 lens. If you take a look at the British photography magazines (and the British are definitely the best in bird photography as the whole population is bird crazy) you might be surprised to see that in bright daylight many of the very best of them shoot ISO's as high as 3200 and they are using pro cameras such as the Canon EOS 1Dx or the Nikon D4S. In bright daylight the most objectionable noise is in the shadows and in the usually cloudy conditions in England there aren't much in the way of harsh shadows

prayingmantis

Got cut off from the above text. If you look at their images in those fabulous British photography magazines the images are as good as it get and they tell you those camera settings and you will see ISO,s of 3200. With those high ISO's in bright sun they can always get a shutter speed of at least 1/4000th if they want it and that speed at an f/stop of f/8 if they need the depth of field. You can edit out the noise in the shadows with minimal image sharpness degradation in the highlights. Noise itself is the primary problem which the pro camera bodies (those bodies that most of us overlook because they are over $6,500) are meant to address. They do so by having large pixels with full frame sensors with only 16-18 megapixels on the sensor. If you are going to enlarge a sports image or a bird image to 24x36 inches then by all means get a Nikon D800 with a much higher pixel count for much less money. The progressive advances in sensor noise diminution at higher ISO's has in my opinion made it unnecessary to have as fast a lens as was deemed necessary when shooting film in the past.

dancing2flower Loc: MD>Crystal River, FL

Just want to say this is an awesome discussion!--all of you!

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

when, many years ago, we photographed dance companys.
of course we used film. and we would go to the rehearsals, and photograph the technical and dress rehearsals. if you can do that, this will make it easier, as you can probably get up to the stage under the first electrics. those are the first line of lights, closest to stage edge. they usually are cans running a very high kelvin number. also, a small tripod which you can place on the stage or other surface is a great help, oftentimes.
we would use tri-x at ei 1600 and develop in a 2 bath using d76 at 15 minutes per immersion. film usually came out great. Misha Langer, a great performance photographer, used leica gear and leica's own developer formula, and his work was, of course, wonderful. as the rear element of the lens, on a rangefinder camera, is always closer to the film plane, or imaging sensor, the exposure will always be superior to that of an slr or dslr, both being farther from the plane
good luck with your work!

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

WJ,

You might be surprised to know Misha now also uses a Lumix GF1 with a F1.7 20mm pancake lens, and he edits his film pics digitally.. On his wordpress blog he says "I have been a freelance photographer for 50 years. The images on this website are my latest personal project which are primarily taken from a pinhole camera (a used Nikkomat I converted into a pinhole) and edited digitally. I also use a Lumix GF1 with a Lumix F1-1.7 20mm fixed lens. I take only black and white photos."

Here's the link to his page...

http://michalanger.wordpress.com/about/

Bob

prayingmantis

I also shot Tri-X (native ASA 400) at ASA 1600 in live performances of rock music. I used a developer solution called Diafine however the resultant negatives were quite grainy. Sometimes I liked the grain but mostly not. I am not one of those who processes good digital images to get that retro grainy look. Some are doing that grainy technique with digital cameras, some are using pinhole cameras, some are using cheap Russian plastic lensed cameras and all are trying to imitate old technologies for atmosphere. Two years ago I was in Yellowstone and I met up with a student from the University of Montana who was studying for his MFA in Photography. He was shooting a well known geothermal formation trying to get an exact look of a well known image of that very formation taken by a photographer in the 1850's. He was using an 8x10 view camera which belonged to the university and glass plates coated with albumin. He took the picture, went inside a beat up very old van which was fully shielded from light with aluminum foil on the windows. After about 10 minutes in the van with his exposed plate he came out with the fully processed glass plate. I am not a fan of pinhole camera images but seeing that glass plate image and what it took to get it was really coooooool!!!

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The pics on the Misha Langer site are all very grainy and somewhat out of focus. I guess he is going for a dreamlike quality. I like it, they convey the dreamscape mood, but none of the pics are anywhere near sharp focus. Maybe this is similar to when painting evolved into impressionism, and realism was out of style. Maybe sharp focus is now out of style in some photography circles.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Tell me if I understand this correctly about people recommending a "faster" lens for low light. Am I correct or incorrect that a "faster" lens is only going to let in more light at the widest opening only? For example, a 50mm 1.4 is only going to allow more light in than a 50mm 1.8 at the 1.4 setting? So if this is correct, then what if you do not prefer to shoot at 1.4 or even 1.8? Would it still be beneficial for that purpose?

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I think f5.6 is the same on a f1.4 lens as it is on an f3.5 lens, so unless you use the wider f stops there is no benefit.
Bob