Better to get new body or lens?

bwana

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,381
d7e7r7 said:
What camera? My D80 at ISO 3200 is so bloody noisy :(
Click to expand...
Canon 7D with, just as importantly, a f/2.8 lens. If I was using a f/4 I would have had to either drop the shutter speed to 1/50th and risk motion blur, or pump the ISO to 6400 and risk the photo looking like was taken in a blizzard :eek:

koffiejunkie said:
I don't intend to remove all the ambient light, but when one channel is blown it still shows the same way as when everything is blown. If you look at the before/after photo in my other thread (about RAW) you can see it in the guy's face. That's a bad photo, but because there's so much red, I had no way to expose it properly.
Click to expand...
This one? http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?227997-Why-RAW&p=3841802&viewfull=1#post3841802
 
bwana

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,381
koffiejunkie said:
Yes. That's not what it looked like - the red was not that intense. I think possibly the reason it came out that way is simply flaring. It was lit from all sides and I was standing in the red light too - no way to get away from it.
Click to expand...
Sure there was - its called a flash :D
 
bwana

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,381
d7e7r7 said:
What is it with events and flash? Why is flash photography considered a nuisance?
Click to expand...
Some entertainers don't mind it but others find it distracting. It's a pretty bright light going off in their face. :)
 
K

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
d7e7r7 said:
What is it with events and flash? Why is flash photography considered a nuisance?
Click to expand...

As someone who has spent a great deal of time on stage, I can tell it you that it can be massively distracting. But in my experience, it's usually not the performer's request, but the agents (if there are any involved) who don't want anyone else to have quality pics of their cash cows. I think the majority of restrictions fall in this category. I've noticed that in a lot of museums the lighting is so poor that it's damn near impossible to get good shots. The only reason I can think of is that they want to sell you a postcard. TBH, I don't want their 50p postcards. I'd rather pay a £10 admission and be free to take my own pics.

The other issue is with venues where they don't necessarily have flashing lights. It just looks bad if someone has an epileptic fit and dies in your club. Depending on where in the world you are, that might come with some liability, although I think that's silly.
 
bwana

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,381
koffiejunkie said:
As someone who has spent a great deal of time on stage, I can tell it you that it can be massively distracting. But in my experience, it's usually not the performer's request, but the agents (if there are any involved) who don't want anyone else to have quality pics of their cash cows. I think the majority of restrictions fall in this category. I've noticed that in a lot of museums the lighting is so poor that it's damn near impossible to get good shots. The only reason I can think of is that they want to sell you a postcard. TBH, I don't want their 50p postcards. I'd rather pay a £10 admission and be free to take my own pics.

The other issue is with venues where they don't necessarily have flashing lights. It just looks bad if someone has an epileptic fit and dies in your club. Depending on where in the world you are, that might come with some liability, although I think that's silly.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense when its the agents that generally want the media there - publicity et al.
 
K

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
bwana said:
That doesn't make sense when its the agents that generally want the media there - publicity et al.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you're in the media they can make you sign a release. But even if that's not the case, I agree, it makes no sense. Just like it makes no sense that we're not allowed to take pictures of government buildings or in train stations. Some supervisor gets it in their head that it's a bad idea and it becomes the rule. The first time I was in DC I took a picture of a memorial inside Union Station and was immediately accosted by two security guards. Fortunately the camera loving folk didn't like this and fought the idea to the point where, about a year ago, it became officially allowed to photograph to your hearts content inside the station.
 
D

d7e7r7

Executive Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
8,905
koffiejunkie said:
As someone who has spent a great deal of time on stage, I can tell it you that it can be massively distracting. But in my experience, it's usually not the performer's request, but the agents (if there are any involved) who don't want anyone else to have quality pics of their cash cows. I think the majority of restrictions fall in this category. I've noticed that in a lot of museums the lighting is so poor that it's damn near impossible to get good shots. The only reason I can think of is that they want to sell you a postcard. TBH, I don't want their 50p postcards. I'd rather pay a £10 admission and be free to take my own pics.

The other issue is with venues where they don't necessarily have flashing lights. It just looks bad if someone has an epileptic fit and dies in your club. Depending on where in the world you are, that might come with some liability, although I think that's silly.
Click to expand...

Seriously? :confused: :D:D:D
 
bwana

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
89,381
koffiejunkie said:
Yeah but if you're in the media they can make you sign a release. But even if that's not the case, I agree, it makes no sense. Just like it makes no sense that we're not allowed to take pictures of government buildings or in train stations. Some supervisor gets it in their head that it's a bad idea and it becomes the rule. The first time I was in DC I took a picture of a memorial inside Union Station and was immediately accosted by two security guards. Fortunately the camera loving folk didn't like this and fought the idea to the point where, about a year ago, it became officially allowed to photograph to your hearts content inside the station.
Click to expand...
Not allowed to take photos in what train stations? I spent an hour in St Pancras station earlier in the year as well as taking countless photos on the underground and nobody mentioned anything - including the many police officers patrolling the area.
 
K

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
bwana said:
Not allowed to take photos in what train stations? I spent an hour in St Pancras station earlier in the year as well as taking countless photos on the underground and nobody mentioned anything - including the many police officers patrolling the area.
Click to expand...

I haven't been hassled in London. In the US though, people seem a lot more paranoid and security guards a lot less informed about their respective employers' official policies.
 
D

d7e7r7

Executive Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
8,905
bwana said:
Not allowed to take photos in what train stations? I spent an hour in St Pancras station earlier in the year as well as taking countless photos on the underground and nobody mentioned anything - including the many police officers patrolling the area.
Click to expand...

Going a bit off topic:
I took some photo's of some guy (think he was a minister) speaking to a small group of people at the bus station by the Grande Parade and he had like 4 or 5 of his guys come and chase me away :wtf: Thought something was dodgy and wanted even more so to get some pics :D Went to a police officer and said this guy is in a public place and he won't let me take pictures when i have a legal right to. Mr officer said something along the lines of that the person has a right to not having their photo taken because even though they are in a public place they are a private individual :wtf::confused::wtf::mad:
 
K

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
d7e7r7 said:
Mr officer said something along the lines of that the person has a right to not having their photo taken because even though they are in a public place they are a private individual :wtf::confused::wtf::mad:
Click to expand...

Said gov dude probably still believes you're stealing his soul ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top