Hi /p/.I was attending anime con two weeks ago and I would like to dump some (primarily) stage photos and ask for suggestions on improvement. Somewhere around year ago I made similar thread and got many valuable suggestions so I figured out I could ask again. Despite trying to apply more of your advices, I feel like I did rather mediocre this year, compared to previous one, however. But I would like to hear your opinion too.I remember that photo dump threads are generally welcome here but if not, just say so. Thanks in advance for any advice. If you want, I could upload RAW files for selected photos on temporary link like catbox or something.
Main problem I noticed that I consequently fails to catch focus on pictures made in poor light conditions (aka every single stage photo), like here. Since in most cases I had to shoot fast moving performances, I was using manual mode with 1/200 or 1/250 (sometimes 1/320 but rarely), f/2.8 and automatic ISO but I noticed that even when model was stationary, I would often get blurred face. This was also some sort of "baptism of fire" for new (used) lens I got, Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 G2, which I got for greatly reduced price due to small scar on front glass - I didn't notice during testing if it would actually produce any flares or similar effects, even with strong backlight but just in case attached anti-reflective UV filter. Could it be that autofocus don't like those?
I had similar autofocus problems with 70-200 2.8 lens, also with similar UV filter so that was just my guess. Other than that, in both cases stage had constant "fog" effect produced and multicolored light.
I admit Im also not sure how to properly handle very intense, colorful lights. Many performances had very strong red or blue/violet light that would often produce pasteurization effects no matter which software I tried to use (old or new Darktable or NX Studio). Sometimes, like in this case, I would actually go full with it - red light here was making her (probably orange-red) hair literally burn.
Overall, how would you improve those stage photos? In this particular case, stage was rather high and available space limited and close to stage itself so many photos are done from angle. I could move a bit to the sides but only slightly and couldn't really stand up without obscuring view for audience gathered under the stage.
Now just regular dump.
>>4454225>Could it be that autofocus don't like those?You can be behind a solid object like a pole at high enough focal length and wide enough aperture and my camera will still autofocus on things behind that. A small nick in the objective lens shouldn't affect AF that much.
>>4454236Then what tests would you suggest in order to find out the source of problem?
Also, any tips on interesting audience photos? Sometimes Im asked for those too.
Hope you don't mind such image dump.
And that would be all for now. Thank you for patience and thanks again for any sort of advice or opinion.
>>4454238You'd need multiple bodies, lenses, and subjects, and to methodically go through and test combinations to see what's the odd performer out.AF accuracy is generally down to the camera body, but speed is down to the lens, and low-light ability is a combination of camera sensor and how wide the lens aperture is. If your camera is giving AF lock but you're missing focus, DSLRs generally need to be fine tuned via menu settings. I'd probably run some tests in good light against stationary and moving targets just to narrow down where the problem can be replicated.
>>4454276Thank for info. I only now noticed that /p/ no longer have exif info displayed. Odd. Anyway, camera in use was Nikon D750, always shot with viewfinder, never with live view, if that changes anything.
Are there no replies because the photos are not good or interesting?
>>4454839The photos are fine, other than getting closer or heavy editing I don't think there's much you could do. They look a bit flat lighting wise, which you could try and fix with editing, but I think a lot of the problem is that conventions like these are lit by amateurs; that's sort of just what they look like. I think you could try and get some non-full body shots. The typical novice shooter will try and "get it all in" for documentary purposes, and that's how you end up with the touristy look. Try to focus more on capturing a moment or story, usually this is aided by getting closer. Try and get some close-ups or medium close-ups. Long exposures can be fun too.
Oh, okay. While you mention light, I recall another con from previous year that was made in private university combined with theatre, where contests and concerts were made on obviously professional stage and how much different it felt. This one was organized at exposition center and stage was "temporary" one so maybe thats why. Still better than previous year where I had several cases where light was hitting performances backs instead of front, leaving faces dark and heavily underexposed.Thanks for suggestions.
>>4455012Missed pointer, sorry, that was for >>4454886
>>4454256>>4454258>>4454259Can you share RAWs for these?
>>4455073Sure, here we go:https://litter.catbox.moe/cp4bo5uute985vme.NEFhttps://litter.catbox.moe/p8n1xms2bp9d4fzt.NEFhttps://litter.catbox.moe/e2122tqickpnb2ou.NEFLinks are active for next 24h.As for Frieren one - I couldn't figure out how to get rid of these intense effects in blue highlights until recently but literally few minutes ago, after following some link from DT thread, found out that solution was to use "chromatic aberration" module more aggressively and for specifically blue. Worked out. NX Studio had none of this but probably does it automatically and I simply didn't notice.
>>4454258
>>4455175Which program did you use, by the way?
>>4455245NX2 for crop colors sharpeningimagemagick for resize save
>>4454230in lightroom there's a calibration panel that does wonders to salvage a photo assraped by monochromatic LEDs>>4454245this is rally good one. try looking for details in their apparel or items they carry (this is easy at anime cons, weebs are hoarders of pins and other bulllshit) (picrel is my humble attempt at this)>>4454232go wide, go really tight, experiment with negative space, take general shots form behind the audience, introducue more variety. in general, if pit under the stage is the only space you're allowed, there's not all that much you can do. you're lucky the stage has decent lights and it's not some local sports center with loverhead fluorescent bulbs
>>4455091Wow the blue lighting for Frieren here is fucking ridiculous.Idk what the real issue is but it seems fabricated in software.Using the standard or enhanced matrix in the input profile severely clips the blue shit, doing a monochrome export (change demosaic to monochrome) shows it's not actually baked, and on the right is what I got from changing the input profile to just linear rec709 and some edits. I don't know how to deal with that blue clipping any other way than just opting out of the input profile and adding back saturation via other ways.I ran into issues with pure blue light sources before and thought it might have been me or something (phone RAW, Panasonic MFT, Canon APS-C, Nikon Z5/6/7) but its definitely just pure colored overly bright light that seems to be raping darktable at least. I think rawtherapee has the same issues but it's been a while since I tried that.This kind of shit is why a lot of people just do B&W. Sometimes the colors are all over the place and it's either hard or impossible to make them look right. Bayer and the interpolated color and digital just has its limits and film just didn't have these issues.
>>4455340Should bring this up the darktable thread. I see the same as you.
>>4455340Darktable isn't good software. It is flat out bad.What darktable provides is an array of mutually incompatible modules and options in no set order, and then source code and docs to inform you of minor technical things that are totally irrelevant to photography but 100% relevant to developing a raw editor. There are even options for multiple demosaicing algorithms. This is because darktable developers are unpaid pajeets, and creating the correct defaults for each camera, each lens, each general class of settings and light sources, is so beyond them they decided to leave the users to compile their color science from source.To use darktable is essentially to finish programming it for the lazy jeets. It's not worth the $0 saved over just using the manufacturer's editor or the $200 saved not buying capture one on sale.
>>4455340it's not bayer, its darktablefilm had these issues solved in chemistry and digital needs these issues solved in programming (and on film all of the colors were a little wrong)FOSS editors are not well programmed
>>4455354>it's not bayer, its darktableWhat kind of copium is that?Apparently lightroom has the same issues.https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/14r65m8/help_me_find_the_answer_led_lighting_ruining_my/
>>4455340Yeah, Dorktable don't like strong blue light for some reason.Like mentioned before, after some tips from Darktable thread, I started to adjust modules settings more aggresive and what definitively helped was adjusting chromatic aberration to max strength and blue as guide. And your idea of linear rec709 profile too, at least it does not make whole image goes dark like with other color profiles changing.As you can see here, using blue attenuation setting in sigmoid or lowering white relative exposure settings in filmic also works, at least partially. There is significant difference in saturation however.>>4455353I frequently see these posts advising capture one and always for 200$ price. Are you working for them or what?>>4455290Thank you!
>>4455340>and film just didn't have these issues*the colour red enters your frame*
>>4454230>pasteurizationkekAnon, sir, it's called posterization.I don't know if that was a failed autocorrect mistake turning it into pasturizing but in case it isn't, just remember posters you hang on your wall. Makes poster-i-zation easy to remember.
>>4455432Capture one is one of the few editors that works for bulk raw editing (most other ownables open each raw in a tab or have really bad multi-file/culling) and can be owned, and it goes on sale for about ~$200. It's just a common fact.You are strongly discouraged from subscribing or paying full price because only an idiot would pay $400 for a computer program (AKA subscribing to adobe for 3 years)
>>4456420Yeah, it was autocorrect. It's called "posteryzacja" in my native language too, I simply didn't notice. Sorry.
>>4456436adobe is up to $336 for 2 years lmao
>>4456436Anyone still paying Adoobie is a fucking retard. Their software is the most pirated shitware after Windows itself. If you are clever enough to know use Adobe's software, you are clever enough to figure out how to get Adobe 100% free. I say that as a retard with 2 months left to go til I can cancel this horrible fucking adobe contract without losing even more money on early termination fees, jesus fuckity jones. One moment of weakness and they sink their fuckin talons into ya. They're worse than a fucking gym membership.
Hey OP do you know who these cosplayers are?I would imagine the ones on the stage shared their social media or might be well known, but I don't recognize any.>>4454247>>4454240These and the Frieren are good.
>>4462375Didnt notice somebody replied, sorry. Im not exactly sure if lone performancers have their dedicated social media but out of those presented here, two idol groups does:https://www.instagram.com/trymirai/https://www.instagram.com/hayazaki_idols/First is for these "gothic lolita" styled ones and second for Guilty Kiss group.
Since my previous thread is still standing, Im going to use it again instead of making new one.I was attending another (and last one in this year) anime con recently, again with approval and wanted to share some of the photos I did, asking for your honest opinion. As before, if you want, I can upload selected RAWs in temporary link too.Stage was whole different this time, with higher quality light and no elevated section so I spent nearly whole time sitting along other photogs (and occasionally literally lying in front of jury table to make shoots from ground perspective) as to not obscure vision. But I felt like it was overall better position than right under elevated stage, even if restricted in movement.
Previously I had problem with focusing, this time I changed focus mode from single to continuous and 9 central points - while it would occasionally produce situations where, say, focus was made on microphone instead of face behind it, it worked much better. Or, like you pointed out before, too low light conditions might be too much for my camera focus system (D750).
I still had some problems with moving elements, especially clothes like on this pic. I couldn't reduce time further (in this particular case it was 1/320) but it still appears blurred. I wonder if this was my own movement or I would need even shorter times.
Similar case.
I admit that this one was a mistake, pressed at wrong moment and only got silhouette so I went ahead and made it almost fully dark instead. Is such photo still interesting, however?
I hoped that these bubbles will come out good but it looks odd instead. I wonder what exactly I did wrong here (1/200s exposure time here).
Tried making some audience photos too, mostly they were too dark but got couple with light sticks like this. Do you think they are still interesting like this, even if you barely see people here?
I think this one was a guy but dance routine was nice.
This one is easily my favorite performance. Great choreography and light.
This one was really cute too, performer obviously enjoyed this.
The Dutch Angle was not really intentional – I simply shot at angle while ling in front of jury table as to avoid obscuring their vision but still change angle a bit.
I mentioned that light was much better this time but some performers had really awful light. Burnice cosplayer was really rocking nicely on stage but for most time she had very strong light directly above her, resulting in very dark shoots or overexposed hair. Is there anything I could do here?
This one would be much better if composed differently but they moved so fast forward that I couldn't move back in time (was already at 24mm focal length too) and got "cut" shot.
And I think that would be all. Overall did a lot of photos but no point in spamming them.Thanks in advance for any critique. It really helps me improve.
>>4454223Not terrible shots, but you need to learn to edit to make them actually good.
>>4454223>>4466781Upload a couple of RAWs and I'll show you
>>4466782Which ones you want?
>>4466782>>4466781Okay, uploaded semi-random 3 from latest post and 1 from OP, links are active for next 24h:https://litter.catbox.moe/54aeam2iy7li9s3n.NEFhttps://litter.catbox.moe/v4s8baaa66am2rv7.NEFhttps://litter.catbox.moe/cdxu7ivppk6eg7nm.NEFhttps://litter.catbox.moe/89gmy0v9ppqbiigo.NEF
these are all pretty good for being right at the stage
>>4466769>>4466784Quick attempt.Bit hammy with the spotlights, but you get the idea - Just make the subject pop
>>4466806Okay, sort of recognize what you did. What software did you use?
>>4466812>>4466761Lightroom
>>4466725you'd need to go very fast with ss to truly freeze dance motion. I'd say in this case to try going slower and embrace the slight motion blur. what settings exactly is trial and error to make it look natural as it depends on situation, movement speed and lighting conditions>>4466730yes, silhouette photos fuck hard>>4466745>>4466747>>4466749these are nice but framing is akward, make it symmetrical or go full out of balancemost of them need contrast/levels adjustments, some white balance and colors fixing and some masking to clean up distracting elements due to uncontrolllable backgrounda lot of your shots are "fill the frame with subject" compositions, you'll hopefully grow out of it. leave out some of the content in your framing, get close up portraits, clothing, hands, shoes details. leave more space around the main subject if you can zoom out/walk back. in all of the pictures you posted there's some really good ones. in general take less "safe" photos and get experimental with framing
>>4466829Okay. I use Darktable personally.>>4466842Thank you. Could you point out which ones you considered better than others? It would help me figure out direction to take. About space - some of these shots actually had a lot of space around originally (since in previous events had situations where I missed shots because subject moved faster than I could safely recompose so I left some "safety space") but I cropped it since said space was mostly empty. But do you suggest that it can still add value to photo itself?
>>4466910If you're not getting the results you want, you should just pirate Lightroom
>>4466968I honestly don't know how to and I doubt I could just enter "how to pirate Lightroom" in search engine. I don't want to risk either. I guess if I would want to change software, I would do so at next Capture One sale but still - all Lightroom can do is surely doable in Darktable as well, only in different way, its surely just problem of my missing of necessary knowledge.
>>4466991darktable is basically a harder to use lightroom.Take a practice shot snd use it to absolutely mess with every tool on dark
>>4466991You can get most graphics software through cgpeers. They have signups on the 15th of every month.You still have to exercise caution, but it's generally okay.
>>4466991Darktable is basically half finished lightroomEvery possible feature is laid out as if the developers are still testing itThe order of operations is arbitrary and can actually crash the program or cause rendering bugsBasic technical shit like the ideal demosaicing pipeline for a camera at that particular ISO and color mapping is manually configured in darktable (in professionally made programs, they already figured this shit out with resolution charts and huge color swatch cards)Basically you are downloading a "build your own raw editor" kit and because it's commie shit software if you have a problem with retarded non-standard behavior the answer you will get from the devs is "this is MY project MY vision and MY autistic logic says this is the purest and most elegant solution. go fork it yourself, the entirely non-annotated spaghetti source code is right there"
>>4467037>cause rendering bugsyes, im still using 4.6.1 and have found myself having to delete the xmp file because ill click to original to start over and suddenly the image is fucking orange
>I fucked up this photo>this wasn't intentional>the lighting was shitthese are all your good photos
>>4467638You mean that others I consider okay are actually worse? Im sorry, Im a bit confused.>>4467037As much as I hate to admit it, either I still cannot grasp Darktable enough or, like you said, the software itself is a bit messy. I was using 2.6 so far until it stopped recognizing half of my lenses (they were still in database and could be manually selected for lens correction but doing this every single time was annoying at best, it must be some bug) so I made separate installation/cache folder for 5.2 and basically had to re-learn the program and still encountered odd situations. To list some examples, it have now two modules for white balance, "white balance" proper (value + tint) and "color correction" which is the one user is supposed to modify as touching white balance module instead makes everything go bonkers. Unfortunately, I had to disable "color correction" module at few situations to safely modify white balance since it apparently assume that user selected proper value at the moment of shooting since if that value is too much off, "color correction" seems to behave oddly. Likewise, "filmic" module expects user to "expose to the right" during shooting but it still, at least in my opinion, leads to pretty much same results as sigmoid module (which is now on by default) - only less saturated as on pic attached and require more work (since you need to correct white balance first for neutral colors, adjust exposure for midtones, set relative white/black exposure). Unless I got something wrong but manual is still at 4.6 while software version got past 5.2 already (with developers encouraging community to write manual themselves).Even at discount, Capture One might be costly but Im afraid that I cannot run on free software all the time anyway.
I come to this thread to look at the nipple in the OP.
>>4467966...what?
