On Oct 22, 1:36*pm, Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> We have a theatre. *The boss's wife takes photographs. *She chose a
> camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". * She's pretty
> good at where to point it and when to press the button. *But 9 out of
> 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
> blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>
> I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. *With effective speed set to the
> maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
A Leica M9 with a FAST lens. That way, no horrible shutter noise to
disrupt the enjoyment of other patrons.
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2009 22:08:12 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>> i don't know what kind of productions you shoot, but i generally do
>>> musical theatre, where the actors are often dancing, and there are still
>>> plenty of opportunities to photograph them with minimal movement.
>> We always used to stage publicity photos. The copyrights generally
>> prohibit photos during performances.
>
> Why on earth would a copyright allow a specially staged photo of a
> production but not a "live" one? Anyway, that isn't an issue with our
> shows.
> www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
Am interested, went to site. Nothing I saw there couldn't be staged, in
which case a tripod, a used Canon 40D or later, ISO 400, flash or no
flash would serve you well for under $1000, 500 quid or so. Oooops
forgot the lens. I don't know what to recommend there.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:19:47 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2009 22:08:12 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>> i don't know what kind of productions you shoot, but i generally do
>>> musical theatre, where the actors are often dancing, and there are
>>> still plenty of opportunities to photograph them with minimal
>>> movement.
>>
>>We always used to stage publicity photos. The copyrights generally
>>prohibit photos during performances.
>
> Why on earth would a copyright allow a specially staged photo of a
> production but not a "live" one? Anyway, that isn't an issue with our
> shows.
> www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
You'd have to ask the play houses lawyers. My guess is that they don't
want anyone doing movies to sell of the production - that would be a foot
in the door.
At any rate, life is a lot easier for everyone if you stage your
publicity photos - and what else would you be taking?
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:36:53 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lp@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in
<op51e5lajsr5587hbs6g377ima434cta1o@4ax.com>:
>We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
>camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
>good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
>10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
>blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>
>I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
>maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
>
>What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
>delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
>
>From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
>
>Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
>
>We need the most affordable option. If there were thousands to spend,
>I know what I'd like!
>
>Yes, I am aware of the trade-off between speed and image quality,
>particularly with cheaper equipment.
>
>Now, what shall we look at? Any suggestions?
Canon G11 or S90. Excellent performance in low light.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
>
>Am interested, went to site. Nothing I saw there couldn't be staged, in
>which case a tripod, a used Canon 40D or later, ISO 400, flash or no
>flash would serve you well for under $1000, 500 quid or so. Oooops
>forgot the lens. I don't know what to recommend there.
Oh dear! It didn't take long for the subject to drift into telling
me off for what we want to do :-)
The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
In article <jb02e5lqu66a8bdp58fbmn35u04c3qvfc8@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lp@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
> The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
> is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
iso 12800 on a g11 is going to be uh, interesting. it might even
resemble the subject a little bit. stick with a dslr.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:19:47 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lp@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>On 22 Oct 2009 22:08:12 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>> i don't know what kind of productions you shoot, but i generally do
>>> musical theatre, where the actors are often dancing, and there are still
>>> plenty of opportunities to photograph them with minimal movement.
>>
>>We always used to stage publicity photos. The copyrights generally
>>prohibit photos during performances.
>
>Why on earth would a copyright allow a specially staged photo of a
>production but not a "live" one? Anyway, that isn't an issue with our
>shows.
>www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
If the play is current and copyrighted, the theater group pays for the
rights to use the copyrighted material. The owner of the copyright,
or the agent of the copyright owner, may restrict the agreement to
prohibit photos taken of a live performance but allow photographs
staged for publicity purposes.
The management of the theater group can restrict photography during
the performance. It's to their disadvantage if the photographs are
bad or show the performers with stupid looks on their faces.
Don't confuse this with photographs for personal use where there are
fewer, or no, restrictions. If the photos are for publicity use, the
theater or the copyright owners can include restrictions.
It's not the copyright itself that allows or disallows; it's the
agreement to use the copyrighted material that includes the provision.
If the play is one that is not subject to copyright (ie:
Shakespeare), the theater management may still impose rules of
photography if the photographs are not for personal use. There are
theaters, though, that will toss people out for using flash during a
performance. More power to 'em. Cell phones, beepers, and any device
that has a flash should be checked at the door or left at home.
On 2009-10-22 18:22:35 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
> In article <jb02e5lqu66a8bdp58fbmn35u04c3qvfc8@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
> <lp@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
>> The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
>> is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
>
> iso 12800 on a g11 is going to be uh, interesting. it might even
> resemble the subject a little bit. stick with a dslr.
I have been playing around with this stuff on my new G11 and I think
shooting 3200 in RAW will be better. The Low Light 12800 option only
allows JPEG no RAW.
These are in poor light of the same subject I used earlier:
On 2009-10-22 18:22:35 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
> In article <jb02e5lqu66a8bdp58fbmn35u04c3qvfc8@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
> <lp@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
>> The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
>> is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
>
> iso 12800 on a g11 is going to be uh, interesting. it might even
> resemble the subject a little bit. stick with a dslr.
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
>> Am interested, went to site. Nothing I saw there couldn't be staged, in
>> which case a tripod, a used Canon 40D or later, ISO 400, flash or no
>> flash would serve you well for under $1000, 500 quid or so. Oooops
>> forgot the lens. I don't know what to recommend there.
>
> Oh dear! It didn't take long for the subject to drift into telling
> me off for what we want to do :-)
Sorry, didn't mean to do quite that. Is there a limitation on staging?
Do you need strictly to adhere to some guidelines? I'd love to know, as
I do a bit of theatre work meself. But I 'cheated' and used flash on some.
>
> The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
> is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
Nah, you really don't want to use that high an ISO, unless you're
strictly for newspaper print.
Re: recommendation for camera for theatre 
Linear Mode
