Doug Gabriel - Branson, MO

Took these a about 10 days ago. Very talented guy, voted Branson's male vocalist of the year for several years running. Also does a great job with piano & guitar. Decent light but not very high production in terms of stage sets. Shot these with mostly 17-55 2.8 and a few 70-200 2.8. I was pretty much rooted to my seat so not alot of angles. Got a few more pictures in the gallery here:
http://www.1branson.co​m …-2007/DougGabriel207041​2/

1. Not the best shot, but had to get one of the "Mufftar"

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Say Basil... none of these pics loaded... I got 7 red "x"'s... I'll try a bit later...

Got them all up now...

#2 is a wonderful example of stage lighting...very pretty picture... Looks like old school, but is very classic...even the shadows in #2 speak to me... Very nice set...

One thing about Branson... the competition is evident, throughout the town... and the performances are decked out more so than in many other places...

johnstoy wrote in post #3092741
Got them all up now...

#2 is a wonderful example of stage lighting...very pretty picture... Looks like old school, but is very classic...even the shadows in #2 speak to me... Very nice set...

One thing about Branson... the competition is evident, throughout the town... and the performances are decked out more so than in many other places...

Thanks, John. Overall the lighting was nice, but the way they put the light on them for that number lit up the back of the wedding dress like a beacon. I took ISO down to 400 and still blew the highlights in that dress. The frames that I exposed for the dress, it was all you could see. What you see above is my attempt at fixing it via PP (still think I could get it better by merging the 2 different frames, but will have to wait until I have time...). I'll attach the original (no PP except 4x5 crop) so you can see what the light was like.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hehehe, this guy looks like one of those Sunday TV evangelists like the Bakers! I like the images and can see what you mean by the production values being a bit flat. But you caught a lot of big moments and fun stuff ... I'd go see this guy. Good work.

bmoguy wrote in post #3095297
Thanks, John. Overall the lighting was nice, but the way they put the light on them for that number lit up the back of the wedding dress like a beacon. I took ISO down to 400 and still blew the highlights in that dress. The frames that I exposed for the dress, it was all you could see. What you see above is my attempt at fixing it via PP (still think I could get it better by merging the 2 different frames, but will have to wait until I have time...). I'll attach the original (no PP except 4x5 crop) so you can see what the light was like.

Reverting back to the old school days of Darkroom "burn" and dodge" methodology, might be a possibility in Photoshop or a similar software program...

RAW and Bracketing is getting me by these days, thanks to Dwight's advice and your encouragement... I usually choose a RAW image that is slightly underexposed, and like to boost the exposure through conversion post processing...

This 4x5 is an over/under, type of deal... Overexposed on the dress, and underexposed on the faces... You've got your job cut out for you, Basil... Good luck with it... Whatever you end up with will be just fine, we'll understand...

Quick comment on the dress: Process twice: Once as you did for the first post (or slightly brighter), once with the exposure slider in ACR to about -1.7 (that's as far as it will go while still extracting more detail).
Blend the two exposures in PS. Start of as explained in the 'exposure blending' QT movie. That will lower the overall contrast however (which you don't want on other places then the dress), so you'll have to modify the mask pretty heavily.
I doubt it will recover very much dress, but it will help.

johnstoy wrote in post #3096554
RAW and Bracketing is getting me by these days, thanks to Dwight's advice and your encouragement... I usually choose a RAW image that is slightly underexposed, and like to boost the exposure through conversion post processing...

I did shoot raw & bracketed. There is just such a difference in exposing for the dress vs. exposing for him, that my normal 2/3 stops between brackets didn't cover the range. That said, since my location was stationary and I did "manually" bracket (beyond the AEB) as I shot these, I do have some with the dress properly exposed and will probably, when I have time, see what I can do to blend the best from 2 different frames.

René Damkot wrote in post #3097131
Quick comment on the dress: Process twice: Once as you did for the first post (or slightly brighter), once with the exposure slider in ACR to about -1.7 (that's as far as it will go while still extracting more detail).
Blend the two exposures in PS. Start of as explained in the 'exposure blending' QT movie. That will lower the overall contrast however (which you don't want on other places then the dress), so you'll have to modify the mask pretty heavily.
I doubt it will recover very much dress, but it will help.

I've already done that with this shot. I blended 3 layers trying to bring back some detail, but the dress is just plain, blown in this shot (which is my favorite capture of this particular number). Like I mentioned above, I think I will try merging this one with a different frame that better exposed the dress. I have to see how that works for me.

Thanks for the comments.

bmoguy wrote in post #3097802
I do have some with the dress properly exposed and will probably, when I have time, see what I can do to blend the best from 2 different frames.

....

Like I mentioned above, I think I will try merging this one with a different frame that better exposed the dress. I have to see how that works for me.

OK, I took the time and tried it. I replaced the original #2 above with the new result. Here's the link to the original for comparison. You can click back and forth between the 2 (right then left) at the link. Not perfect, but much better.

Yep. Shadow on the back curtain stands out better as well. Nice.
Not entirely 'documentary style', but okay I'd say.

Oh branson.. I grew up just a ways from there, lots of memories.

René Damkot wrote in post #3098128
Yep. Shadow on the back curtain stands out better as well. Nice.
Not entirely 'documentary style', but okay I'd say.

Definitely not documentary, but I just couldn't coax the camera into capturing what I was seeing.

banana wrote in post #3098219
Oh branson.. I grew up just a ways from there, lots of memories.

Good or bad?