night club photos (NWS)

9
http://farm4.static.fl​ickr.com …052068_55316c64​a1.jpg?v=0

10 Legs of course!
http://farm4.static.fl​ickr.com …052272_f2729b38​f9.jpg?v=0

What is she pouring into the glasses on number 3?

looks like vodka and cranberry

JBaz wrote in post #6972401
looks like vodka and cranberry

Good call... Belvedere bottle on the left and a carafe of Cran on the right.

whitedog wrote in post #6970364
Not sure what you mean by "references". But you need a colorimeter and the accompanying software in order to properly calibrate your display. I will first tell you that you should not expect perfection with a laptop screen. They aren't even in the same ballpark as a dedicated display, but that said, you WILL get far better accuracy with a calibrated screen, regardless of the type.

I do a good deal of color management work and have tried many, if not all, of the available calibration packages. Personally I prefer the iOne Display package from Xrite:
http://www.xrite.com/p​roduct_overview.aspx?I​D=788
...but they also make a less expensive ColorMunki: http://www.xrite.com/p​roduct_overview.aspx?I​D=1114
The new Spyder3 has also been greatly improved over previous versions:
http://spyder.datacolo​r.com/product-mc-s3pro.php
But I would stay away from the Pantone Huey. It's not very accurate or reliable.
These are the most popular "affordable" and "user friendly" products. There are many more available but they are for more professional applications or more frequent use. You can't go wrong with any of the above. The software will walk you through the process and do all the work for you.

Good luck.

Bob

Thanks Bob! Just what I needed.

I want to go to vegas...

Great pics Yap'in!
I have a beef with you though... quit stripping the EXIFs so I can't try to copy your settings LOL!
Happy NY y'all.

drisley wrote in post #6977303
Great pics Yap'in!
I have a beef with you though... quit stripping the EXIFs so I can't try to copy your settings LOL!
Happy NY y'all.

He probably isn't stripping the exifs.

He is using flickr (like me) and unless you link the full size image (which is usually too big per forum image posting rules) you will not see the exif.

If you want to know the exif either just ask or go to his flickr page.

Edit: I just checked one of the pics on his flickr and the exif is there so it looks like I was correct.

Same thing happens with Smug Mug too

drisley wrote in post #6977303
Great pics Yap'in!
I have a beef with you though... quit stripping the EXIFs so I can't try to copy your settings LOL!
Happy NY y'all.

hahah ... i pretty much shoot in the same ranges .. 2.8-2.5 iso 500, but i PP them quite a bit, not to mention the oncamera image settings

great shots

I hope I can get some good photos tonight... Happy New Years everyone.

PeeteProductions wrote in post #6979814
I hope I can get some good photos tonight... Happy New Years everyone.

FAILED... New Years Eve @ the Clubs were lame around here.

Hey, if any of my nightclub shooting buddies have an eye for sharpness I would appreciate lending your eyes to this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=622771

Concerned about the shaprness of the 24-70L I did a small test (black line test) between the tammy 17-50 and canon 24-70L.

The reason for this is it appeared the 24-70 was shooting a bit soft compared to my tammy and needed quite a bit more sharpening in dpp or photoshop then my tammy shots. I haven't fully tested the 24-70 at an actual club yet but took some shots at a karaoke club a friend of mine dj's and was so so about the results (which is why I did this test).

thebishopp wrote in post #6982306
Hey, if any of my nightclub shooting buddies have an eye for sharpness I would appreciate lending your eyes to this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=622771

Concerned about the shaprness of the 24-70L I did a small test (black line test) between the tammy 17-50 and canon 24-70L.

The reason for this is it appeared the 24-70 was shooting a bit soft compared to my tammy and needed quite a bit more sharpening in dpp or photoshop then my tammy shots. I haven't fully tested the 24-70 at an actual club yet but took some shots at a karaoke club a friend of mine dj's and was so so about the results (which is why I did this test).

its true and ive been telling people that crap for ages. My 24-60 2.8 is lighter and sharper than any 28-70L or 24-70L i have used. If its had HSM i would be have it as my primary. Just some people drink the L koolaid. But sharpness isnt everything. But the 24-70L is just way too heavy when i combine it with my bracket, quick release, flash, 5d with grip. Though the AF is super quick and build is top notch, but sometimes the L doesnt win in IQ.

turbodude wrote in post #6982992
its true and ive been telling people that crap for ages. My 24-60 2.8 is lighter and sharper than any 28-70L or 24-70L i have used. If its had HSM i would be have it as my primary. Just some people drink the L koolaid. But sharpness isnt everything. But the 24-70L is just way too heavy when i combine it with my bracket, quick release, flash, 5d with grip. Though the AF is super quick and build is top notch, but sometimes the L doesnt win in IQ.

I'm going to have to agree... It's a great lens (dang heavy with my 40d, grip, cheapy bracket, and flash) and as far as the speed in which it focuses it's wicked quick, much faster than my tammy.

I will say the pics are a bit different as far as the bokeh is concerned (perhaps a bit smoother or more noticeable - maybe it's just my perception) but it seems the quality is about the same (that's assuming my copy is not "soft").

I have been looking at the test shots I have done (lines and brick walls) and they look dang near identical except different color saturation levels.

Then again one fellow was able to tell which lens took which shot looking at the pictures of a black line so he is obviously seeing something I am not.

So maybe I do have a copy that's doing as good as it's supposed to do... I hope so anyway, I really don't want to ship it back for reservicing if I don't have to.