night club photos (NWS)

Bear in mind that with some post and color corrections you can bring out noise. For example, a lot of noise "lives" in the red channel.

Also, as you are dealing with an electronic system, there's all sorts of fun stuff going on in a club that can cause noise. Even at lower ISOs. Though that's not as big of a problem as it used to be.

pod_canon wrote in post #8249114
Bear in mind that with some post and color corrections you can bring out noise. For example, a lot of noise "lives" in the red channel.

Also, as you are dealing with an electronic system, there's all sorts of fun stuff going on in a club that can cause noise. Even at lower ISOs. Though that's not as big of a problem as it used to be.

Oh certainly you are correct. The noise I was referring to looked like the kind associated with an ISO too high for it's own good. Like the kind I get when I set my 20Ds ISO to H.

turbodude wrote in post #8246526
and oh yeah... Ceiling Cat welcomes you to Vegas...

That's an awesome photo Al!

Mikefromearth wrote in post #8248426
Rizzo your ISO looks really high. Try setting it around 400 and it will reduce the grain in your pictures a lot.

And what's the deal with #1? Just showing off her booty?

Honestly, I like the grainy style that Rizzo has. One of my favorite photogs in this thread by far! Mostly cause his shots make me feel like I'm there experiencing it. Not like I'm watching it on HD! It's all about the style... and you're is definitely unique Rizzo.

Not that I don't like photos that look better than they do in real life... one of my other favorite photographers on here is Chris Sullivan. lol.

-Rob

A friend of mine, an accomplished digital shooter in his own right, actually designed chips for a living about fifteen years ago. Some of you gamer-types probably remember 3DFX. Chances are if you had one of their cards, there was a chip or two he designed on it.

Anyways, he's the one who told me about electronic interference affecting the quality of a digital image. We did some very unscientific testing with his D30 (yes, D30) one night (years ago!) and found an appreciable amount of noise close to a speaker rather than far away. Yeah, we're that geeky. "OK shoot here, then move ten meters that way, and shoot there..."

Not enough to go "well the heck with this! Send it back to Canon!" but enough to prove the point.

Only way to "deal" with it was to thoroughly calibrate the sensor somehow, which DSLRs don't (and now don't need to) do.

At the time I ran some Imacon scanners and part of the price included having someone from Denmark calibrate the scanner down to the point of dealing with local variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The scanners were CCD, but were vulnerable to similar effects. Cool stuff if you're into it. And most manufacturers allow for it. There's the little FCC warning of "Must not generate interference and must accept interference" in the manual of most electronics.

Also, heat buildup can cause noise. Long exposures, even at low ISOs will introduce noise. Most Canon DSLRs have a custom function to deal with this. Rizzo, it might be off in your case. Think of your changing the sensor's ISO as turning up the gain on a mixer or an amplifier. You'll get a "louder" signal, along with all the other crap inherent to the system.

Next time you have a chance, really crank the mixer in the DJ booth (without having music on) and listen for the hiss. Unless you're Steve Dash, Gary Stewart, or Tony Andrews, there's gonna be a definable level of noise.

And that's it's for today's edition of Ask Dr. Stupid . Tomorrow, we'll dissect an old 10D, strap a Peltier cooler to the sensor and have ISO 1600 images with the noise level of ISO 400.

Mikefromearth wrote in post #8248762
50,000?! Wow that's a lot of pictures! I don't think I've taken that many in my life! I thought my 35,000 was a lot .

I'm pretty probably close to 200,000, and I'm sure Chris has more.

Shea.Flynn wrote in post #8249392
I'm pretty probably close to 200,000, and I'm sure Chris has more.

my 10d is rolling on roughly 220,000 now

Pretty interesting info... and I do remember the old 3dfx cards.

pod_canon wrote in post #8249213
A friend of mine, an accomplished digital shooter in his own right, actually designed chips for a living about fifteen years ago. Some of you gamer-types probably remember 3DFX. Chances are if you had one of their cards, there was a chip or two he designed on it.

Anyways, he's the one who told me about electronic interference affecting the quality of a digital image. We did some very unscientific testing with his D30 (yes, D30) one night (years ago!) and found an appreciable amount of noise close to a speaker rather than far away. Yeah, we're that geeky. "OK shoot here, then move ten meters that way, and shoot there..."

Not enough to go "well the heck with this! Send it back to Canon!" but enough to prove the point.

Only way to "deal" with it was to thoroughly calibrate the sensor somehow, which DSLRs don't (and now don't need to) do.

At the time I ran some Imacon scanners and part of the price included having someone from Denmark calibrate the scanner down to the point of dealing with local variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The scanners were CCD, but were vulnerable to similar effects. Cool stuff if you're into it. And most manufacturers allow for it. There's the little FCC warning of "Must not generate interference and must accept interference" in the manual of most electronics.

Also, heat buildup can cause noise. Long exposures, even at low ISOs will introduce noise. Most Canon DSLRs have a custom function to deal with this. Rizzo, it might be off in your case. Think of your changing the sensor's ISO as turning up the gain on a mixer or an amplifier. You'll get a "louder" signal, along with all the other crap inherent to the system.

Next time you have a chance, really crank the mixer in the DJ booth (without having music on) and listen for the hiss. Unless you're Steve Dash, Gary Stewart, or Tony Andrews, there's gonna be a definable level of noise.

And that's it's for today's edition of Ask Dr. Stupid . Tomorrow, we'll dissect an old 10D, strap a Peltier cooler to the sensor and have ISO 1600 images with the noise level of ISO 400.

thanks so much squareone. and pod canon yeh i turned on the custom noise reduction fucntion a while back - i do overdo highlights on some pics in post, probably that.

*winces at the memory of shooting at 1600 for the first few monhts of having a DSLR*
:O

SquareOne wrote in post #8249155
Not that I don't like photos that look better than they do in real life... one of my other favorite photographers on here is Chris Sullivan. lol.

-Rob

I agree also

So, I decided to break out the Tammy 17-50 at one of the places that I work for and report back to you guys. Nothing too crazy. Just some shots of college kids hanging out.

Some things that I am noticing so far:

1.This lens is heavy. I am sure that the Canon 17-40 is heavier though.
2. It looks like I got a great copy.
3. I am spending less time post processing.
4. Focus is pretty darn quick.
5. It's a little wider than the kit lens, which I did notice right away.
6. I am very happy with this lens so far.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys.

A friend of mine is an organiser for the local Youth Council an they're having some 'UV' night for the teens in a weeks time at this local place called Club Ruin.

Anyway, he's asked me if I want to shoot for it and I've done some work for him before so I'm totally up for it. Only problem is,I'm nervous/confused as to what setup I should be running with.

Im not getting paid for this as he's my friend and etc so I'm not providing commercial work but I'd like to get some good shots and get my rep out there etc

I've recently invested in the 17-40mm L for my 400D and I've yet to try tha properly in low light/club conditions. I've also got the 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. Oh and a 430Ex.

Anyways, I dont want to have to take my gear as I'm limited to one body and its a small-ish club as far as I know. I'm curious as to how the 17-40 would perform under the low light if I've got the ISO cranked up to 800/1600, shutter at about 200 or so and the flash either bouncing off the ceiling or off a piece of white card on the unit.

Also wondering if its worth taking the 85mm considering the size of the venue. The 50mm would be ideal except I've heard it kinda fails with club/party related shots due to its slowness.

Thanks in advance. In a nutshell, I've done similar stuff before, it's just been a long time since I have so I'm in need of some pointers.

Cheers

shadowkipper wrote in post #8251492
I've recently invested in the 17-40mm L for my 400D and I've yet to try tha properly in low light/club conditions. I've also got the 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. Oh and a 430Ex.

I recommend a TTL cord to get that 430EX flash off-camera. The 17-40 would be a good lens to use, but it's only f/4, so you'll need the flash. Just hold the camera in one hand, and the flash high camera-left on the cord. ETTL will take care of flash exposure (adjustable with FEC, of course).

Twin Turbo wrote in post #8251023
So, I decided to break out the Tammy 17-50 at one of the places that I work for and report back to you guys. Nothing too crazy. Just some shots of college kids hanging out.

Some things that I am noticing so far:

1.This lens is heavy. I am sure that the Canon 17-40 is heavier though.
2. It looks like I got a great copy.
3. I am spending less time post processing.
4. Focus is pretty darn quick.
5. It's a little wider than the kit lens, which I did notice right away.
6. I am very happy with this lens so far.

What do you guys think?

I owned the sigma version which a a bit heavier than the kit lens I recently got the 17-55 2.8 Canon....that thing was heavy as hell the first night but you'll get use to it.

Your pics looks nice 2 me whats exif data?

shadowkipper wrote in post #8251492
Hey guys.

A friend of mine is an organiser for the local Youth Council an they're having some 'UV' night for the teens in a weeks time at this local place called Club Ruin.

Anyway, he's asked me if I want to shoot for it and I've done some work for him before so I'm totally up for it. Only problem is,I'm nervous/confused as to what setup I should be running with.

Im not getting paid for this as he's my friend and etc so I'm not providing commercial work but I'd like to get some good shots and get my rep out there etc

I've recently invested in the 17-40mm L for my 400D and I've yet to try tha properly in low light/club conditions. I've also got the 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. Oh and a 430Ex.

Anyways, I dont want to have to take my gear as I'm limited to one body and its a small-ish club as far as I know. I'm curious as to how the 17-40 would perform under the low light if I've got the ISO cranked up to 800/1600, shutter at about 200 or so and the flash either bouncing off the ceiling or off a piece of white card on the unit.

Also wondering if its worth taking the 85mm considering the size of the venue. The 50mm would be ideal except I've heard it kinda fails with club/party related shots due to its slowness.

Thanks in advance. In a nutshell, I've done similar stuff before, it's just been a long time since I have so I'm in need of some pointers.

Cheers

I think the 17-40L will perform great for you...iso 800,shoot manual, shutter speed like around 1/10-1/30 should be fine @ 5-6.3 ap will be good..
Pics should be good in my opinion... I think thats the only lens you'll need. Also club ceilings are too high or black so bouncing is usually not an option....just be sure you have a diffuser...gary fong is good if your gonna use your flash on camera or a regular omni bounce

O and be sure to post the pics over here when you shoot so we can take a look.

stephan

RagingBull wrote in post #8251665
I think the 17-40L will perform great for you...iso 800,shoot manual, shutter speed like around 1/10-1/30 should be fine @ 5-6.3 ap will be good..
Pics should be good in my opinion... I think thats the only lens you'll need. Also club ceilings are too high or black so bouncing is usually not an option....just be sure you have a diffuser...gary fong is good if your gonna use your flash on camera or a regular omni bounce

O and be sure to post the pics over here when you shoot so we can take a look.

stephan

Thanks for your advice =D

Is it worth lowering the Exp comp for the flash? And as for diffusing, I've got a choice of attaching a bounce card to the top of the 430Ex so it bounces off that and down onto the subject OR use my Sto-Fen diffuser (just your average diffuser cone) and shoot straight at the subjects.

Thanks again