--- Paul McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback everyone. To save space on > replying, I won't reply > to each post, but thanks to Frank, Lasse, and John. > > All the shots were done with a K1000, so I can > adjust aperture as needed. I > just bought an ME Super also, but I think that I can > adjust aperture with > that too. > > I understand about how the background is distracting > from the dancers. I > have to say that I really love the background and > the crowd details and I > think that it's important to me to capture that this > is a public performance > and that people are reacting to what's going on. > But I guess I'm not sure > how to capture that and still maintain enough detail > in the foreground to > keep what is happening clear. > > It seems like the shots work better the larger they > are. Is that the mark > of a total beginer? > > I'm definitely going to go back and shoot some more > film because I think I'm > learning a lot and it's a lot of fun, so I'll try to > use all the advice. I > may try standing on a pillar there and shooting from > above and see how that > goes. It's a difficult situation, because it's > taking place in a little pit > in the middle of a traffic island (kind of like a > very miniature apitheatre) > and it's totally surrounded by spectators so it's > pretty hard to get an > uncomplicated background. > > Again, thanks everyone for the feedback. I'm on > vacation, so it's taken me > a while to get back to you. >
Hi, Paul, First of all, the ME is an aperture priority body, so you just set the aperture you want, and it sets the shutter speed for you. But, you already know that... <g> And, although I just said the following to Keith in my last post, I'll repeat it again here: I'm not talking about getting rid of the background completely as much as getting some separation. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, or even possible, I'm just saying it may be desirable. Here's an example of a photo taken with a wide open aperture. The guy in green is my friend, Malcolm, and I wanted to isolate him somewhat. So, while he may not be ~that~ sharp (bike racing ain't my thing, so I'm not too good at it), he's more in focus than anyone else in the frame, even though they're only a few feet from him: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2495243&size=lg I agree that crowds are a good thing - they add character to a shot. Hell, they were dancing on a street and surrounded by spectators. You should want to catch that. I'm also not trying to say that my way is the only way, the best way, or even desirable. I guess what I'm saying is try lots of different things, and see how you like the results. Mind you, it sounds like you're doing that already <g>. BTW, most shots look better as they get bigger. I tend to think that means your stuff is good. If they get worse the bigger they get, you should ask what's wrong. If smaller were better, we'd go to the photolab and pick up postage stamp sized prints! <vbg> Hope I'm not coming across as preachy or patronizing - as anyone here will tell you, I pretty much don't know what I'm talking about, and you should ignore me if at all possible! <vbg> cheers, frank ===== "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
