« What Is "Correct" Exposure? | Main | Review: 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Coffee Cup »

May 16, 2011

Comments

Thanks Gordon once again for sharing your experiences. It definitely sounds like quite a challenge. And congrats on it being a success! Speaking of faster lenses for such work: would it be hard getting the right focus (considering reduced depth of field) with moving subjects using an f/2.8 zoom? Or is that less of an issue?

Dharuma,

A wider aperture would give the focusing system more light to work with and would therefore improve focusing accuracy (assuming the focus system was accurate to begin with, of course). You are correct that there would be less depth of field at f/2.8, but this would be less of an issue at the distances I was shooting at. At least I would have the option of stopping down for more DOF if I needed it.

Gordon -

That "triumphant smile" photo speaks volumes! What an absolutely lovely smile and expression of joy you captured. I hope she ended up with a copy of that photo.

I have to agree on the fill-flash as a light-saver for sure! Thanks!

Gordon,

considering the low-light performance of the K-5 sensor, I wonder how well it might have worked to underexpose the kids and then do shadow recovery in post? Here's an example of an image underexposed by 6 stops, that looks quite acceptable after recovery: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49200.msg405505#msg405505

>>I wonder how well it might have worked to underexpose the kids and then do shadow recovery in post?<<

Good question. It depends on the degree of underexposure. Keep in mind that you can recover up to 6 stops only if you're shooting at ISO 100. I was shooting at ISO 800 because of the low light, slow lenses, and the need for acceptable shutter speeds. Raising the shadows any more than a stop or so therefore made a noticeable increase in shadow noise and veiling glare. This was all the more obvious because all the important detail was in the shadows. That said, if I had used faster lenses and was shooting at lower ISOs then it would be a different story. I could have raised the shadows more but I'd still have more veiling glare than I'd like.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar